The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia was alerted to the controversial definition of students with special needs in the proposal for the new Higher Education Act, and the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation warned that the definition of students with special needs in the new Higher Education Act must be formulated in such a way that all students who need them will receive adjustments, undoubtedly including students with autism spectrum disorders. The Ministry informed the Ombudsman that it had corrected the definition and that it now also explicitly mentions students with autism spectrum disorders.

The Association of Non-Governmental Organisations for Autism of Slovenia (the complainant) has drawn the attention of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) to the controversial definition of students with special needs in the proposal for the new Higher Education Act. It was pointed out that the text of the proposal for the law, which was in public discussion last year, was more appropriate, while the revised generalised definition, as currently proposed, could exclude individuals with autism spectrum disorders from the scope of students with special needs. If this change were adopted, people with autism spectrum disorders could be left without key adjustments, such as adjustments to exams, support in the form of a personal assistant, or specific learning strategies. As a result, this could have long-term negative effects on their inclusion in the study process and their study success. The Ombudsman was not informed of the final text of the bill, but according to the complainant, students with special needs are defined in Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the bill, which states: "Students with special needs are students with long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairments (e.g. students with visual impairments, deaf and hard of hearing students, students with speech and language disorders, students with mobility disabilities), and students with psychosocial problems."

The Ombudsman sent a letter to the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Innovation (MVSZI), in which he stressed that the accuracy of the definition of students with special needs is important for greater inclusion and equal opportunities for all students, regardless of their challenges. Students with special needs certainly also include students with autism spectrum disorders, whose special rights regarding education are also recognised by the International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (ICRD) in Article 24. From the commentary on Article 24 of the ICRD by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities[1], it can be seen that the Committee also recognises that some groups are more at risk of exclusion from education than others. These are: persons with intellectual or multiple disabilities, persons with speech and language disorders, persons with autism spectrum disorders, or persons with disabilities in humanitarian crises. At the same time, the Committee notes that many States parties do not provide adequate conditions for persons with disabilities, in particular persons with autism spectrum disorders, persons with speech-language disorders, and persons with sensory impairments, to acquire life, language and social skills that are essential for participation in education and in their communities.

The Ombudsman warned the MVSZI that the definition of students with special needs in the new Higher Education Act must be formulated in such a way that there will be no problems in practice and that all students who need them will receive adjustments. This undoubtedly includes students with autism spectrum disorders. The Ombudsman agreed that the aforementioned text of the proposal for Paragraph 1 of Article 114 of the Act does not follow this.

In its response to the Ombudsman, the MVSZI noted that the current proposal for the new Higher Education Act of 5 March 2025, which was sent for consideration to the March session of the Economic and Social Council, in Article 115 on students with special needs and special status, contains the definition: "Students with special needs are blind and visually impaired students or students with impaired visual function, deaf and hard of hearing students, deaf-blind students, students with speech-language disorders, students with deficits in individual areas of learning, physically disabled students, long-term ill students, students with autism spectrum disorders, and students with psychosocial problems." The MVSZI emphasised that it was never their intention to exclude students with autism spectrum disorders.

The Ombudsman welcomes the decision of the MVSZI to change the definition of students with special needs. We are pleased that we have jointly contributed to the successful outcome of the matter. We expect that it will be adopted in this form in the legislative process. 0.1-6/2025

Assistierter Suizid muss auch im Pflegeheim möglich sein. Dass einige Heime über die Hausordnung verbieten, dass sich Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner auch nur darüber informieren, ist verfassungs- und menschenrechtswidrig. Darauf haben Volksanwaltschaft und Menschenrechtsbeirat vor einem Jahr aufmerksam gemacht – aber immer noch halten sich nicht alle Einrichtungen daran, kritisiert nun Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz: „Wir werden die Kommissionen der Volksanwaltschaft ersuchen, im Rahmen der Präventiven Menschenrechtskontrolle besonders auf solche rechtswidrigen Hausordnungen zu achten. Und die Länder als Aufsicht fordere ich auf, solche Klauseln schon in den Förderverträgen für die Einrichtungen eindeutig auszuschließen.“

Investitionen in Palliativversorgung nötig

„Die Durchführung eines Assistierten Suizids ist nicht erlaubt“, heißt es in der Hausordnung einer Einrichtung in Tirol. Eine Schwerpunktprüfung der Volksanwaltschafts-Kommissionen hat gezeigt, dass mehrheitlich keine Möglichkeit zum assistierten Suizid in den Einrichtungen besteht. Im Februar 2024 hat ein Gutachten des Menschenrechtsbeirats der Volksanwaltschaft für Aufmerksamkeit gesorgt: Demnach müssen die Heimträger die im Sterbeverfügungsgesetz vorgesehene Möglichkeit des straflosen assistieren Suizids für schwerst- und unheilbar Kranke aus Respekt vor der freien Entscheidung der Bewohnerinnen und Bewohner akzeptieren. „Der assistierte Suizid muss aber der allerletzte Ausweg sein. Die Volksanwaltschaft fordert daher vor allem mehr Investitionen in die Hospize, denn das Recht auf würdevolles Sterben kann ohne flächendeckende Angebote der Beratung und Palliativversorgung nicht umgesetzt werden“, sagt Volksanwalt Achitz

The Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon, participated in a high-level conference for Ombudsman institutions and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), convened under the auspices of the Luxembourg Presidency of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The two-day conference brings together Ombudsman institutions and National Human Rights Institutions from across Europe and beyond, with discussions focusing on the current challenges to the rule of law and the vital role that Ombudsman institutions and NHRIs play in upholding it. Particular attention is also being given to the implications of public decision-making in the digital age.

