Rebecca Hilsenrath’s tenure as interim Ombudsman ended on 31 March 2025 and she will return to her role as Chief Executive.

We are currently awaiting news on the appointment of a permanent Ombudsman.

Our dedicated staff remain committed to delivering an important service for the public.

There may be a small number of cases we are unable to progress without an Ombudsman in post. Caseworkers will directly contact any complainants whose cases are affected.

In accordance with the resolution of the UN General Assembly, Autism Awareness Day is celebrated worldwide on April 2. 17 years after the establishment of this day, its significance has expanded further and, along with raising awareness, includes the inclusion of people with autism in public life, their respect, and recognition of the contribution they made to the development of the community and the...

The Public Defender echoes the publicly disseminated information regarding the detention of Elene Khoshtaria and her alleged ill-treatment in the police station, as well as in the temporary detention center, and notes that during the full search by law enforcement officers, a person should not be required to undress all parts of the body simultaneously - such a practice is humiliating and degrading treatment of a person.

In addition, Article 5 of the Internal Regulations of the Temporary Detention Centers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia stipulates that during a personal search, it is not permissible to completely undress the person being searched. Such treatment of women is particularly noteworthy.

It should also be noted that on March 29, while in the pre-trial detention center, Elene Khoshtaria refused to meet with a representative of the Office. The Public Defender's representative contacted Elene Khoshtaria after her release as well, but she again refused to cooperate with the Office.

The Public Defender's Office will study the case on its own initiative and will contact all the relevant agencies for further action.

After conducting a more extensive examination of the complaint of the residents of the Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba regarding the environmentally controversial operation of an asphalt facility in the immediate vicinity of their living environment, the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) has assessed that the case of the asphalt facility in question embodies the consequences of past inadequate and arbitrary decisions by the competent authorities, which did not foresee appropriate mechanisms for the post festum establishment of an environmental protection regime for industrial facilities with a long history. The Ombudsman thus believes that individuals' right to a healthy living environment may be violated if, despite its clearly inappropriate location and disturbing and potentially environmentally and health-harmful activities, a nearby industrial facility does not have the necessary permits or if the legislation does not even prescribe the obligation to obtain any environmental permits for such activities. The above is given additional weight by the fact that the question of the (non)existence of a building and use permit for this asphalt base, after decades of operation, has still not been definitively answered.

* * *

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) has considered the complaint of the Civil Initiative Vrtojba (the complainants), which seeks to have the asphalt facility in Vrtojba (the asphalt facility) closed or moved to another location due to, in their opinion, harmful effects on the health of the residents of Vrtojba as well as environmental degradation. According to the complainants, the asphalt facility in the immediate vicinity of the site has been operating for many years without the necessary building, use, and environmental permits. The supervisory authorities have allegedly failed to take appropriate action. The responses are said to be unclear, and the procedures are said to be unacceptably lengthy.

When considering the complaint, the Ombudsman became acquainted with the extensive documentation submitted by the complainants, and he himself contacted the Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba (Municipality), the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Natural Resources and Spatial Planning (IRSNVP), the Inspectorate for the Environment and Energy (IRSOE), the Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Energy (MOPE), and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning (MNVP) with several inquiries. The responses received were satisfactory in outlining the historical context of the existence and the legal framework of the current operation of the asphalt facility. However, they also enabled the conclusion that the original offence, i.e. the undisturbed operation of the asphalt facility in the immediate vicinity of the settlement, while simultaneously lacking any administrative permits, is to be found in the combination of the past inappropriate placement of such an industrial facility in the immediate vicinity of the residential settlement, in the frequent past changes to relevant legislation in the field of construction of buildings,[1] and in the inadequacy of the current environmental protection regulations, which do not allow for subsequent determination of the environmental acceptability of interventions already carried out ex officio.[2]

