I. Verifications and measures undertaken by the People’s Advocate for the protection of elderly persons institutionalised in residential care centres

Abuse and ill-treatment in centres for elderly persons, including unauthorised or informal facilities

The People’s Advocate handled a number of cases involving the living conditions of beneficiaries accommodated in residential social care services, as well as the operation of unlicensed centres.

In the cases examined by the People’s Advocate, issues relating to accommodation conditions, the provision of medical care, the quality of food and the manner in which institutionalised persons were cared for were analysed, following both complaints and own initiative actions. In this context, specific measures were undertaken consisting of requesting the competent authorities vested with inspection and sanctioning powers to carry out verifications, in accordance with their legal competences.

Where necessary, the People’s Advocate ordered its own investigations in order to verify the reported issues, followed by notifications addressed to the competent authorities and, where appropriate, by the issuance of recommendations.

For example, at the Hotarele Residential Centre, Giurgiu County, deficiencies were identified regarding hygiene and medical care, consisting of the lack of hygiene products in sanitary facilities, the improper use of cleaning materials, the presence of insects, insufficient ventilation of rooms and the persistence of unpleasant odours. Following the investigation carried out, the People’s Advocate issued Recommendation No. 194/2025 to the management of the General Directorate for Social Assistance and Child Protection of Giurgiu County (DGASPC Giurgiu), requesting measures to improve the beneficiaries’ care and hygiene conditions, the assessment of beneficiaries’ health status, the provision of rehabilitation services and the possibility of daily bathing, the remedying of material and hygiene deficiencies, as well as the improvement of ventilation conditions and insect control.

Given the vulnerability of institutionalised persons, especially elderly persons and persons with disabilities, the police authorities and the prosecutor’s office were also notified in certain cases.

In most of the cases analysed, the People’s Advocate identified problems in residential centres for elderly persons and persons with disabilities, consisting of inadequate accommodation and hygiene conditions, deficiencies in the provision of food, a lack of qualified staff, as well as non-compliance with minimum quality standards and operational rules.

Other serious situations concerned overcrowding, as in the case of the “Casa cu Magnolii” centre in Giurgiu County, the use of non-compliant food products, including expired food, the lack of adequate medical care, as well as cases involving the severe deterioration of beneficiaries’ health conditions, including a suspicious death occurring in the context of inadequate care, in the case of a beneficiary accommodated in an illegal centre in Voluntari, Ilfov County. More specifically, in case file No. 6271/2025, the People’s Advocate initiated an own-initiative inquiry following press reports concerning an illegal centre for elderly persons in Voluntari, where social inspectors found several elderly persons living in precarious conditions, without documents attesting to the lawfulness of the centre’s operation, while one of the residents died on the way to hospital.

Furthermore, in the case of a centre in Ariceștii Rahtivani, Prahova County, unsafe food products, unsanitary conditions and deteriorated furniture were identified, while the activity of the food preparation unit was suspended, the non-compliant food products were destroyed and sanctions were imposed.

In some cases, breaches of the legal rules governing the operation of residential centres were identified, including sanitary non-compliance, for which sanctions were imposed and remedial measures ordered, while in other situations negligence in care, the absence of rehabilitation activities and deficiencies in respecting the rights of beneficiaries were identified.

Although some of the deficiencies were subsequently remedied and certain facilities either became compliant with legal requirements or implemented corrective measures, these cases consistently highlight systemic vulnerabilities concerning the protection of institutionalised persons and the need for stricter and continuous oversight by the competent authorities.

The analysis of the cases highlighted the need for constant monitoring of public and private residential centres, as well as the importance of firm intervention by the authorities, including not only inspections, but also the imposition of sanctions and the adoption of concrete protective measures. Such an approach contributes to improving living conditions and ensuring the effective protection of the rights of institutionalised persons.

II. Unauthorised residential centres and serious risks for vulnerable persons

A particularly worrying issue concerns the operation of unlicensed centres, a recurring problem generated by the increased demand for institutional care services and the insufficient response of the State.

In this context, certain entities resort to unlawful practices in order to avoid or simplify authorisation procedures, including situations in which social service providers altered their registered scope of activity so that residential care homes for elderly persons formally became accommodation facilities intended for residential use, rented to beneficiaries while, in parallel, care and supervision services continued to be provided outside the legal framework specifically applicable to social services, thereby endangering the beneficiaries’ safety, dignity, health and lives.

For example, in case file No. 39097/2025, the People’s Advocate found that a centre for elderly persons, and subsequently, following the commencement of the inspections, more than 40 such centres were identified, had formally changed its scope of activity and was operating through a structure of commercial companies combining the rental of accommodation spaces with the provision of care services outside the legal framework applicable to social services. In reality, the activity carried out was similar to that of a residential care centre for elderly persons, although the beneficiaries were accommodated on the basis of rental agreements. The authorities identified possible breaches of the law, including the filing of criminal complaints for the unlawful exercise of regulated activities. (...)

