Chief Ombudsman Mr. Mehmet Akarca, Ombudsman Mr. Şerif Yılmaz, and Secretary General of the Ombudsman Institution Mr. Mehmet Doğan met with the public within the scope of the “Ombudsman Meets the Public in Niğde” program.

The program was attended by the Governor of Niğde, Mr. Nedim Akmeşe, the Mayor of Niğde, Mr. Emrah Özdemir, the Rector of Niğde Ömer Halisdemir University, Prof. Dr. Mr. Hasan Uslu, directors of public institutions, representatives of civil society organizations, and numerous citizens.

In his speech, Mr. Akarca stated, “We are in Niğde to listen directly to our citizens, to see the problems they experience with public administrations firsthand, and to develop solutions together. The Ombudsman Institution is the voice of the citizens. It is a constitutional body affiliated with the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye. It examines all acts and actions of public administrations. It does so with an understanding of justice based on human rights. Our objective is clear: to protect rights, eliminate injustice, and strengthen good administration.”

Emphasizing that they oversee the functioning of public administrations in terms of law, fairness, and justice, Mr. Akarca stated, “Justice cannot be reduced solely to rules. It must also satisfy the conscience. Therefore, fairness review is of great importance. Fairness is a balancing mechanism. We bear the responsibility of being the voice of public conscience.”

Mr. Akarca also noted that children can lodge complaints with the Ombudsman Institution, stating, “Children under the age of 18 can lodge complaints without the consent of their parents. Of course, the complainant must exhaust all administrative remedies before lodging a complaint. They must first present their request to the administration. If the request is rejected or not satisfactorily addressed, a complaint can be lodged to us within six months. The applicant must also have a direct interest in the matter. In some cases, a single application can resolve the issue of up to one million people, completely free of charge.”

The Governor of Niğde, Mr. Nedim Akmeşe, also delivered a speech at the program.

Martedì 20 maggio, in mattinata, presso il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza Unimore di Modena, è in programma un incontro sull'amministrazione condivisa dei beni comuni.
Ad aprire i lavori, il Difensore civico Guido Giusti. La partecipazione è libera.

Intervengono anche, tra gli altri, Marina Evangelisti, Professore di Diritto Romano, Fabio Giglioni, Professore di Diritto Amministrativo e pubblico, Nicoletta Levi, Servizio Comunicazione, Partecipazione e Innovazione sociale del Comune di Reggio Emilia, Marina Caporale, Professore di Diritto Amministrativo e pubblico, UNIMORE.

🗓️ Martedì 20 maggio 2026

🕤 Ore 9.30 – 13.00

📍 Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza UNIMORE – Modena

💻 Partecipazione libera anche online

 Il seminario è promosso nell’ambito del progetto di Public Engagement dedicato ai modelli e ai vantaggi dell’amministrazione condivisa per le comunità locali.

 Il programma (pdf, 319.3 KB)

Summary of the decision: In the course of the parliamentary Ombudsman’s supervision, it has become apparent that the views of district courts and chief guardians differ on the question of whether chief guardians are obliged to assist the courts with supporting documentation in actions to end administration. In this case, the Parliamentary Ombudsman has investigated whether chief guardians have such an obligation.

In the opinion of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, it is not self-evident that under applicable law chief guardians are obliged to submit a report concerning such actions when injuncted to do so by the district court. The relevant provisions of the Children and Parents Code (SFS 1949:381) are not entirely clear on the matter, nor does the legislative history or the Supreme Court’s case law explicitly support such an interpretation. That said, the Parliamentary Ombudsman believes that there are compelling reasons for chief guardians to comply with any such injunction from the court.

She also states that the difference of opinions between chief guardians and district courts on this matter may prolong proceedings and cause other problems that will ultimately be to the detriment of the individual. Moreover, when an administrative authority does not feel able to comply with a court injunction, it may have a negative impact on public confidence in both the courts and other authorities. In light of this, the Parliamentary Ombudsman finds reason to raise the matter of amending legislation with the Government.

In her decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman also makes certain statements concerning the obligation of administrative authorities to comply with court rulings and injunctions.

The Commissioner for Education, Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent A. De Gaetano, was one of two keynote speakers at a training session for social and mental health professionals held on Tuesday 21 April 2026 at the Malta Hilton. 

The meeting was jointly organised by the European Institute for Professional Development together with the Malta Association of Psychotherapists and focussed on the function and role of these professionals when taking the witness stand in a court of law, and the difficulties they generally face.

The event brought together a diverse audience of psychotherapists, psychologists, social workers, probation and parole officers, counsellors and other practitioners working across vocational and humanitarian sectors.

Chief Justice De Gaetano tackled the theme of the conference from the angle of when these operatives are appointed as court experts, or otherwise give evidence as experts, while Advocate Franklin Calleja covered more generally the practical aspects of taking the witness stand.

The Session offered participants an opportunity to explore the role of court-appointed experts within the justice system, with particular focus on the responsibilities, ethical duties, procedural expectations and professional standards attached to such appointments and to taking the stand generally. It also encouraged reflection on the significance of expert contribution to the judicial process and the need for clarity, impartiality and professionalism when giving evidence.