Summary of the decision: In the decision, the Parliamentary Ombudsman expresses an opinion on the interpreting of supervised visits to the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s secure units when the conversation cannot be conducted in a language staff understand. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has no objection to visits being primarily supervised by prison staff with relevant language skills. However, in her opinion, this must not mean that, in practice, approved contact for an inmate of the secure unit who speaks a language other than Swedish with their friends and family is restricted.

Hall Prison’s previous procedure was that it would never employ external interpreters when inmates on the secure unit had visitors. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, there were no legal grounds for this procedure and the arrangement clearly meant that an inmate’s right to contact with friends and family was dependent on which language they spoke. She is highly critical of this.

In the case in question, this procedure meant that an inmate was granted visitor permits on a condition that could not be fulfilled. Moreover, it was more than two years until he could receive visits, something that only occurred after the Parliamentary Ombudsman had commenced her review. According to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the prison is deserving of severe criticism for its processing of the individual’s visits. She also expresses criticism of how the prison dealt with the inmate’s repeated questions concerning how he could go about actually arranging visits from his family.

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) as a national human rights institution (NHRI) once again participated this year in the preparation of the joint report of the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) on the state of the rule of law in the European Union, which contains reports from national human rights institutions from 27 European Union Member States. The report draws attention to serious and long-standing challenges regarding the independence of institutions, freedom of the media, the position of civil society, and the implementation of judgments of the European Courts.

In its national contribution, the Ombudsman highlights several systemic problems that affect the effective protection of human rights and respect for the rule of law. The report, among other things, highlights the challenges regarding the planned changes and amendments to the Human Rights Ombudsman Act. This should strengthen institutional independence, expand powers (e.g. to the areas of disability, trafficking in human beings, the Childrens' Ombudsman, public services), and enable compliance with the United Nations Paris Principles on the Status of National Human Rights Institutions and the recommendations of the Accreditation Committee of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI). The Ombudsman is scheduled to undergo a review of its accreditation status in April next year.

In its current report, the Ombudsman highlights the lack of effective response by state authorities to the Ombudsman's recommendations, especially in the case of structural changes such as deinstitutionalisation, healthcare, or the rights of persons with disabilities. The Ombudsman also noted in the report that in practice it is often not involved in the initial stages of legislation preparation, even when it directly affects the Ombudsman's competence (e.g. the proposal for a new Media Act). The Ombudsman also reiterates the recommendation that institutions and groups directly affected by the proposals be involved in all stages of legislation preparation and that each legislative proposal also includes a human rights impact assessment.

Regarding the violation of the right to a fair trial and an impartial tribunal, the Ombudsman highlights the importance of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of X and Others v. Slovenia (2024), where the court found systemic irregularities in the allocation of court cases and thus a violation of the right to a legally established court, the principle of the natural judge and the right to private and family life due to irregularities in the allocation of court cases. In addition, the Ombudsman calls on the authorities in the report to fully and consistently implement the judgment. In the report, the Ombudsman also specifically highlights the lengthy court proceedings at the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia. The Ombudsman calls on the authorities to adopt organisational, personnel, and legislative measures to eliminate the backlog in the court and reiterates the recommendation to the courts to conduct the proceedings without undue delays and within the statutory deadlines. The Ombudsman also expresses the expectation for the timely and effective transposition of the EU Directive on the Prevention of Abuse of Judicial Proceedings (SLAPP).

In their report, ENNHRI and the Human Rights Ombudsman recommend, among other things, that the Slovenian authorities:

·        adopt a legal framework to protect human rights defenders and adopt appropriate legislation to combat SLAPP lawsuits.

·        ensure an effective institutional response to the Ombudsman's findings and recommendations, particularly in the areas of health, social services and justice.

·        strengthen respect for media freedom and the legal framework for preventing hate speech in a manner that respects international and European human rights standards.

·        ensure greater involvement of non-governmental organisations, the academic community, and independent institutions in the preparation of action reports and plans for the implementation of judgments of the European courts and ensuring their accessibility.

·        ensure that the Ombudsman be allocated appropriate staff reinforcements and financial resources in the event of an expansion of the Ombudsman's powers.