The Human Rights Ombudsman warns against the problematic practice of making hasty legislative amendments outside the regular legislative procedure, often without thorough analysis of the proposed changes. Dr Simona Drenik Bavdek, Human Rights Ombudswoman, expects the proportion of laws adopted under expedited or urgent legislative procedures, as well as so-called omnibus laws, to be lower during the new term of the National Assembly than in the previous mandate. Such a practice constitutes poor legislative drafting and subsequently requires numerous corrections and amendments, as it is insufficiently based on in-depth reflection and expert analysis. This approach undermines the rule of law and diminishes the democratic nature of the legislative process by reducing opportunities for experts and the public to participate in the legislative preparation process.

The Ombudsman notes that the National Assembly is already considering the proposed Act Amending the Parliamentary Inquiry Act. The amendment is being discussed under a shortened legislative procedure. As the proposed Act, among other things, interferes with the competences of the Ombudsman and other independent institutions, as well as the rights of potentially affected individuals and legal entities, the Ombudsman considers the shortened procedure inappropriate. This is because it prevents broader public debate, which is a prerequisite for the adoption of high-quality legislation through an inclusive democratic process.

The proposed amendment to Article 1.a of the Parliamentary Inquiry Act (ZPPre) restricts the current regulation so that constitutional review proceedings against an act ordering a parliamentary inquiry could, in future, only be initiated by the Judicial Council and the Prosecutor General, and only in relation to the independence of judges, the judiciary, and state prosecutors. This means that the list of authorised applicants would no longer include one-third of deputies, the Bank of Slovenia, the Human Rights Ombudsman, the Court of Audit and self-governing local communities, nor the person under investigation or other natural or legal persons under private law affected by the subject matter of the parliamentary inquiry.

The proposed amendment therefore limits the possibility of a constitutional review under Article 1.a of the ZPPre to cases where the Judicial Council and the Prosecutor General deem that an act ordering a parliamentary inquiry interferes with the independence of the judiciary or the prosecution service. Regarding these bodies, the Constitutional Court established in Decisions Nos. U-I-246/19 and U-I-214/19 that the ZPPre regulation was unconstitutional since it did not provide for judicial protection, a legal remedy, or another effective procedure to prevent an unconstitutional parliamentary inquiry. However, these decisions should not be understood to mean that only the judiciary and the prosecution service may have access to a constitutional legal remedy against an act ordering a parliamentary inquiry. To date, the Constitutional Court has only addressed the independence of judges and state prosecutors, as these were the specific subjects of the requests submitted by the Judicial Council and the Prosecutor General. Consequently, the proponents' reliance on existing constitutional case law to justify narrowing constitutional review in the proposed new Article 1.a, with regard to both the circle of potential applicants and the permissible grounds for challenging an act ordering a parliamentary inquiry, is unconvincing. Like the judiciary and the prosecution service, the Ombudsman and other independent supervisory institutions have a constitutionally grounded interest in safeguarding their independence. Yet the proposed amendment would deprive them of such protection in the context of parliamentary inquiries.

The Ombudsman believes that, by limiting the range of individuals entitled to request a constitutional review of an act ordering a parliamentary inquiry, the proposal significantly reduces the likelihood of determining whether the matter is of public importance before the parliamentary inquiry begins. It should be recalled that Article 93 of the Constitution provides that the National Assembly may order an inquiry only into matters of public importance. This means that a parliamentary inquiry which does not concern a matter of public importance cannot be consistent with the Constitution. However, the proposed regulation does not allow for such verification.

Furthermore, by depriving the person under investigation and others affected by the act ordering a parliamentary inquiry of a legal remedy against such an act, the proposal raises serious questions about its compatibility with Article 25 of the Constitution. These individuals would no longer have access to an effective legal remedy against an act of the National Assembly that would be available in advance of the parliamentary inquiry and have suspensive effect. The proposed amendment would also remove the restriction that prevents the National Assembly from appointing an inquiry commission before the Constitutional Court has ruled on the submitted request (currently set out in the fourth paragraph of Article 1.a of the ZPPre), and would abolish the Constitutional Court’s power to annul such an act (currently set out in the fifth paragraph of Article 1.a of the ZPPre).

Instead, the proposed amendment introduces the right of the person under investigation to bring an action in administrative litigation for violations of human rights or fundamental freedoms committed during the parliamentary inquiry (proposed Article 15.a). Such an action could be filed within eight days of the final report of the parliamentary inquiry commission being served. The Ombudsman notes that, pursuant to Article 25 of the Constitution, individuals must have the right to a legal remedy against decisions of state authorities affecting their rights, duties or legal interests. The constitutionally recognized right to a legal remedy therefore encompasses not only violations of human rights, but also violations of the broader sphere of rights, duties and legal interests. The Ombudsman also agrees with the Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly that the proposed judicial protection for the person under investigation would lower the existing standard of legal protection and that the newly envisaged judicial protection would be ineffective and unclear. This is because the person under investigation would not have a legal remedy at the time the parliamentary inquiry begins or during its course, but only after it concludes. In practice, this generally means only at the end of the National Assembly’s mandate, after the final report has been served, and even then only if the National Assembly adopts the final report. Experience shows, however, that final reports are often not adopted. If the National Assembly were not to adopt the report, the person under investigation would remain without judicial protection under the proposed Article 15.a.

