El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, se ha reunido hoy en la sede de la institución con representantes de la Plataforma Cívica Luz Ya en Cañada Real.

En el encuentro han abordado asuntos concretos en los que se ven afectados derechos y que obedecen a necesidades de la vida cotidiana de los residentes en Cañada Real Galiana.

Ángel Gabilondo ha reiterado en numerosas ocasiones que no hay justificación a la falta de suministro eléctrico en la Cañada Real Galiana.  “Esto no es sostenible y no es digno que ocurra. Se trata de una emergencia humanitaria que requiere una solución urgente”.

En los más de cuatro años que lleva sin luz parte de Cañada Real, el Defensor del Pueblo ha formulado diversas recomendaciones para tratar de contribuir a resolver la esta situación que afecta a algunas áreas de Cañada Real Galiana.

En la reunión mantenida hoy lunes han participado el ex comisionado de la Cañada Real en el Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Pedro Navarrete; el abogado del Centro de Asesoría y Estudios Sociales (CAES), Javier Rubio; la jurista, María López de la Usada; el secretario de Políticas Sociales y Diversidad de CCOO Madrid, Manuel Rodríguez, así como  vecinos y vecinas de Cañada Real Galiana (Sara Taoumi, Mohamed El Hahaoui, Carlos Mateo y Teresa Panduro).

Concepción Gimeno ha inaugurado la Jornada de Justicia Social organizada por la Universidad San Jorge con motivo del Día Mundial

La justicia de Aragón, Concepción Gimeno, ha inaugurado la VI Jornada de Justicia Social que ha organizado con motivo del Día Mundial la Facultad de Comunicación y Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad San Jorge (USJ). En su discurso, ha destacado que la accesibilidad, la cercanía y la sensibilidad de la institución, así como el uso de un derecho vivo, contribuyen de manera esencial a la justicia social.

En la jornada intervinieron la secretaria general de Cáritas España, Natalia Peiró; el director estatal de Inclusión Social de Cruz Roja España, Ramón Jané y el coordinador de Aragón de la Asociación Estatal de Directores y Gerentes de Servicios Sociales, Gustavo García. Por último, la cita fue clausurada por la directora general de Inclusión Social y Voluntariado del Gobierno de Aragón, María Charte.

The Commissioner for Education, Chief Justice Emeritus Vincent De Gaetano, was invited for an interview with Prof. Andrew Azzopardi on RTK, where he provided insights into his role, the responsibilities of the Office of the Ombudsman, and the challenges faced in ensuring good governance in the education sector.

During the discussion, the Commissioner explained that his primary function is to investigate complaints related to maladministration in further and higher education. However, he also looks into cases related to state-provided education whenever assigned by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. He also has the authority to conduct own-initiative investigations on systemic issues after consulting with the Ombudsman.

The Commissioner emphasised the independence and autonomy of Commissioners within the Office of the Ombudsman, explaining that each Commissioner operates independently in conducting investigations, ensuring that every case is handled with impartiality and diligence.

He highlighted the importance of clear communication between the public administration and the public. In his experience, individuals often seek explanations rather than a simple ruling of right or wrong. He pointed out that one of the failings of public administration is the lack of proper explanation of decisions, even when these decisions are correct. This, he said, runs counter to the principles of open governance and transparency.

The Commissioner noted that the work of his Office does not end with the conclusion of an investigation. Just like the Ombudsman, he ensures that recommendations are followed up, and if they remain unimplemented, the report is escalated to the Prime Minister. Should there still be no action, the case is sent to Parliament, making it public.

When asked whether investigations are conducted within a fixed timeframe, the Commissioner explained that while there is no strict deadline, cases are handled as efficiently as possible. He stressed that meticulous investigations require thorough examination, but many cases are resolved informally without the need for a full investigation. He opined that provided that an institution, like the Ombudsman’s Office, has the means to prevent the complainant or the respondent entity from unnecessarily delaying an investigation, then setting statutory time limits would be wrong in principle.

The confidentiality of investigations was another key point discussed. The Commissioner reassured that all cases are handled privately, and all information gathered is protected by secrecy laws to ensure trust and fairness in the process.

Finally, the interview touched upon ways to strengthen the Ombudsman’s remit. The Commissioner discussed the proposal to expand the Ombudsman’s role to include the promotion and protection of human rights, allowing the institution to be recognised as Malta’s National Human Rights Institution (NHRI).

During January, our SWF team

• responded to 72 enquiries
• made 57 decisions
  • 30 community care grants
  • 27 crisis grants
• upheld 23 (77% of) of community care grants and 3 (11% of) of crisis grants
• signposted an additional 61 applicants to other sources of assistance. 77% of these were calling us instead of their local council in error. The remaining 23% had issues contacting their council as there was no freephone number
• received 11 enquiries from local council liaison contacts seeking advice on the guidance

Reconsideration process 

Anyone who has received a decision from us – applicants, representatives and councils – can ask us to take another look and reconsider our decision if they disagree with it. We are not required by law to have this reconsideration process; we introduced it as a voluntary step to promote quality and learning from reviews. 

In the first instance, we encourage parties who disagree with a decision to discuss their concerns with the case reviewer who made the decision. They have an in-depth knowledge of the review and are best placed to respond to any queries you have about their decision. They can also provide further information about asking for a reconsideration. 

