On 23 and 24 June, the Conference of Parliamentarily Elected Ombudsmen and Police Commissioners of the Länder and the Federal Government met for this year's meeting in Berlin.

One thematic focus was on the results of the study "Racism in German Institutions and Institutional Racism in Germany (InRa Study)", funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Federal Ministry of the Interior. The research assistant of the InRa study, Dr. Jörg Hartmann, introduced the topic and summarised the essential elements and findings, in particular of the sub-area "Employee Survey in Public Service Authorities" and discussed them with the Ombudsman and Police Commissioners. The commissioners unanimously emphasised that the promotion of a constructive error culture and the establishment of diversity-oriented structures are essential prerequisites for a citizen-oriented administration and a citizen-oriented police force. The legislator, the heads of the authorities and the police managers are therefore called upon to pursue these developments in the long term.

The next day, Prof. Dr. mult. Mario Staller (University of Police and Public Administration North Rhine-Westphalia) was a guest at the conference and spoke on questions about how the police deal with people in psychologically tense situations. In the subsequent exchange, the focus was on questions of police training and further education. The reason for this was Prof. Staller's research focus, which includes psychological, pedagogical and social aspects of police operations, individual violent and conflict behaviour as well as the design of appropriate education, training and training structures.

Beate Böhlen, Ombudsman of the State of Baden-Württemberg and currently Chairwoman of the Conference of Parliamentarily Elected Ombudsmen and Police Commissioners, emphasizes: The conference offers the opportunity for an important exchange among the Ombudsman and Police Commissioners and strengthens the common task as parliamentarily elected ombudsmen who are independent of instructions.

Back

Considera que no puede exigirse la devolución de una ayuda cuando el pago indebido fue consecuencia exclusiva de un error administrativo y la beneficiaria actuó de buena fe
 

El Ararteko ha recomendado al Departamento de Bienestar, Juventud y Reto Demográfico del Gobierno Vasco que deje sin efecto la reclamación de 400 euros dirigida a una mujer beneficiaria de una ayuda económica a familias con hijos e hijas, al considerar que el pago indebido fue consecuencia exclusiva de un error administrativo.

Aunque la Administración reconoció correctamente el derecho a la prestación, solicitada por una mujer y destinada al mantenimiento de su hija, el primer pago se realizó por error en una cuenta bancaria distinta de la indicada por la solicitante. Tras advertir la incidencia, la propia interesada informó del error y la Administración efectuó un nuevo ingreso en la cuenta correcta. 

Sin embargo, casi cuatro años después, la Administración inició un procedimiento para reclamar el reintegro de la cantidad abonada erróneamente. La afectada acreditó que nunca dispuso de ese dinero, ya que fue retirado íntegramente por su expareja desde la cuenta en la que se había efectuado el ingreso incorrecto. Además, aportó documentación que acreditaba una situación compatible con violencia de género y explicó que había sido víctima de violencia económica. 

En la resolución, el Ararteko concluye que no concurría ninguna de las causas legales que permiten exigir el reintegro de una subvención, ya que la beneficiaria no incumplió ninguna de sus obligaciones y actuó en todo momento de buena fe y que el error se produjo exclusivamente durante la ejecución del pago por parte de la Administración.
Esta institución recuerda que los errores de la Administración no deben trasladarse a la ciudadanía cuando esta no ha contribuido a provocarlos y subraya la necesidad de tener en cuenta tanto las situaciones de vulnerabilidad, como la violencia económica acreditada en este caso, como el interés superior de la menor. 

Por ello, el Ararteko recomienda al Departamento de Bienestar, Juventud y Reto Demográfico anular la resolución de reintegro y devolver a la reclamante la cantidad ya abonada, junto con los intereses legales correspondientes.

RESOLUCIÓN

“The equal inclusion of the deafblind in society at all stages of life is a wound that we, as a society, are healing too slowly. We still too often talk about accommodations as a special privilege, rather than understanding them as a prerequisite for equality,” Human Rights Ombudswoman Dr. Simona Drenik Bavdek emphasized in her address at today’s international expert conference on interpreting for people with deafblindness. The conference is organized by the Slovenian Association of the Deafblind (DLAN) and the Slovenian Association of Interpreters for the Deafblind (TAKTIL).

The Ombudswoman notes that the field of deafblindness remains relatively unknown in Slovenian society, even though it significantly impacts the lives of deafblind people — both in terms of communication with those around them and intellectually. As a result, deafblind people face greater difficulties in asserting their rights and often remain among the most overlooked members of our society. “In June, Deafblind Awareness Month, we must speak out even more forcefully than usual to highlight the importance of accessible communication, independence, and the equal inclusion of people with deafblindness in all spheres of social life,” she said. She expressed hope that the conference would spur further systemic changes in this area, ensuring that all people who are deafblind receive appropriate support and access to services and assistance. “We need close cooperation among service users, experts, organizations, and policymakers. We also need adequate support for interpretation services for people who are deafblind,” she said.