In view of all the above, the Ombudsman has for proposed to MOPE, taking into account the results of national and European case law,[3] that, in order to ensure a comprehensive assessment of the environmental acceptability of such long-standing facilities and the elimination of long-standing environmental offences, it consider preparing an appropriate amendment to the Environmental Protection Act (ZVO-2), which would enable it to initiate relevant procedures ex officio. In its response, MOPE, while simultaneously expressing understandable concerns, announced its willingness in principle to examine the possibilities of appropriate amendments to the ZVO-2. MOPE's own assessment that the location of the asphalt base in question is inappropriate is also encouraging. The recently reported activities of the IRSNVP and the intervention of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia[4] in Article 146 of the Construction Act (GZ-1),[5] by which the Constitutional Court suspended its implementation until a final decision, should also be understood as evidence of an escalation of activity. However, the Ombudsman, for the time being, in view of his own past experience with the responsiveness of the competent MNVP and MOPE to pressing social problems, cannot be overly optimistic that the issue will be resolved within a reasonable time. The Ombudsman has therefore decided to continue to treat the issue in question as a broader issue, as he assesses that the issue of the environmental (un)acceptability of long-standing facilities is an issue important for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and for the legal security of citizens in the Republic of Slovenia. In the Ombudsman's opinion, a concrete solution can only be expected if this issue is properly addressed at the systemic level, which he will strive to achieve in the further process of addressing the broader issue. 

Eine 86-jährige Steirerin hat sich an die Volksanwaltschaft gewendet, die der Stadtgemeinde Hartberg jährlich 820 Euro Investitionsabgabe zahlen soll für ein nicht bebautes Grundstück, das sie bereits vor Jahren verkauft hat. Für Volkanwältin Gaby Schwarz ist klar: „Es gibt keinen gültigen Vertrag, keine gesetzmäßige Vorschreibung und überdies hat die Gemeinde ihren Teil einer Vereinbarung nicht erfüllt. Abgesehen davon sind lebenslange Strafzahlungen nicht rechtskonform. Wie die Gemeinde Hartberg mit dieser Seniorin umgeht, ist empörend.“

Begonnen hat alles im Jahr 2007. Damals besaß die Seniorin über 4.700 Quadratmeter Grund - teilweise Grünland, teilweise Bauland. Die Stadtgemeinde Hartberg hat ihr angeboten, davon insgesamt 2.500 Quadratmeter in Bauland umzuwidmen. Im Gegenzug verpflichtet sie sich, den Grund innerhalb von drei Jahren zu bebauen, falls die Gemeinde das umgewidmete Grundstück nicht kauft. Tut sie das nicht, muss sie für jedes Jahr, in dem sie nicht baut, eine sogenannte "Investitionsabgabe" von 820 Euro bezahlen.

Im Jahr 2013 hat die Seniorin ihren Grund mit Wissen der Gemeinde an eine Privatperson verkauft. Elf Jahre nach dem Grundstücksverkauf, wurde sie von der Stadtgemeinde Hartberg aufgefordert, je 820 Euro für die Jahre 2021, 2022 und 2023 als Investitionsabgabe zu bezahlen. Denn der neue Eigentümer hat nicht gebaut. Aus Sicht der Gemeinde haftet Frau P. dafür.

Diese Vorgehensweise ist für Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz aus mehreren Gründen kurios: „Uns liegt nur das Anbot mit der Unterschrift von Frau P. aus dem Oktober 2017 vor. Wir wissen weder, ob und wann der Vertrag von dem Gemeinderat genehmigt wurde oder vom Bürgermeister unterschrieben wurde. An sich hätte Frau P. ein unterschriebenes Vertragsexemplar erhalten müssen. Der Vertrag spricht zudem von einer Widmung von den gesamten 2.575 m2. Das ist bis heute nicht erfolgt. Die Gemeinde hat ihren Teil der Vereinbarung also nicht erfüllt. Eine „Investitionsabgabe“ wäre auch mit Bescheid vorzuschreiben. Aber vor allem: Eine lebenslange Vorschreibung einer Konventionalstrafe entspricht nicht den guten Sitten. Nach unserer Auffassung ist ein solcher Vertrag in dieser Form gesetzwidrig. Die Gemeinde war dazu nicht ermächtigt.“