Speech - Speaker Teresa Anjinho - City Strasbourg - Country France - Date Thursday | 27 March 2025

Dear colleagues, participants, excellences, 

Let me start by thanking the Council of Europe and the Luxembourgish Presidency for the opportunity to share my perspective as European Ombudsman on this important issue. 

We often speak of the rule of law as a fundamental value of the European Union. And rightly so. It is the foundation that upholds democracy, fundamental rights, and good governance. It ensures that power is exercised fairly, within clear and transparent rules. It is what allows citizens to trust their governments, legal systems, and public administrations. 

But as we know, the rule of law doesn’t uphold itself. It requires constant vigilance. And that is exactly where institutions like Ombudsman Offices come in.

The very creation of these Offices has been fundamentally tied to the establishment, consolidation and promotion of democracy and the rule of law - designed to oversee the exercise of official power by public authorities while also protecting human rights.

(take the example of Spain or Portugal, where the Ombudsman institution was established shortly after the restoration of democratic rule - it is a post-revolutionary and pre-constitutional institution).

More specifically, ombudsmen serve both as an independent check on the power exercised by governments and public administrations and as vehicles through which individual citizens can have legal protection when dealing with public authorities.

The judiciary is the primary institution for holding governments accountable, but - as we all know, particularly in these very challenging times of rapid technological changes, political shifts and growing citizens demands - the judiciary alone cannot bridge all the gaps.

And this is where the Ombudsman plays a crucial - and complementary - role. By supervising government actions and protecting human rights, Ombudsman institutions help reinforce the rule of law, ensuring that power is exercised fairly, transparently, and in line with fundamental rights.

As for the European Ombudsman, my work is to prevent and address maladministration, promote good governance, and, ultimately, help strengthen the rule of law across the EU.  In short, not having judicial powers like the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), my role is to ensure that EU institutions, agencies, and bodies act transparently, fairly, and accountably.

Most of these discussions on the rule of law focus on developments within individual countries, but allow me to say that it is equally important to examine the role of the EU and its institutions in upholding the rule of law. 

The EU institutions - as you all know - play a central role in ensuring that Member States respect the rule of law. And for that, they have a wide range of tools—whether through dialogue, infringement proceedings, withholding EU funds, or, in extreme cases, suspending a country’s voting rights. 

An immense responsibility. And that is why I have no doubts in saying that if the EU is to be a credible defender of the rule of law, both within its Member States and globally, it is paramount to set the gold standard in its own practices. It must hold itself to the same—or indeed higher—standards than it expects from national governments.

EU institutions cannot effectively promote transparency, accountability, and fairness if they do not fully embody these principles themselves. 

So, how do we ensure this in practice? 

The Ombudsman acts as a safeguard against violations of European Union Law, fundamental rights and good administration, meaning, for example, unfair practices, abuse of power, lack of transparency, and unnecessary delays. Citizens, businesses, and organisations bring complaints to my office when they feel that EU institutions have treated them unlawfully and/or unfairly. 

Our work is critical. Because, while courts enforce the law, as I already mentioned, they cannot always cover every issue that affects citizens in their interactions with the EU institutions.

As you all know, the uniqueness of our institutions relies exactly in their informal nature - in the case of the EO, I risk saying that it is the most accessible body in the EU institutional framework - and in the ability to go beyond the law, transcending legal formalities to restore fairness, integrity, and trust. 

Let me give you a good example: our work on access to legislative documents. Last year, we investigated how the Council of the EU and the European Commission handle requests for public documents. We found that these institutions failed to give full effect to abundant and clear case law regarding the particularly high standard of transparency of legislative documents. We therefore urged both institutions to change their approach: to proactively disclose legislative documents and only refuse access in exceptional cases.

In a Union based on the rule of law, transparency must be the rule—not the exception. Because without transparency, there is no real accountability. And without accountability, trust in institutions starts to break down. 

Speaking of transparency, another big part of my work is pushing EU institutions to be more open about how they make decisions—especially when those decisions impact citizens' rights.

A recent case concerned the European Commission’s failure to finalise a ‘sustainability impact assessment’ (SIA) before concluding EU-Mercosur trade negotiations, despite its own clear internal guidelines on this matter. Our analysis demonstrated that SIAs were an important tool for ensuring that EU trade negotiations are evidence-based, and respect human rights and economic, social, and environmental standards. Therefore, we found that the Commission’s failure to ensure that the SIA was finalised in good time, notably before the end of the trade negotiations, constituted maladministration.

