Die Zahl der Bürgeranliegen in Rheinland-Pfalz ist gestiegen: 2.252 Eingaben erreichten im Jahr 2025 die Bürgerbeauftragte des Landes. Das geht aus dem jetzt veröffentlichten Jahresbericht hervor. Besonders häufig wandten sich Bürgerinnen und Bürger mit Problemen aus den Bereichen Justizvollzug, Soziales, Ausländerrecht und Landespflegekammer an die Bürgerbeauftragte.

Barbara Schleicher-Rothmund sieht hierin ein deutliches Signal für wachsenden Klärungsbedarf im Verhältnis zwischen Verwaltungen und Bürgerinnen und Bürgern. „Ziel sei es, Vertrauen in staatliches Handeln zu stärken und Konflikte frühzeitig zu entschärfen“, so Schleicher-Rothmund.

Der Bericht markiert zugleich einen Einschnitt: Nach acht Jahren im Amt legt die Bürgerbeauftragte ihren letzten Jahresbericht vor. In dieser Zeit haben sich rund 18.000 Menschen mit ihren Anliegen an die Bürgerbeauftragte gewandt – ein Hinweis auf die hohe Bedeutung der Institution als Anlaufstelle für Beschwerden und Fragen.

Auch der direkte Kontakt bleibt zentral: Mit 27 Sprechtagen im ganzen Land setzte die Bürgerbeauftragte weiterhin auf persönliche Gespräche vor Ort, um Hemmschwellen abzubauen und Bürgernähe zu gewährleisten.

Der Bericht macht deutlich: Die Bürgerbeauftragte bleibt ein wichtiger Bestandteil demokratischer Strukturen in Rheinland-Pfalz. Sie bietet eine niedrigschwellige Möglichkeit, Verwaltungshandeln überprüfen zu lassen – kostenlos und ohne bürokratische Hürden.

Der vollständige Jahresbericht 2025 ist online verfügbar unter: www.diebuergerbeauftragte.rlp.de

Kontakt für Rückfragen: Büro der Bürgerbeauftragten Rheinland-Pfalz
Telefon: (06131) 28 999 – 0
E-Mail: poststelle@diebuergerbeauftragte.rlp.de

On March 20, 2026, the Public Defender of Georgia filed an amicus curiae brief with the Kutaisi Court of Appeal regarding the Baldi Canyon Natural Monument (protected area).

As is known to the public, in October 2025, the dispute ended in the first instance and the court did not grant the locals' claim regarding the disputable decisions related to Baldi Canyon. Given the specificity and importance of the issue, after the plaintiff managed to file an appeal with the court, the Public Defender of Georgia filed an amicus curiae brief in a dispute related to the protected areas for the first time in his practice.

Issues related to the Baldi Canyon Natural Monument (protected area) are directly related to the protection of the interests of both current and future generations and the realization of human rights. Thus, the purpose of the amicus curiae brief is to share information about the role and importance of protected areas, international approaches, principles and guarantees.

The modern approaches analyzed in the document demonstrate that protected areas have increased importance in a number of directions. Among them, in the process of preserving biodiversity, overcoming the challenges caused by climate change and socio-economic development at the local level. And the openness, transparency and accountability of the decision-making process are an integral part of the principles of good governance and visions related to protected areas. It is impossible to consider local circumstances, traditions, and knowledge systems without inclusive dialogue and the involvement of the interested public. Decisions made without the participation of citizens cannot meet human rights standards.

Chief Ombudsman Mr. Mehmet Akarca, Former Speaker of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (GNAT) Mr. Cemil Çiçek, and Former Minister of Justice, Mr. Hikmet Sami Türk participated in the symposium as keynote speakers. The event was also attended by Ombudsmen Mr. Ertunç Erkan Balta, Ms. Fatma Benli Yalçın, Mr. Şerif Yılmaz, and Mr. Özcan Yıldız; and the Secretary General of the Ombudsman Institution, Mr. Mehmet Doğan.

In his speech, Chief Ombudsman Mr. Mehmet Akarca stated, “As the Ombudsman Institution, we carry out our work with an approach that listens to citizens’ grievances, calls on public administrations to act in accordance with the law and fairness, prioritizes solutions, and upholds the public conscience. We believe that a strong state is one that listens to its citizens.”

The symposium consisted of three sessions. The first session, titled “Judiciary and Ombudsmanship,” was chaired by Chief Ombudsman Mr. Mehmet Akarca. The second session, “Duties and Mandate of the Ombudsman,” was chaired by the first Chief Ombudsman of Türkiye, Mr. Nihat Ömeroğlu. The third session, “Ombudsman Decisions,” was chaired by Mr. Şeref Malkoç, who served as the second and third Chief Ombudsman of Türkiye.

During the symposium, distinguished academicians and jurists comprehensively examined the historical development and establishment of the Ombudsman Institution, its contributions to the field of law in Türkiye, its role in reducing the workload of the judiciary, and its function within the constitutional framework. The discussions also addressed the practical implications of the decisions of the Ombudsman Institution and the significance of the Ombudsman Institution in light of current developments.

Asylum, migration and borders Borders and information systems

On 19 March, FRA and the Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights attended the Frontex Management Board meeting.

FRA recalled the update of its report on national investigations into alleged rights violations at borders. 

The Consultative Forum presented its annual activity report for 2025, which will soon be released. 

FRA co-chairs the Frontex Consultative Forum on Fundamental Rights together with UN Refugee Agency. 

The Consultative Forum provides independent expert advice to Frontex on the protection of fundamental rights in its activities.

Summary of the decision: In his review of two civil actions amenable to out-of-court settlement at Hälsingland District Court, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman found that proceedings had been both deficient and slow. During 2024, the district court had one full-time judge and three vacant judge positions. At the beginning of the year, the two junior judge positions were also withdrawn. The adjudication process has largely been conducted by visiting judges drawn from a pool of reinforcements at the Swedish National Courts Administration.

In light of the staffing situation and working conditions at the district court, the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman acknowledges that under the circumstances it has been very difficult, indeed nigh-on impossible, for the judges to live up to procedural requirements in each individual case.

The district court has had three different chief judges during the period in question and the extremely strained staffing situation and working conditions have made it very difficult for them to act and take measures when a case has not been adjudicated within a reasonable period of time.

While the Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman is critical of how the two civil actions have been processed, given the facts that have emerged concerning the situation at the court he finds no reason to direct criticism at any official who is under his supervision.

The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the situation at the district court is a matter of grave concern and sends a copy of the decision to, among others, the Government and the Swedish National Courts Administration for information purposes.