The ENNHRI report highlights a number of common trends and challenges in EU Member States, including Slovenia. Only 20 Member States have a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) with so-called A-status under the Paris Principles. The report also states that as many as a quarter of national human rights institutions have been the target of threats, discrediting, or attacks in the last year, indicating a decline in respect for independent institutions in Europe. The space for civil society and human rights defenders to operate in the EU also continues to shrink, while protection mechanisms for them in most countries are non-existent or ineffective. The report also finds that media freedom is under pressure in many EU countries, due to threats to journalists, SLAPP lawsuits, political interference in public media, and the spread of disinformation. In an increasing number of EU countries, national institutions perceive slow and incomplete implementation of judgments of European courts, in particular those of the ECHR, which undermines the principles of the rule of law.

The ENNHRI report on the state of the rule of law in the EU and its Member States for 2025 is available in English here, and the Ombudsman's national report on the state of the rule of law in Slovenia is available here.

On May 8-9, 2025, Irine Chikhladze, Deputy Public Defender of Georgia, participated in the Leadership Hub meeting of the European Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet) held in Palermo (Italy).

The meeting discussed the challenges and threats facing organizations working on equality issues and their leaders.

The event was organized by Equinet and the Italian National Office Against Racial Discrimination (UNAR).

Il Presidente del Coordinamento nazionale dei Difensori civici italiani, Marino Fardelli, è stato audito giovedì 15 maggio 2025 presso la Commissione parlamentare per la semplificazione, nell’ambito dell’indagine conoscitiva su “Strumenti per migliorare la pubblica amministrazione a vantaggio di cittadini e imprese”.

Un’occasione di rilievo istituzionale che ha dato pieno riconoscimento al ruolo svolto dai Difensori civici regionali e delle Province autonome come interfaccia diretta tra cittadini e amministrazioni.
Un passaggio significativo che conferma l’importanza del Coordinamento nazionale come punto di riferimento autorevole per l’ascolto delle istanze provenienti dal territorio.

Nel suo intervento, il Presidente Fardelli ha evidenziato tre priorità condivise dal Coordinamento:

1. Semplificazione come accesso concreto ai diritti;
2. Digitalizzazione inclusiva, attenta alle fragilità;
3. Rafforzamento istituzionale del Difensore civico come presidio stabile di garanzia e monitoraggio civico.

«Ogni giorno – ha sottolineato Fardelli – i Difensori civici ricevono migliaia di segnalazioni da cittadini che si scontrano con silenzi, ritardi e complicazioni evitabili. Rendere la Pubblica Amministrazione più semplice, accessibile e umana è una scelta politica di civiltà».

Un riferimento importante è stato dedicato al ruolo del Mediatore europeo e al messaggio recentemente espresso dal Presidente della Repubblica Sergio Mattarella, che ha richiamato la necessità di istituzioni capaci di proteggere i cittadini nei confronti dell’apparato amministrativo.

 Per rivedere i lavori della Commissione:
 https://webtv.camera.it/evento/28121

 Scarica il testo integrale dell’intervento del Presidente Marcello Cocco:
 audizione commissione semplificazione_15 maggio 2025 1

El pasado 24 de marzo entregué al Presidente de las Cortes y pusimos a disposición de sus Señorías el Informe correspondiente a la actividad desarrollada por el Procurador del Común durante el año 2024, Informe elaborado en cumplimiento de lo previsto en el artículo 31 de la ley reguladora de la Institución; y comparezco ahora ante ustedes para dar cuenta, a modo de resumen, del trabajo que hemos realizado el pasado año, conforme ordena el artículo 32 del mismo texto legal

Como en años anteriores, también en 2024 hemos recibido algunas quejas que denominamos múltiples, concretamente 8, que como he indicado en anteriores comparecencias, cada una de ellas se refiere a un asunto diferente, pero han sido presentadas por una pluralidad de personas, de manera que cada queja múltiple computa a efectos estadísticos como una única queja, pese a que tramitemos tantos expedientes como personas la hubieran presentado.

Realizada esta aclaración, seguidamente expondré los datos generales que, en una primera aproximación, permitan conocer la actividad desarrollada por la Institución a lo largo del pasado año. Pues bien, de acuerdo con el criterio a que acabo de hacer referencia, hemos recibido 1.918 quejas, que han dado lugar a la tramitación de 2.129 expedientes.

Derivadas tanto de expedientes de queja, como de actuaciones de oficio, a fecha de 31 de diciembre de 2024 habíamos dictado un total de 1.693 resoluciones. De las cuales, en 198 motivamos el archivo de los expedientes al no haber apreciado ninguna irregularidad en la actuación de las administraciones o entidades públicas correspondientes; en cambio, en 1.495 resoluciones efectuamos recomendaciones, recordatorios de deberes legales o sugerencias a las administraciones o entidades públicas a las que nos dirigimos.

(...)