The first day of the conference centred on the growing threats to the rule of law across Europe, especially in times of crisis. It included discussions on the protection of human rights and democratic governance. One of the workshops explored the contribution of NHRIs and Ombudsman institutions to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights, highlighting tools such as Rule 9 of the Committee of Ministers for the supervision of the execution of judgments, and a new knowledge-sharing platform to facilitate cooperation and the exchange of best practices.

Opening the conference, the Ombudsman of Luxembourg, Ms Claudia Monti, underlined that the rule of law must prevail even in times of crisis and reaffirmed that protecting human rights is a daily challenge for all institutions. The Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Mr Bjørn Berge, addressed the importance of maintaining democratic safeguards and ensuring institutional accountability amidst ongoing pressures on the rule of law.

Mr Michael O’Flaherty, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, expressed concern that ten Council of Europe member states have yet to establish a National Human Rights Institution. He reiterated his commitment to support the creation and protection of such institutions and to work closely with those under threat.

Ms Claire Bazy Malaurie, President of the Venice Commission, emphasised the essential role that Ombudsman institutions and Human Rights Defenders play in upholding the rule of law across Europe. She also spoke about the vital role of the Venice Commission in ensuring the real and effective implementation of the rule of law.

The newly elected European Ombudsman, Ms Teresa Anjinho, reflected on the critical responsibility Ombudsman institutions hold in reinforcing democratic values. She stated that transparency must be the rule, not the exception and underlined that without transparency, there is no accountability or rule of law. She added that the informal nature of Ombudsman offices makes them among the most accessible institutions for people seeking redress. The EU Ombudsman also spoke about how communication and knowledge sharing are important because they militate against tribalism. She further stated that trust in institutions results in those institutions becoming a strong voice for the voiceless.

On the second day of the conference, the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon, will address a dedicated workshop discussing the impact of the Venice Principles on the role and function of Ombudsman institutions.

Le 26 février 2025, la Direction générale de l’administration et de la fonction publique (DGAFP) a rendu publique la 3e édition de son rapport relatif à la lutte contre les discriminations et à la prise en compte de la diversité de la société française dans la fonction publique. Le Défenseur des droits y présente ses recommandations.

C’est la 3e édition de ce rapport biennal qui présente les analyses croisées de la DGAFP et du Défenseur des droits. Dans la première partie, la DGAPF présente un état des lieux des discriminations dans la fonction publique et analyse les politiques publiques de ressources humaines mises en œuvre pour les prévenir et favoriser la diversité. Dans la seconde partie, le Défenseur des droits présente son analyse de la nature et des mécanismes de discrimination dans la fonction publique, ainsi que ses recommandations.

Les constats

Le Défenseur des droits constate de fortes discriminations signalées tant par la population que par les agents. En s’appuyant sur des testings et des études, il relève la persistance de discriminations à l’embauche ainsi que les inégalités et discriminations salariales subies par les femmes.
En 2022, sur l’ensemble des réclamations reçues pour discrimination par le Défenseur des droits, 17 % concernaient l’emploi public et 26 % l’emploi privé. Plus de la moitié des réclamations reçues concernaient des discriminations en raison du handicap ou de l’état de santé. Le critère de l’origine au sens strict est invoqué dans 12%, près de 20% si l’on lui adjoint les discriminations fondées sur la nationalité, l’apparence physique, le lieu de résidence, les convictions religieuses ou le patronyme.

La contribution de l’institution au rapport de la DGAFP reconnait des avancées indéniables mais constate qu’aucune stratégie nationale cohérente, transversale et stable de lutte contre les discriminations n’a été construite par les employeurs publics.

Les recommandations

Le silence et le non-recours des agents publics victimes de discriminations sont alimentés par la crainte des représailles. Le Défenseur des droits recommande en conséquence aux employeurs publics :

• d’améliorer les voies de signalement ;
• de se doter de procédures permettant de mener des enquêtes internes avec diligence, impartialité et rigueur ;
• de renforcer la protection des victimes ;
• de sanctionner les auteurs avec fermeté et dans une démarche de transparence.

Pour prévenir les discriminations au sein des trois fonctions publiques, le Défenseur des droits préconise notamment :

• de développer les outils de mesure et de systématiser les diagnostics pour approfondir la connaissance des discriminations au sein des administrations.
• de former l’ensemble des agents publics à la lutte contre les discriminations et de les sensibiliser aux biais discriminatoires des algorithmes et de l’intelligence artificielle.
• de modifier les pratiques afin de renforcer l’objectivation, la transparence et la traçabilité des processus et critères de décision.

Consulter le rapport de la DGAFP et la contribution du Défenseur des droits sur le site de la DGAFP