Summary of the decision: Summary of the decision: When conducting border checks of two third-country nationals at Stockholm Arlanda Airport, the Swedish Police Authority interviewed each traveller without an interpreter. Other interviews and subsequent service of decisions where however conducted with an interpreter. When inspecting the travellers’ baggage, police officers also checked the content of their mobile telephones in the form of installed apps and screenshots.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman notes that the Swedish Police Authority failed to document either the reason that no interpreter was present at certain interviews or any details concerning the inspection of the travellers’ mobile telephones, and is critical of this.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman states that if, on any occasion, the Swedish Police Authority assesses that no interpreter is required when conducting interviews at border control even though the interviewee does not speak Swedish, this assessment should be documented.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman also expresses doubt as to whether there were legal grounds on which to search the travellers’ mobile telephones, although he notes that it is difficult to make any more detailed statements on this matter due to the lack of documentation.

The EU Screening Regulation [EU 2024/1356) is a very important legal instrument of the ten that constitute the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum and which came into force on the 12 June 2026.  Within the text itself of that Regulation and its actual implementation, the Ombudsman has a significant role.

With effect from the 12 June 2026, as far as the Ombudsman is concerned, Article 10 of the Screening Regulation has to be considered in addition to the existing authority and/or functions of the Ombudsman as determined in the Ombudsman Act 1995 (Chapter 385) and in Articles 64A and 96A of the Constitution of Malta.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1356 establishes the screening of third-country nationals at the external borders of the EU. Article 10 is entitled "Monitoring of fundamental rights." Article 10(2) requires every Member State to provide for an "Independent Monitoring Mechanism" (IMM) for the purposes of the protection and safeguard of fundamental rights of persons during the screening procedures.

The appointment of an IMM is not optional. Malta must have this  mechanism in place. Within its framework, the Ombudsman has a crucial function. In fact Article 10(2) provides that: "National Ombudspersons and national human rights institutions ... shall participate in the operation of the independent monitoring mechanism and may be appointed to carry out all or part of the tasks of the independent monitoring mechanism."

Use of the term "shall" is important.  The Regulation does not merely say that the Ombudsman may be consulted or informed but insists on participation within the IMM itself.  The Ombudsman is not just an observer.  He should be able to attend meetings and monitor activities; receive relevant information; contribute to the choice of areas to inspect; raise cases; propose investigations; participate in findings; comment upon draft recommendations; and ensure his observations are formally considered,

The EU Regulation is directed at substance.

The IMM must monitor compliance by the Member State with EU law, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Particular attention must be given to access to the asylum procedure; non-refoulement; the best interests of children; national rules governing detention; and the observance of fundamental rights generally during screening. This is considerably more than just a formalities or procedural check-list exercise but a fundamental-rights monitoring mandate.

Article 10 goes further:

"The independent monitoring mechanism shall cover all activities undertaken by the Member States in implementing this Regulation."

The IMM has to ensure that sustained allegations of failure to respect fundamental rights are dealt with "effectively and without undue delay" and, where necessary, that investigations are commenced and their progress monitored.

There is a requirement that Member States are obliged to make provision for investigating allegations of fundamental-rights violations and, where appropriate, for referral for civil or criminal proceedings.

Article 10 requires the IMM to work through checks whether on-the-spot, random or unannounced checks. IMM must also be given access to all relevant locations, reception facilities, detention facilities, persons and documents to the extent necessary for the performance of its functions.

With effect from the 12 June 2026, the Screening Regulation is part of Maltese domestic law and is directly enforceable in these Islands. When the IMM for Malta is constituted in the manner stipulated established in the Screening Regulation, the participation of the Ombudsman will extend well beyond the functions assigned by domestic law prior to 12 June 2026 because with effect from 12 June 2026 the Ombudsman will exercise with others a specific EU-law monitoring function.

Article 10 expressly requires "adequate safeguards to guarantee the independence of the independent monitoring mechanism."

Oversight is required for persons: arriving irregularly; disembarked following search-and-rescue operations; undergoing screening; seeking international protection; subjected to border asylum procedures; held in relevant facilities; identified as vulnerable; who are children or unaccompanied minors; or whose treatment raises non-refoulement concerns.

Article 10 expressly identifies the principle of non-refoulement as a matter that the IMM must monitor. This is significant because non-refoulement may arise under several overlapping legal regimes including the Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.

