According to the assessment of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman), by adopting an amendment to the ordinance that, among other things, regulates the extension of the operating hours of catering establishments, the Municipality of Novo Mesto violated Paragraph 3 of Article 153 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, according to which, implementing regulations and other general acts must be in accordance with the Constitution and laws. Namely, by referring to the Decree on Events, the Municipality of Novo Mesto arbitrarily allowed itself a significantly higher level of noise, which caterers were still allowed to cause in accordance with the Decree on Noise. The Ombudsman informed the Municipality of Novo Mesto of its opinion, but since the Municipality of Novo Mesto rejected it, the Ombudsman proposed that the Ministry of the Environment, Climate and Energy (MOPE) carry out an inspection. MOPE agreed with the Ombudsman's assessment and ordered the Municipality of Novo Mesto to repeal the illegal provision of the Ordinance, which the Municipality of Novo Mesto finally carried out – albeit with a significant delay.

The Ombudsman considered the complaint of a resident of the Municipality of Novo Mesto alleging that the Municipality of Novo Mesto had exceeded the powers granted to it under the Hospitality Act (ZGos) and the associated “Rules on the criteria for determining the operating hours of catering establishments and farms where catering activities are carried out” (the Rules). The complainant highlighted two aspects or complaints against the conduct of the Municipality of Novo Mesto. According to him, with the adoption of the “Ordinance on amendments and supplements to the Ordinance on the criteria for issuing permits for operation during extended operating hours to catering establishments and farms where catering activities are carried out in the area of ​​the City Municipality of Novo Mesto” (the Ordinance) in 2021, residents of the Municipality of Novo Mesto were deprived of the protection of their rights due to the lack of the possibility of effective legal protection. According to the complainant, the time from 10pm to midnight was determined by the amendment to the Ordinance as regular operating hours, which the caterer merely reports to the municipality. In his opinion, this is not an administrative procedure in which individuals with a demonstrated legal interest could participate, as was the case when operating hours in this interval could only be extended on the basis of a specific application and assessment of an individual case. At the same time, the Ministry of the Interior also criticised that the fact that the aforementioned Ordinance, in which it referred to the “Regulation on the method of using sound devices that cause noise at gatherings and events” (Regulation on Events), unacceptably lowered the level of noise protection, which is otherwise primarily prescribed by limit values ​​under the “Regulation on limit values ​​of noise indicators in the environment” (Regulation on Noise).

Regarding the allegation of denial of legal protection based on the amended Ordinance, the Ombudsman contacted the Ministry of the Economy, Tourism and Sports (MGTŠ) and also the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia with an inquiry. Based on the explanations received, the Ombudsman assessed that when interpreting the question of which type of administrative procedure, i.e. whether it would be most appropriate to conduct an abbreviated or special administrative procedure from the perspective of implementing all principles of administrative procedure and their mutual balancing, different interpretations are possible. In the Ombudsman's opinion, an unambiguous answer to this question, on which the actual scope of available legal remedies and their actual effectiveness also depend, can only be given by the Administrative Court of the Republic of Slovenia in the event of disagreement with an individual decision (consent), and with regard to the possible constitutionality of the Rules and the ZGos, only by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, the intervention of which is generally only considered if legal remedies against individual legal acts based on disputed general legal acts have been exhausted. The Ombudsman referred the complainant to the use of the available legal remedies in this regard.

Regarding the inappropriate reference of the municipal Ordinance to the Ordinance on Events, the Ombudsman, after examining the applicable regulation, was able to agree with the complainant's complaints. The Ombudsman addressed its opinion to the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia in this regard, expecting that the established unconstitutionality would be eliminated. Since the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia did not agree with the Ombudsman's opinion, the Ombudsman proposed to the competent Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia to carry out supervision or take action, as provided for in the State Administration Act (ZDU-1) in relation to local community bodies. The Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia followed the Ombudsman's proposal and called on the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia to repeal the illegal provision of the Ordinance within 30 days or at the next session of the municipal council and to bring it into line with applicable legislation and relevant regulations. On 6 February 2025, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia finally (albeit with a significant delay) followed the call of the Ministry of the Interior by adopting the Ordinance on Amendments and Supplements to the “Ordinance on the criteria for issuing approvals for extended operating hours to catering establishments and farms providing catering services in the area of ​​the Municipality of Novo Mesto (Ordinance 2025), and published it on 12 February 2025 in the Dolenjska Uradni List No. 3/25, thereby harmonising the aforementioned Ordinance 2025 with regulations in the field of environmental protection from noise.

