On September 24, 2026, the Public Defender of Georgia, Levan Ioseliani, visited the villages of Ergneti and Ditsi - located near the occupation line in the Gori municipality - to meet with local residents and learn firsthand about the problems they face.

In their conversation with the Public Defender, residents of Ditsi noted the absence of chain stores in the village, forcing them to purchase groceries at prices significantly higher than market rates. They also reported a lack of a pharmacy, a need for internal road repairs, issues with the supply of drinking and irrigation water, and unreliable internet connectivity.

The village kindergarten also requires rehabilitation; the building suffers from dampness, and the courtyard and sewage system need attention. Water and electricity are supplied to the kindergarten on a schedule, frequently disrupting educational activities.

Residents of Ergneti reported the lack of a reliable public transport schedule as a major problem.

The issue of selling and delivering harvested crops remains a challenge in both villages. According to local residents, their produce is purchased at unreasonably low prices, and in many cases, the costs associated with harvesting exceed the revenue generated from the sale.

The Public Defender also visited the newly renovated stadium in Ergneti - a project she had actively advocated for.

The Public Defender regularly meets with residents living near the occupation line to learn about their problems and challenges, and responds proactively to these issues.

A separate section of the Public Defender’s annual parliamentary report is dedicated to the situation in villages located near the occupation line and the challenges facing the local population.

• The Act of 4 September this year implementing the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) into the Polish legal system is awaiting the signature of the President of the Republic of Poland.
• The DSA provisions are highly important for people who use social media platforms and other online services on a daily basis. They strengthen the protection of platform users.
• Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram has written to President Karol Nawrocki on this matter, stressing that the adopted legislation would establish national mechanisms necessary to enforce internet users’ rights and ensure an adequate standard of protection for individual rights and freedoms.
• The Commissioner also notes that a change introduced in the legislation concerning the selection of personal assistants for persons with disabilities represents a step backward from the standards arising from the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and calls for the concerns raised to be addressed during further legislative work.

The Commissioner for Human Rights, Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram, has approached the President of the Republic of Poland, Karol Nawrocki, regarding the law implementing the provisions of the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) into the Polish legal system. In her letter, she referred to signals received from citizens who point to the lack of effective opportunities to exercise the rights provided by EU regulations governing online platforms.

The CHR emphasized that the DSA is of great significance for people who regularly use social media services and other online platforms. The regulation strengthens user protection by guaranteeing, among other things, the right to receive reasons for decisions to remove content or suspend accounts, the possibility to appeal such decisions, and access to independent dispute-resolution mechanisms. At the same time, it is intended to increase platform transparency and improve the handling of illegal content while preserving freedom of expression.

In the statement, the Commissioner pointed out that Poland has still not adapted its national legal framework to the requirements of the Digital Services Act. As a result, some of the safeguards and protective mechanisms envisaged under EU law remain difficult for citizens to access or cannot be fully utilized.

According to the CHR, the legislation adopted by Parliament would establish the domestic mechanisms necessary to enforce the rights of internet users. These include the possibility of filing complaints with the relevant public authority, the creation of an out-of-court dispute resolution system, and the right to seek compensation for damage caused by breaches of obligations by digital service providers. In the Commissioner’s view, these are important tools for strengthening the protection of citizens’ rights and freedoms in the digital environment.

The Ombudsman Act (Chapter 385) was enacted in 1995.  The Act was amended in 2010 to provide for the appointment of the Commissioners.  The Act was last amended in 2020.  The purpose of this review is to reflect on the direct and identifiable impact that the Opinions of the Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe (“Venice Commission”) had on the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman in Malta (“the Ombudsman”) by the furtherance of its authority and functions both from a constitutional viewpoint and in ordinary law. 

Reference will be made to Opinion CDL-AD (2018)028 of 17 December 2018, Opinion CDL-AD (2020)006 of 19 June 2020 and Opinion CDL-AD (2020)019 of the 8 October 2020.

Act XLII of 2020

The Constitution - Art 96A

The Ombudsman is a member of the Judicial Appointments Committee ("JAC").

Art 96A of the Constitution is an important provision.  It was introduced by the Constitutional Reforms (Justice Sector) Act (Act XLIV of 2016).  The Act created the Judicial Appointments Committee as a subcommittee of the Commission for the Administration of Justice.  The Ombudsman was one of the original five members of the JAC and therefore the appointment of the Ombudsman predates the Opinion of the Venice Commission of 2018. The inclusion of the Ombudsman (and of the Auditor General, another constitutional office) introduced an external rule-of-law and good-administration perspective into judicial selection, laying emphasis on the independent constitutional oversight function of the two Offices.

In its Opinion of 2018, the Venice Commission welcomed the establishment of the JAC in 2016, but concluded that its composition and remit fell short of ensuring the independence of the judiciary.  That evaluation was reaffirmed in its Opinion of 2020.  The central concern was definitely not the Ombudsman (or the Auditor General) but the overall composition and constitutional function of the JAC.  As far as the latter is concerned, in pre 2020, the JAC essentially vetted candidates but in substance the ultimate appointment of the Judiciary rested with the Executive.  For the Venice Commission that position was not satisfactory.