Article 10 specifically identifies compliance with rules concerning detention, including relevant national detention legislation. The IMM must have access to detention facilities to oversee the lawfulness of administrative practice; the conditions of detention; the treatment of vulnerable persons; duration; access to information; access to procedures; children; medical vulnerability and procedural safeguards.

Article 10 also specifically mentions "the best interest of the child", a rule that is intended to keep a caring watch on unaccompanied minors; age-assessment procedures; family unity; accommodation; vulnerability assessments; detention; guardianship arrangements; and access to the asylum procedure.

This constitutes part of the substantive benchmark to monitor effective compliance.

The Regulation imposes an obligation upon Member States to provide the IMM with appropriate financial means. If the mechanism is expected to conduct unannounced inspections, maintain border monitoring, employ specialist staff, examine detention conditions, deal with allegations and monitor investigations, then adequate resourcing is required to ensure compliance.

Article 10 requires independence in substance.  The Executive cannot control how the monitoring is exercised.  The independence requirement is therefore crucial. A monitoring arrangement would be questionable if a Government were to determine which facilities could be inspected, where prior permission would be routinely required, where access to migrants would depend upon executive consent, where a Government would determine which allegations could be investigated and where reports would require ministerial clearance. Article 10 requires adequate safeguards guaranteeing the independence of the monitoring mechanism. The question is therefore not merely whether Board members act conscientiously. The structural question is whether there are in place sufficient guarantees of independence from the authorities whose conduct is being monitored.

The Regulation instructs the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (“FRA”) to issue general guidance concerning establishment and independent functioning of the IMMs. Member States may ask FRA for assistance with institutional safeguards; methodology; training; and development of the mechanism itself. That provides an external EU benchmark against which domestic arrangements can be assessed.

The IMM does not replace European Union Asylum Agency (“EUAA”).  Article 10(3) expressly says that the IMM will operate without prejudice to the monitoring mechanism established in Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2021/2303, which deals with the operational and technical application of the Common European Asylum System.

La síndica de greuges de Cataluña, Esther Giménez-Salinas, y el síndic de greuges de Barcelona, ​​David Bondia, han firmado esta mañana la renovación del convenio de colaboración entre ambas instituciones con el objetivo de reforzar la protección de los derechos de la ciudadanía y mejorar la coordinación en la supervisión de las administraciones públicas.
 

El acuerdo establece un marco estable de cooperación que permitirá ofrecer una respuesta más ágil, eficaz y coherente a las personas que presentan una queja. También facilitará el impulso de actuaciones conjuntas en ámbitos de interés común que afectan especialmente a la ciudad de Barcelona.

Uno de los principales objetivos del convenio es mejorar la información y la orientación a la ciudadanía para que cada persona pueda dirigir su queja a la institución competente en cada caso. En este sentido, la Sindicatura de Greuges de Barcelona trasladará al Síndic de Greuges de Cataluña, con el consentimiento de las personas interesadas, las reclamaciones relacionadas con administraciones distintas de la municipal. Asimismo, el Síndic de Greuges de Cataluña informará a la ciudadanía de la posibilidad de recurrir a la Sindicatura de Greuges de Barcelona cuando la queja haga referencia a la actuación del Ayuntamiento de Barcelona.

Para evitar duplicidades y mejorar la eficacia de las actuaciones, ambas instituciones compartirán información periódicamente sobre las quejas y actuaciones de oficio que afecten a ámbitos de responsabilidad compartida. Además, cada año realizarán una valoración conjunta de las quejas presentadas en relación con la Administración municipal de Barcelona para identificar tendencias y posibles áreas de mejora.

El convenio también incorpora una decidida apuesta por los mecanismos de resolución pacífica de conflictos y por la justicia restaurativa. En este ámbito, ambas instituciones colaborarán para favorecer el diálogo entre la ciudadanía y las administraciones públicas con el objetivo de contribuir a encontrar soluciones que garanticen mejor los derechos de las personas.

El convenio tendrá una vigencia de cuatro años, con posibilidad de prórroga, y da continuidad a una colaboración institucional consolidada en los últimos veinte años. Esta trayectoria compartida ha contribuido a reforzar la defensa de los derechos de la ciudadanía y a promover unas administraciones más transparentes, accesibles y comprometidas con el principio de buena administración.

La renovación de este convenio reafirma el compromiso de ambas instituciones con la protección de los derechos de las personas y con una atención más cercana, coordinada y efectiva a las necesidades de la ciudadanía.