In this case, the Ombudsman considered the intervention successful and the complaint well-founded.17.0-1/2023

The Commissioner participated in the European Dialogue on Internet Governance, which had the overarching theme: “Safeguarding human rights by balancing regulation and innovation”. Below is the published version of his introductory remarks.

“Dear Ministers, dear Secretary General of EuroDIG, dear friends,

last Saturday, we watched as the newly elected Pope explained why he had chosen the name Leo. He made reference to a predecessor of his, Leo XIII, and explained that that Pope had carried out his tasks in the context of the First Great Industrial Revolution and now he, Leo XIV, must respond to another great industrial revolution, the revolution on artificial intelligence (AI).

In other words, he must engage the challenges of, and I quote, “human dignity, justice and labour”. Now, Pope Leo has his faith-based tools to engage these great issues of society and we also have our tools. Above all, we have the toolbox of human rights, the toolbox of the great laws and institutions which we have so carefully crafted since the Second World War.

A starting assumption when I make that statement is that we already have a lot of guidance in terms of the operation of the internet and of artificial intelligence. We have multiple treaties negotiated over years, all of which are binding on states. We have at the national level many instruments and bodies already in place to provide guidance in these contexts.

We have privacy laws. We have the operation of privacy oversight bodies. In the EU, there is the GDPR.

And even in the private sector, we have considerable existing human rights guidance for how business should do its work in every sector. I think above all else, of the United Nations' Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. So, we are not operating in some kind of a legal terra nullius.

But of course, we have long recognised that we do need dedicated instruments to regulate the specific context of the internet and artificial intelligence. That is the frame in which we have seen at least three very important initiatives.

The first is the negotiation in this house of the AI Framework Convention.

Then, in the EU setting, there is the EU AI Act and the Digital Services Act.

But before I go any further in praising such instruments, I have to engage the challenge behind the title for our conference, as previous speakers have done as well.

There is increasingly loud rhetoric out there in society that somehow regulation gets in the way of innovation and the time has come to talk less about regulation and more about innovation. There is a context for all of this that somehow Europe lags behind the rest of the world. It is suggested that if it was not so besotted with regulation, it would be so much more successful.

I take the opportunity this afternoon to refute that assertion. Let me give you four reasons.

The first is that our states have a duty to keep us safe. It is as simple as that. Wherever there is risk, our states have an obligation, be it under international human rights law or be it under any other body of law, to protect us.

They must protect us in the context of the areas we are discussing today, as with any other.

Second, it is not just about protection. It is also about my conviction that safe technology is more trustworthy technology and more trustworthy technology ultimately will win out, including commercially. I am confident of this, perhaps not immediately, perhaps not even in the medium term, but in the longer term. The safer the technology, the more the pickup and the application and the use across the world.

Third, the assumption that somehow we lag behind in Europe because of regulation is most loudly proclaimed by those who clearly pay no attention to the content of the regulation, because the principal European instruments are subtle, nimble and well attuned and full of the nuance necessary to avoid the risk of stifling innovation.

Take the Council of Europe AI Framework Convention. The Framework Convention contains very powerful, important, essential principles, but then leaves a wide margin to states in how to actually deliver them, how to implement them, how to convert them into national regulation. That is not a stifling of innovation. That is a promoting of innovation.

Look also at the AI Act of the European Union with its so-called risk pyramid. The risk pyramid is a very deliberately, carefully and smartly designed method whereby most AI will not fall under a strict external oversight. Rather, its safety will be determined by self-regulation.

The fourth and the final of my reasons to refute these claims is because I simply do not buy into the zero-sum game, the idea that more regulation in Europe stifles European innovation and so forth. And I am very glad that recent academic research supports me in this regard.

I am particularly impressed by an important article published by Professor Anu Bradford of Columbia University just last year. She gave five reasons of why Europe lags behind in innovation.

First, she mentioned the absence in the EU of a digital single market.

Second, she pointed to the European reality that we have shallow and fragmented capital markets. You cannot get the money to do the research.

Third, she mentioned how in Europe many countries have punitive bankruptcy laws which make industry reluctant to engage on risk.

Fourth, she spoke to a more general cultural risk aversion on this continent, quite at odds with the culture of, let us say, the United States.

Fifth, she referred to how we limit immigration into our countries and how that impedes access to the global talent market and leads to skills deficit.

Again, her assertion is that these five reasons are the base for Europe lagging behind, not regulation.

So, my friends, as I wrap up these remarks, what I would call on us to do is not waste time on a regulation versus innovation reflection. Get rid of the zero-sum game approach and let's focus instead on getting the best possible regulation.

I will name just briefly six things we can do now.

One is to get the Framework Convention ratified, get the sufficient number of ratifications in place so that it can come into force.