The conference was also attended by Dr. Sanja Tarczay, president of the World Federation of the Deafblind, who described efforts to ensure the rights of people who are deafblind around the world. “Today, we, the deafblind, have our place in the sun—last year we succeeded in having the International Day of the Deafblind proclaimed, and Slovenia was one of the 99 countries that signed the declaration,” she said. She emphasized that much work still lies ahead in this area, as many countries around the world do not provide any support services to help the deafblind integrate into society.

Slovenia has, however, made significant strides in this area in recent years. In 2021, the language of the deafblind was enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and last year the Law on the Use of the Language of the Deafblind was adopted. Numerous individuals and organizations played an important role in this, particularly the Association of the Deafblind of Slovenia (DLAN) and its secretary, Dr. Simona Gerenčer. “With this move, we have recognized users of the language of the deafblind as a community with its own culture, identity, and language. Language is, in fact, inextricably linked to personal identity, dignity, cultural belonging, and freedom of expression,” said Dr. Drenik Bavdek, reiterating that the use of language is a fundamental human right. International documents, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, clearly stipulate the obligation of states to ensure access to appropriate forms of communication, interpretation, and inclusive education—for everyone. Accessible communication is, in fact, a prerequisite for the realization of other human rights, such as the rights to education, health care, employment, participation in public life, and access to legal protection.

“However, enshrining this in the constitution and passing a law are merely the foundation for further ensuring the rights of these individuals at all levels of society—particularly in the areas of communication, education, and employment. The true test of any society is how it puts human rights into practice. We all still have a lot of work ahead of us,” the Human Rights Ombudsman announced. According to her, we must ensure that people who are deafblind have access to public services, an adequate number of trained interpreters, timely support for families, accessible education, employment opportunities, and an environment in which people do not have to constantly prove that they have the right to be included.

The Human Rights Ombudsman (Ombudsman) strives, within the scope of its authority, to provide support and assistance to the deafblind, primarily by addressing their situation through legislative solutions and raising public awareness of the challenges they face in daily life. At the conference, the Ombudswoman pledged that the Ombudsman’s Office would continue to support the deafblind in their efforts to achieve accessibility, equality, and respect for their dignity.

Parliamentary Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Jari Råman has assessed the Finnish Immigration Service’s practice according to which an asylum seeker’s legal counsel may participate in the asylum interview remotely only if the counsel’s organisation has concluded a separate information security agreement with the service.

The Ombudsman finds that the practice is not unlawful and does not exceed the discretion of the Finnish Immigration Service. However, he considers the agreement-based model problematic and urges the service to assess its necessity and effects on the right to choose a legal counsel.

The decision emphasises that ensuring the information security of asylum interviews is extremely important. However, the means used for doing so must be proportionate to the objective pursued. According to the Ombudsman, the legislation requires ensuring information security but does not specifically oblige the use of a contractual procedure. Therefore, it is a question of an administrative decision made by the Finnish Immigration Service itself.

The Ombudsman draws attention to the fact that, in practice, the agreement serves as a condition for remote participation. In terms of its effects, the arrangement is partly similar to an administrative authorisation. This may in itself raise unnecessary doubts about whether the administrative procedure restricts the choice of legal counsel. The contractual relationship between the legal counsel and the authority is exceptional, as the counsel primarily only acts on the assignment of their client.

Although the contractual requirement does not formally restrict the choice of counsel, it may in practice have such impacts. If no agreement has been made, the counsel must attend the asylum interview in person. This may make participation more difficult, for example, when the counsel and the client are in different localities or the asylum interview is arranged at short notice.

According to the Ombudsman, it remains unclear whether the current agreement model is necessary to ensure information security or whether the same objective could be achieved by less restrictive means. He notes that lighter information security commitments or enabling remote participation from the authority’s premises in different localities could sufficiently ensure the implementation of information security while reducing practical obstacles to the participation of the counsel. At the same time, he notes that lawyers are already bound by strict information security obligations.

The Ombudsman did not find any unlawful conduct in the matter and did not take any action. However, he brought his views to the attention of the Finnish Immigration Service and asked the service to assess its practices. The service must report on any measures it takes by the end of September 2026.

In addition, the Ombudsman drew attention to the authority’s obligation to respond appropriately to inquiries made to it.

Decision EOAK/2047/2025 is available (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi

For more information, please contact Principal Legal Adviser Jari Pirjola, tel. +358 9 432 3361.