At its core, the rule of law is about protecting individuals—especially those with less power—from unfair or unjust treatment by those in authority. And that is why the EO is also vital in ensuring that EU institutions respect citizens’ fundamental rights: from whistleblower protection, to hiring and recruitment practices, or examining how EU funds are used in order to prevent money from being spent in ways that violate fundamental rights. 

Two short examples.

We recently made recommendations to the European Commission on how to better monitor EU funds used for border management—to ensure they are not being misused in ways that violate migrants’ rights. We suggested clear guidelines and independent oversight mechanisms to prevent abuses. 

We have also looked into how EU funding is used for people with disabilities. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the EU and its Member States must work towards deinstitutionalisation. In response, we urged the Commission to strengthen its monitoring and guidance, to ensure that EU money truly supports inclusion. This case, in fact, highlighted the importance of cooperation between members of the ENO, with whom we discussed the level of compliance and enforcement in the Member States.

These are just a few examples, but they all point to a simple truth: respect for fundamental rights is not just about having rules on paper—it’s about making sure they are enforced in practice. 

The EU rightfully expects its Member States to uphold the rule of law, and it has powerful tools at its disposal when they fail to do so. To be taken seriously in this role, the EU itself must lead by example. Practice what it preaches. If it demands transparency, it must be transparent. If it expects fairness, it must be fair. If it calls for accountability, it must hold itself accountable. Only then can it truly inspire trust—both within Europe and beyond.

And I conclude: upholding the rule of law is a shared responsibility. 

It is not the job of just one institution—not just courts, national governments, and certainly not just my office. It is a continuous effort that requires the commitment of us all —from the judiciary to EU institutions, from civil society to independent oversight bodies like the Ombudsman. 

By working together — by insisting on transparency, fairness, and accountability—we can protect and strengthen the rule of law. And in doing so, we ensure that the European Union remains what it is meant to be: a Union of justice, democracy, and fundamental rights. 

Thank you. 

A Croydon woman fractured her spine using a bed turning aid the NHS installed. The council thought this could replace paid care workers for overnight care, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found.

Croydon council withdrew funding for the woman’s night-time care. The NHS instead installed a turning system. But she only used the system for two nights before injuring her lower back, leaving her in considerable pain. A scan later diagnosed her with a fractured spine.

The woman, who uses a wheelchair and is dependent on care staff to meet her needs originally received payments for care staff to help her overnight until January 2022. The council decided, after reassessment following the scan, that any overnight care should be paid by the NHS. But she would only receive this funding if she was in a nursing home.

In September 2023 she told the council she had serious problems with deep pressure sores that were putting her health at risk because she was not being turned overnight.

She was admitted to hospital in November 2023 and in January 2024 a professionals meeting was held which concluded the woman needed turning every three to four hours overnight. And although the council increased the funding the woman received for day-time care, it reiterated the NHS should fund overnight care.

The woman was again admitted to hospital in April 2024 and complained to the Ombudsman. The council told the Ombudsman it had started funding night-time care from August 2024 and intended to claim the money back from the NHS.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, Ms Amerdeep Somal said:

“While the council and NHS were deciding who should be responsible for this woman’s care package, she was left without adequate care and support and was hospitalised on multiple occasions.

“If there is any question, once an assessment has been completed, of who is responsible for funding a care package, the person in need of support should never feel the impact of this on their health and welfare. The council should have considered putting in an interim plan while discussions were ongoing with the NHS.

“I am pleased the council eventually came to this conclusion itself, but it should not have taken my intervention for this to happen.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and shares learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to review the woman's direct payment and agree in writing how she can pay for her care in future, apologise to ther and pay her £1,000 for the injustice. It will also make a symbolic payment of £2,500 for the harm she experienced.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council will remind relevant staff of the importance of effective complaint handling and will put measures in place to ensure all direct payment accounts are reviewed every 12 months in line with guidance.

The Ombudsman, in conjunction with PHSO, issued guidance to councils and the NHS on working more closely to improve local care in July.

Nella mattina del 25 marzo, presso gli uffici territoriali di Chieti, il Difensore Civico Umberto di Primio ha incontrato, il Prefetto Gaetano Cupello. L’Avvocato Di Primio ha dichiarato: “È stato un confronto cordiale e proficuo che ci ha consentito di approfondire questioni in ordine alla generale  organizzazione e funzionamento della Pubblica amministrazione. In particolare ci siamo intrattenuti sulle problematiche che riguardano i cittadini della provincia di Chieti e che sono state oggetto di segnalazione e richieste d’intervento sia alla Prefettura che alla Difesa Civica regionale”. “Uno dei temi più sentiti e sul quale l’utenza è più sensibile, riguarda la sanità – ha aggiunto il Difensore civico – e sono sempre più frequenti le richieste su questa materia da parte dei cittadini sia alla Prefettura che alla Difesa Civica. Con il Prefetto abbiamo in conclusione riflettuto sul fatto che gli uffici prefettizi da una parte e la Difesa Civica dall’altra, dovranno sempre di più, valutando caso per caso le richieste che ci arrivano, bilanciare le esigenze del pubblico e le aspettative del privato. È questa la strada migliore da percorrere per dare risposte ai cittadini ed avere quale migliore alleato il sistema sanitario regionale”.