Secondly, let's make sure that the EU does not lose its nerve. Let's make sure that it insists on full enforcement of the Digital Services Act.

Third, as we move along the pathway to the coming into force in the EU of the AI Act, let's make sure that it is set up both at the EU level and at the EU member state level and whereby it will genuinely protect all of our human rights.

Fourth, we need to support the private sector to do its own self-regulation in the regulatory context. One obvious need is to fill the space with codes of practice. It is already happening, but more is needed.

Fifth, we need smart, clever human rights assessment tools to be used both for regulation, external and self-regulation. I would like to join with the Secretary General and other speakers in a shout out for the HUDERIA tool, which I believe is groundbreaking and will be of great importance.

Sixth and final of my observations about regulation is that it is not finished. We now have to confront artificial general intelligence and artificial superintelligence.

I suspect that our current regulatory models will need to be further supplemented. So, the examination of where we need to go next is no less an important one as how we deliver what we have now.

As we engage these issues, let us again, if I may paraphrase Professor Bradford, let's recalibrate the debate.

Let's avoid the false choice between tech regulation and tech innovation. Let us show how we can and must have both.

Thank you very much."

• Download the speech - CommHR(2025)29

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, se ha reunido este martes en la sede de la institución con representantes de asociación vecinales de Cañada Real Galiana: Asociación de Vecinos Sector V, AMAL y TABADOL. Al encuentro asistieron Houda Akrikez y Gladys Zambrana.

Vecinos de la Cañada llevan sin suministro eléctrico más de cuatro años. En este tiempo, el Defensor del Pueblo ha formulado diversas recomendaciones para intentar acabar con la situación de emergencia que vive este asentamiento poblacional ubicado a pocos kilómetros del centro de Madrid.

Ángel Gabilondo ha insistido en varias ocasiones en la necesidad de que las administraciones implicadas trabajen de manera conjunta para resolver este problema que afecta, entre otros, a  cientos de menores y personas mayores. “Esto no es sostenible y no es digno que ocurra. Se trata de una emergencia humanitaria que requiere una solución urgente”.

En el transcurso de la reunión se abordó la posibilidad de compartir las recomendaciones del informe que está elaborando el Comité de Derechos Sociales del Consejo de Europa, acerca de la situación en Cañada Real, cuando éstas se hagan públicas.

En el encuentro también han participado la adjunta segunda del Defensor del Pueblo, Patricia Bárcena, y el director del Área de Economía y Hacienda, Pedro Baena.

Il Difensore civico della Provincia autonoma di Trento avvia la serie di confronti dal titolo "Voci in ascolto. Il Difensore Civico si racconta", con un'intervista pubblicata sul sito del Coordinamento dei Difensori civici region​​ali e delle Province autonome​.

Il Difensore civico ha evidenziato che il suo ruolo è quello di garantire che ogni cittadino possa far valere i propri diritti nei confronti della Pubblica Amministrazione, favorendo il dialogo e risolvendo le controversie con spirito costruttivo. Tra i casi più frequenti si trovano richieste di accesso agli atti e problematiche legate all’edilizia popolare. Ogni segnalazione ha il suo peso, soprattutto quando riguarda ​situazioni di possibile abuso da parte delle amministrazioni. Il lavoro del Difensore civico si svolge innanzitutto attraverso il contatto diretto con le persone, ma anche attraverso la promozione della difesa civica tramite il proprio sito istituzionale, il materiale informativo, gli incontri sul territorio, i media, sia televisivi, che la carta stampata.​​​​​ Il servizio offerto è gratuito e aperto a tutti. 

Secondo l'avv. Bernardi la più grande soddisfazione è quella di dare risposte concrete, soprattutto a chi si sente solo e inascoltato. Le parole chiave del suo approccio sono reciprocità e ascolto. Anche fuori dall’orario di lavoro, il suo pensiero va spesso ai casi aperti: studio, riflessione e attenzione sono parte integrante dell’impegno. 

Alla fine del mandato, riferisce il Difensore civico, ciò che resterà più impresso sarà il contatto umano con i cittadini e la consapevolezza di aver dato voce a chi altrimenti non ne avrebbe avuta.

​L'intervista completa è accessibile al seguente link: https://www.coordifesacivicaitalia.it/?p=1749​

Wenn Sie Vorgaben der Behörden als überflüssige Bürokratie empfinden, ein Antrag aus Ihrer Sicht einen übermäßigen Aufwand erfordert oder sonstige Hinweise zum Abbau von Bürokratie geben wollen, können Sie den Bürokratiemelder, der von der neuen Landesregierung eingerichtet worden ist, nutzen.

Sie erreichen den Bürokratiemelder unter https://thueringen.de/normenkontrollrat