Moreover, it remains unclear what powers the Administrative Court would have in such proceedings, or what the person under investigation could realistically achieve through this form of protection (presumably, only a declaration that certain human rights had been violated).

Furthermore, the Ombudsman adds that under the proposed Article 15.a, judicial protection would only be available to the person under investigation, whereas the granting of the status of person under investigation falls within the competence of the National Assembly commission itself (Article 7). No appeal or other legal remedy is available against the commission’s decision in this regard. Consequently, by deciding not to grant a particular person the status of person under investigation, the inquiry commission could restrict that person’s access to judicial protection before the Administrative Court. The European Commission has also consistently emphasized the importance of respecting the rule of law in the regulation and conduct of parliamentary inquiries in its annual Rule of Law Reports on Slovenia. In light of the serious concerns relating to the proposed amendments to the Parliamentary Inquiry Act, particularly the proposed new Articles 1.a and 15.a, the Ombudsman advises caution and calls on the National Assembly to examine the legislative proposal under the regular legislative procedure. The Ombudsman also calls for a democratic debate involving various professions and interested members of the public, since at least the aforementioned provisions raise serious concerns regarding their compatibility with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia.

Die Bundesagentur für Sprunginnovationen SPRIND und das Bundesministerium für Digitales und Staatsmodernisierung (BDSM) rufen ab sofort zum Bürger-Hackathon auf.

Denn Deutschland kann mehr – aber zu oft verlieren wir Zeit und Energie an unnötig komplizierte Prozesse. Der Bürger-Hackathon setzt genau hier an: bei den echten Problemen der Menschen. Er übersetzt Frust in Fokus – und Fokus in konkrete Lösungen, die tatsächlich entwickelt und umgesetzt werden. Der Hackathon beginnt dort, wo es wirklich weh tut – im Alltag der Menschen und Unternehmen. Damit die Zukunft wieder groß gedacht werden kann.

Auch die Bürgerbeauftragte findet dies eine tolle Möglichkeit sich aktiv einzubringen und möchte Menschen dazu auffordern sich am Bürger-Hackathon zu beteiligen. "Nur wenn wir unseren Beitrag leisten und auf Fehler oder schlechte Prozesse hinweisen kann sich etwas verändern." so Böhlen. 

Hier kommen Sie zum Bürger-Hackathon.

El síndic de Greuges de la Comunitat Valenciana, Ángel Luna, ha reprochado a la Conselleria de Vivienda, Empleo, Juventud e Igualdad la demora injustificada en resolver y abonar una ayuda al alquiler correspondiente a la convocatoria de 2021, pese a que la propia administración reconoció errores en la tramitación y aseguró que procedería al pago.

La resolución parte de la queja presentada por una ciudadana que, casi cuatro años después de solicitar la ayuda, seguía sin ver finalizada la tramitación del expediente ni percibir cantidad alguna, pese a que la propia administración había reconocido errores en la tramitación y había estimado el recurso presentado por la interesada.

Luna recuerda que ya había intervenido en este mismo asunto a raíz de una queja anterior y que la Conselleria aceptó entonces sus recomendaciones, comunicando que había estimado el recurso de la interesada y ordenado retrotraer el expediente para corregir el error detectado en la tramitación. Sin embargo, la afectada volvió a acudir al Síndic al comprobar que, pese a ese reconocimiento expreso, la ayuda seguía sin pagarse.

El Síndic subraya que las ayudas al alquiler cumplen una función esencial para prevenir situaciones de vulnerabilidad y exclusión social: los gastos asociados a la vivienda pueden empujar a la pobreza incluso a familias con ingresos regulares, un fenómeno conocido como “pobreza inducida por la vivienda”. En este contexto, el Síndic insiste en que estas ayudas deben llegar a quienes más las necesitan, y que tramitarlas y abonarlas con prontitud es una obligación irrenunciable de la administración.

Por ello, el Síndic recomienda a la Conselleria que resuelva inmediatamente el expediente, abone sin más demora las cantidades reconocidas e investigue las disfunciones internas que han provocado este retraso, adoptando medidas para evitar que situaciones similares vuelvan a repetirse.

Consulta la resolución del Síndic sobre este asunto.

Support for human rights systems and defenders

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) will move to its new climate-friendly headquarters on 1 June 2026. FRA's new premises are located at Rennweg 12 in Vienna, in a building shared with the European Patent Office (EPO).

FRA’s new building meets the highest standards of sustainability, resource conservation, and energy efficiency. It holds three awards for its sustainable renovation concluded in June 2025. The building is also fully accessible for people with disabilities.

From 1 June 2026, FRA's address for visits and postal correspondence is:

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) 
Rennweg 12 
1030 Vienna 
Austria

For general enquiries, FRA remains reachable via the online contact form. Information for visitors, including directions for how to reach the building, is available in the FRA visitors' guides at www.fra.europa.eu/contact.

The move underlines FRA’s commitment to future-oriented and climate‑responsible operations. We look forward to welcoming stakeholders and partners to our new headquarters.