On September 16, the State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia presented an audit report titled “Children’s Health Care – A Lottery Based on Place of Residence.”. The report highlights systemic problems that not only contradict the priority established by national law, child health care as a priority, but also demonstrate that there is, in fact, a regional lack of access to various medical specialists and health care services.

Statement by the State Audit Office of the Republic of Latvia

Timely, good-quality and affordable healthcare for children is a legal obligation of the state of Latvia, a human rights issue, and an integral part of demographic policy. The right to health protection is enshrined both in the Constitution of Latvia (Satversme) and in several international human rights documents. It is particularly important that children are granted priority protection in the area of health care.

“From my very first day ias an Ombudsperson, the rights of children have been one of my top priorities, but children’s rights must not be the sole priority of the Ombudsperson’s office. They must be a national priority -including a priority for the Parliament, the government, ministries, and every institution whose decisions affect a child’s life. If the state declares children a priority, that priority must be reflected in practice. If there aren’t enough resources for everyone, a child cannot be the one left waiting until last,” Ombudsperson Karina Palkova emphasizes in her speech.

Timely, good-quality and affordable healthcare for children is a legal obligation of the state, a human rights issue, and an integral part of demographic policy.


The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child specifies that member states recognize every child’s right to the highest attainable standard of health. The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration not only in individual decisions regarding a specific child, but also in the planning and organization of the health care system.

This includes making decisions regarding the financing of children’s health care, the organization of the service network, the availability of medical specialists, and ensuring access to health care services in different regions.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed concerns already in 2016 about lengthy waiting times and limited access to specialized health care services, which in practice hinder effective access to free medical services for children. Ten years ago, when assessing the situation in Latvia, the Committee also pointed out disparities in children’s access to health care services between those living in rural and urban areas.

The health of children is the basis for their ability to obtain a quality education, address health issues in a timely manner, and ensure a higher quality of life and a longer, healthier life in the future. The state must not ignore these issues or postpone addressing them until later phases in life.

“At present, there is a high likelihood of violations of children’s rights as set out in the Constitution (Satversme) and international human rights documents. herefore, I have already begun to assess whether the existing legal framework in the field of children’s health care, its application, and the practices implemented by the state are in compliance with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. This assessment is also related to the right granted to me under the Ombudsman Law to appeal to the Constitutional Court if a violation of fundamental rights is found,” said Ombudsperson Karina Palkova

The State Audit Office calls on the relevant institutions and officials to take note of the findings revealed in the audit and to take concrete steps to address the identified problems, emphasizing that these problems did not arise overnight.

This will require the commitment of the entire sector, the government, and the agreement of all political forces represented in the Parliament (Saeima).The Ombudsperson expresses gratitude to the State Audit Office, which is determinedly addressing issues related to access to health care, as well as to the healthcare professionals who dedicate their work to the well-being of the nation’s children. We express our hope that the next Parliament (Saeima) and Government will be able to join forces to tackle these urgent and high-priority issues in a goal-oriented manner.

Las recomendaciones del Ararteko, formuladas en la Resolución 2026R-2730-25, responden a la queja presentada por un joven que quedó fuera del sistema de protección de menores pese a disponer de un pasaporte válido y auténtico que acreditaba que era menor de edad. Sin embargo, unas pruebas médicas de determinación de edad llevaron a la Fiscalía a dictar un decreto de mayoría de edad, lo que motivó el fin de la medida de protección.

En este caso, esta institución cree que el joven no dispuso de todas las garantías necesarias para conocer cómo podía oponerse a la decisión que puso fin a su protección. Por ello, entiende que es imprescindible que las resoluciones administrativas se comuniquen de forma clara, estén suficientemente fundamentadas y expliquen los recursos y plazos disponibles para evitar situaciones de indefensión.

Por todo ello, el Ararteko recomendó al Departamento de Políticas Sociales de la Diputación Foral de Álava que extreme las garantías cuando existan pruebas contradictorias sobre la edad y que asegure, en todo caso, el derecho de las personas afectadas a ser escuchadas y a defenderse durante la tramitación, aprobación y notificación de las resoluciones que ponen fin a las medidas de protección.

El Departamento ha comunicado al Ararteko la aceptación de las dos recomendaciones y su compromiso de incorporar las medidas descritas a la práctica administrativa del Instituto Foral de Bienestar Social.

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 21 de septiembre de 2026