In its Opinion of 2020, the Venice Commission made five major recommendations for change :  that judicial vacancies had to be brought to the attention of the public ; that at least half of the members of the JAC had to be sitting Judges and Magistrates and elected by their peers ; that the JAC should rank candidates on merit according to clear and transparent criteria, while taking gender balance into account ; that the JAC should propose the candidate or candidates directly to the President of Malta and its proposals should bind the President ; and there should be no exception to this system for the appointment of the Chief Justice.

By virtue of Act XLII of 2020, Art 96A was amended to reflect the substantial adoption of the recommendations, save for the last which was not followed.  In fact, the Chief Justice today is appointed by the President following a vote of not less than two-thirds majority of MPs in the House of Representatives.  The JAC has no say whatsoever in the appointment of the Chief Justice.

From a constitutional viewpoint, Art 96A and Art 64A (which will be examined next), as they stand at present, give the Office of the Ombudsman two diverse constitutional dimensions with a common platform: that of an independent investigator of the public administration; and that of an independent participant in safeguarding the composition and the independence of the judiciary.  This second role is exceptional in comparative Ombudsman law and practice and deserves to be treated as an important part of the post-Venice constitutional evolution of the Office.

Art 64A

In 2007 the Ombudsman acquired initial constitutional recognition by virtue of Art 64A of the Constitution.  Nonetheless in 2020 the Ombudsman moved from a formal constitutional recognition of its investigative function to a more decisive role, following the intervention of the Venice Commission.

Prior to the Venice Commission Opinions and the significant amendments to Art 64A in 2020, the appointment, removal or suspension of the Ombudsman were regulated by the Ombudsman Act, an ordinary Act of Parliament that although incorporating provisions that established a minimum threshold of two-thirds majority parliamentary vote, the provisions of the Act could at any time have been changed by a simple parliamentary majority vote. 

In its Opinion of 2020, the Venice Commission was of the view that this state of the law was not satisfactory, because the provisions did not constitute constitutional guarantees as they were not provisions entrenched in the Constitution itself, but remained rules made within the context of an ordinary Act of Parliament and not subject to a qualified majority vote but governed by the simple majority rule.  Art 64A of Constitution was therefore amended by Act XLII of 2020 to reflect the Opinion of the Venice Commission. 

Because of these amendments, the constitutional standing, protection and functions of the Office of the Ombudsman that already prevailed in the Ombudsman Act 1995 were further strengthened.

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, ha participado este jueves en el acto oficial con motivo del Día de la Merced, patrona de Instituciones Penitenciarias, celebrado en el Centro Penitenciario Madrid VII, en Estremera.

Durante el acto, presidido por el ministro del Interior, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, se han entregado condecoraciones y medallas que reconocen los méritos de los funcionarios de prisiones, de miembros de las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado, y de otras personas de la sociedad civil -voluntarios y colaboradores con instituciones penitenciarias-.

En el acto ha intervenido, además del ministro Grande-Marlaska, el secretario general de Instituciones Penitenciaras, Ángel Luis Ortiz. Y ha contado con la asistencia de la secretaria de Estado de Seguridad, Aina Calvo, el delegado del Gobierno en Madrid, Francisco Martín, y la directora general de la Guardia Civil, Mercedes González, entre otros.

Sous la présidence de Claudine Konsbruck, Ombudsman du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, les Ombudsmans et Médiateurs du Benelux se sont réunis le 21 septembre 2026 à Bruxelles, au siège du Secrétariat général de l'Union Benelux, afin d’échanger sur plusieurs enjeux d’actualité liés à la protection des droits des citoyens et à l’amélioration des relations entre les administrations publiques et les usagers.

La réunion a notamment permis de poursuivre les réflexions engagées autour du « droit à l’erreur », thème mis en avant par l’Ombudsman dans son rapport annuel 2025. Les participants ont partagé leurs expériences nationales et examiné les moyens de promouvoir une administration davantage orientée vers le service aux usagers, tout en préservant les principes de sécurité juridique et d’égalité de traitement. Ces échanges ont abouti à l’adoption d’un projet de Recommandation destiné au Parlement Benelux.

Les travaux ont également porté sur plusieurs sujets d’intérêt commun. Les Ombudsmans et Médiateurs chargés des droits des enfants et des jeunes ont échangé sur les défis actuels touchant une catégorie vulnérable de la population.

Les Ombudsmans et Médiateurs ont également échangé sur les réformes futures en matière de sécurité sociale suite à la révision du règlement européen 883/2004 portant sur la coordination des systèmes de sécurité sociale.

Un échange a enfin été consacré à l’utilisation de l’intelligence artificielle. Les discussions ont mis en évidence les opportunités offertes par ces technologies tout en soulignant l’importance de garantir la transparence des procédures, la protection des données personnelles et le maintien d’une appréciation humaine notamment dans le traitement des réclamations.

Cette rencontre a une nouvelle fois confirmé l’importance d’une coopération étroite entre les Ombudsmans et Médiateurs du Benelux. Le partage d’expériences et de bonnes pratiques contribue au renforcement de la protection des droits des usagers et à l’amélioration continue de la qualité des services publics dans l’espace Benelux.