• El Síndic critica la falta de cooperación y lealtad institucional entre los responsables de las administraciones públicas para afrontar la catástrofe

• El defensor autonómico presenta su Informe Anual 2024, con un aumento de un 32,9% en las consultas y un 21,28% en las quejas recibidas respecto al año anterior
• Las quejas referentes a Servicios Sociales ya suponen casi la mitad de las que tramita la institución

El Síndic de Greuges de la Comunitat Valenciana, Ángel Luna, acompañado de la adjunta primera, Concha Bru, y del segundo, Carlos Castillo, ha presentado hoy en Les Corts su Informe Anual 2024 en el que denuncia que «la excepcional pérdida de vidas humanas que provocó la Dana ha puesto de manifiesto el fracaso de la Administración en la protección del derecho a la vida». Ángel Luna también ha censurado la falta de solidaridad y leal cooperación institucional entre los responsables de las diferentes administraciones para afrontar la catástrofe.

El Informe del defensor autonómico constata que durante 2024 hubo un gran aumento en el número de consultas y quejas de la ciudadanía. Las consultas crecieron más del 30%, llegando a 18.600, y las quejas recibidas aumentaron más del 20%, alcanzando las 4.770. Además, el Síndic abrió 15 quejas de oficio en 2024, la mayoría sobre Infancia y Adolescencia. Estas quejas se enfocan en las medidas y recursos para cuidar a los niños que deben ser separados de sus padres y son cuidados por familias acogedoras o en residencias, bajo la responsabilidad de la Administración autonómica.

A lo largo del año pasado, las quejas sobre servicios sociales y transparencia fueron las más numerosas, y se han incrementado considerablemente respecto a ejercicios anteriores. Tanto es así que las quejas relativas a Servicios Sociales que ha recibido el Síndic en 2024 ya suponen el 47, 91% del total.

Descoordinación y ausencia de prioridades en la respuesta a la Dana

El defensor autonómico, en el ejercicio de sus funciones, hubiera investigado cómo se gestionó la emergencia causada por la DANA, pero la Ley del Síndic no permite que intervenga si ya hay acciones judiciales en curso sobre el tema. Así pues, serán los juzgados y tribunales los encargados de decidir el alcance de las presuntas responsabilidades de cada administración, y de sus titulares, en la gestión de la catástrofe.

No obstante, quedan actuaciones e inactividades administrativas que deben ser analizadas por esta defensoría.  De hecho, en la reunión del Observatorio de la Infancia y Adolescencia del Síndic celebrada el 16 de diciembre de 2024, algunos trabajadores públicos y profesionales de diversos sectores asistentes manifestaron que la ausencia de riendas institucionales estaba provocando que se funcionara en el «caos». Miembros del Observatorio fueron contundentes al señalar que la falta de ordenación de las prioridades de intervención, y de las más elementales medidas de coordinación entre administraciones, estaban provocando la pérdida de eficacia de los considerables esfuerzos realizados.

Luna ha señalado que «la extrema polarización política que se ha instalado en nuestras instituciones resulta fatal en momentos en que se necesitan esfuerzos coordinados y generosos». La falta de coordinación entre administraciones, junto con una especie de carrera por visibilizar las diferentes ayudas, ha causado confusión y desasosiego en la ciudadanía, obligando a los afectados a lidiar con trámites innecesarios y contradictorios. «Es inaceptable que, en momentos de crisis, las administraciones no trabajen juntas de manera efectiva», afirma el defensor.

Casi todas las deficiencias que vienen impidiendo satisfacer el derecho a una buena administración se han hecho presentes en las actuaciones posteriores a la catástrofe. El Síndic entiende que la mejor respuesta a los daños provocados por la DANA pasa por aplicar el derecho a una buena administración en todas y cada una de las actuaciones que deben llevar a término los entes públicos.

El impacto de la Dana no puede hacer olvidar otros asuntos que han venido afectando al ejercicio de los derechos y libertades en la Comunitat Valenciana a lo largo del año 2024.