The outcome of a reconsideration may be to confirm the original decision or to re-open a review. We may decide to change the decision but there are limited reasons why we would do this. We will not change our decision simply because you disagree with it. Full details about the process and timescales are available on our website. 

An example of a recent case where a reconsideration request was made is outlined below. You can find more examples in the searchable case directory on our website.

Case studies 

Insufficient enquiries made Reconsideration (council request)

C applied for a community care grant for several household items as they were broken or worn.

The Council declined the application, determining that C's circumstances did not match any of the qualifying criteria for a grant. At first-tier review, the Council revised their decision based on the information C provided and awarded some items that they assessed as meeting 'high' priority. 

We reviewed the Council's file and spoke with C. They told us they need to wash and dry clothes more often because their mobility issues sometimes make it hard to get to the bathroom in time. Their tumble drier was broken, and they were temporarily going to a family member to make use of theirs. We considered this was not a long-term solution and assessed that a tumble drier met high priority in C’s case. We asked the Council to award a tumble drier but agreed other items requested met high priority.

The Council asked for a reconsideration of the decision to award a tumble dryer. They felt we had applied guidance incorrectly, saying the item should only be given medium priority based on the priority matrix. We noted that C had several long-term health conditions that made their need for a tumble dryer more urgent. Based on this, we agreed with the original SPSO decision-maker’s assessment and did not change their decision.

Recommendations

• Award a tumble drier.

Feedback for the Council

• The information provided by C regarding their health and toileting issues, and the impact that this had on their need for a tumble drier, was sufficient to assess that it met high priority.
• The decision letters could have more clearly stated at which stage the application was being declined, and contained a more detailed explanation of priority assessments.

We asked the organisation to provide us with confirmation that the award was made within one week.

Eine Wienerin beschwerte sich darüber, dass sich im Auer-Welsbach-Park in Wien 15, den sie öfter besuche, niemand an das Radfahrverbot halten würde. Sie selbst sei im Rollstuhl und ihr Assistenzhund sei durch die rücksichtslosen Radfahrerinnen und Radfahrer ebenfalls gefährdet. Als die gehbehinderte Frau einmal ohne Rollstuhl zu Fuß unterwegs war, habe ein Radfahrer sie umgefahren, wobei sie sich die Hand gebrochen habe; der Radfahrer habe Fahrerflucht begangen. Einen Streifenwagen der Polizei habe sie lediglich einmal im Park gesehen. Um die Einhaltung des Radfahr-Verbots im Park habe dieser sich jedoch nicht gekümmert. Stattdessen habe man ihr gesagt, dass dafür der Bezirk zuständig wäre. Dort jedoch habe man achselzuckend auf Radfahrverbotsschilder an den Parkeingängen verwiesen und dass zur Kontrolle der Einhaltung kein Personal verfügbar sei. Da sich ihrem Empfinden nach keine Behörde als zuständig betrachtete, wandte sich die Frau an die Volksanwaltschaft, die den Wiener Bürgermeister um eine Stellungnahme ersuchte.

„In ihrer Stellungnahme verwies die Stadt Wien darauf, dass die Polizei, also die Landespolizeidirektion Wien (LPD), sehr wohl kontrollieren muss, ob jemand rechtswidrig mit einem Fahrrad in einer Parkanlage fährt. Sollte dies der Fall sein, so hat die LPD dem Magistrat eine Anzeige zu übermitteln, aufgrund welcher das jeweilige Bezirksamt folglich ein Verwaltungsstrafverfahren einzuleiten hat“, berichtet die prüfzuständige Volksanwältin Elisabeth Schwetz. Die Volksanwaltschaft vertritt die Meinung, dass die Stadt Wien daran interessiert sein müsste, dass von ihr verlautbarte Verordnungen auch eingehalten werden, umso mehr, wenn sie von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern auf einen solchen Missstand hingewiesen werde.

Die Stadt Wien antwortete in einer zweiten Stellungnahme, dass man die zuständige Polizeiinspektion (PI) aufgefordert habe, vermehrt Kontrollen zur Einhaltung des Radfahr-Verbots im Auer-Welsbach-Park durchzuführen. Gegebenenfalls werde diese künftig auch Anzeigen an den Magistrat weiterleiten.

„Da die Wiener Stadtgärten die Polizeiinspektion Wien-Storchengasse offenbar erst anlässlich des Einschreitens der Volksanwaltschaft um häufigere Kontrollen bezüglich der Einhaltung des Fahrradverbotes im Auer-Welsbach-Park ersucht haben, erwies sich die Beschwerde der Frau als berechtigt“, so Volksanwältin Schwetz.

La síndica y todo su equipo lamentan profundamente la muerte de Francesc Vendrell, que fue responsable de las áreas de consumo y territorio del Síndic de Greuges entre 2010 y 2020.
 

Anteriormente había ejercido cargos de representación y organización en diferentes partidos políticos y fue diputado del Parlamento de Cataluña durante tres legislaturas, entre 1999 y 2010. Además, fue uno de los ponentes del Estatuto de autonomía de Cataluña de 2006 y miembro de la Comisión del Síndic de Greuges en la cámara.

La institución destaca su vocación de servicio público y su compromiso con la defensa de los derechos de los consumidores de servicios públicos esenciales para la vida de las personas, especialmente los de las personas más vulnerables.