Una vez más, el Síndic incide en el derecho a una buena administración, que viene defendiendo desde que inició su mandato. «La buena administración es incompatible con la falta de respuesta, la motivación insuficiente y la inacción administrativa, que no sólo son ejemplos de mala administración, sino que suponen un incumplimiento de las obligaciones legales, pudiendo generar situaciones de grave indefensión a la ciudadanía», declara Ángel Luna.

En la inmensa mayoría de las quejas que presenta la ciudadanía, lo primero que se observa es la falta de respuesta de la Administración a sus peticiones. Este silencio crea inseguridad jurídica e indefensión moral, obligando a la persona afectada a recurrir a los tribunales en desventaja. Según la experiencia de esta institución, la falta de respuesta directa a una persona es la principal manera de violar su derecho a una buena administración.

Descomunal aumento de las quejas sobre dependencia

Por otra parte, cabe destacar el descomunal aumento de las quejas en materia de Servicios sociales, más del 49% respecto a 2023, especialmente en la gestión de la dependencia, diversidad funcional y renta valenciana de inclusión. El Síndic lleva pidiendo en los últimos años que se revisen estos procedimientos, pero no se han hecho cambios.

En concreto, en el año 2024 esta institución recibió 1.305 quejas derivadas de la deficiente tramitación de las prestaciones de dependencia, frente a las 697 del año anterior debido al mismo asunto. Este incremento “resulta absolutamente desmesurado”, declara Luna.

También la gestión de las valoraciones de discapacidad o diversidad funcional está provocando retrasos en el reconocimiento de derechos, vulnerando las leyes. De acuerdo con los datos facilitados por la propia Conselleria de Servicios Sociales, en el momento de redactar este Informe Anual los expedientes pendientes de resolver que han excedido el plazo legal para hacerlo superan los 50.000, en toda la Comunitat Valenciana. “Una cifra escandalosa”, apunta Luna. Dada la gravedad de la situación, el Síndic ha decidido abrir una queja de oficio sobre el tema, de la que se dará cuenta en el Informe Anual de 2025.

Estas tres materias, dependencia, discapacidad y renta valenciana de inclusión, resultan ser el paradigma de los derechos sociales, la conquista más importante del Estado social y democrático de derecho, alcanzada durante las últimas décadas.

Sin adecuada respuesta en Vivienda

Asimismo, es forzoso volver de nuevo al problema del acceso a una vivienda digna. El acceso a una vivienda digna es esencial para garantizar la mayoría de los derechos fundamentales, como esta institución ha repetido en numerosas ocasiones en sus resoluciones. Sin vivienda, estos derechos no son posibles.

Además, el Síndic censura el comportamiento de la administración autonómica, porque no está respondiendo adecuadamente a las quejas de la ciudadanía, ignorando sus obligaciones en materia de vivienda. “No responde a las recomendaciones que le formulamos ni, lo que es peor, a las personas afectadas.”

Evolución deplorable en Transparencia

Como ya hemos señalado, la segunda materia por número de quejas recibidas es la de Transparencia, que se han incrementado por encima del 43%.

La falta de transparencia responde a comportamientos injustificados y arbitrarios que afectan negativamente a la democracia y a la ciudadanía. La democracia se deteriora porque se impide la participación de todos los partidos y se evita la rendición de cuentas de las acciones de gobierno. Por su parte, la ciudadanía se siente decepcionada al ver que los partidos están más enfocados en sus luchas políticas que en resolver los problemas de las personas. Esto genera desafección hacia el sistema institucional y la actividad política.

Por otra parte, en los casos en que finalmente las administraciones responden, el derecho de acceso a la información pública pierde valor y utilidad si se producen retrasos en la entrega de la documentación solicitada.

Deficiencias en residencias de mayores

Por otra parte, existen otros problemas de la ciudadanía que el Síndic ha abordado durante 2024. Entre ellos, la atención residencial a la que tienen derecho las personas mayores. Cuando hay deficiencias en las infraestructuras y servicios, o cuando la Administración no actúa adecuadamente, se afecta el bienestar y las necesidades de estas personas. Muchas quejas señalan el deterioro de las instalaciones y el incumplimiento de los contratos, lo que deja a los mayores en una situación de vulnerabilidad y afecta a su salud y seguridad.

Demoras en la asistencia sanitaria

Asimismo, cabe señalar los retrasos en la asistencia sanitaria -en la realización de pruebas e intervenciones quirúrgicas y en la aplicación de tratamientos médicos- entre las quejas recibidas por el Síndic a lo largo de 2024 en materia de Sanidad, al igual que en años anteriores.