On June 10-12, Irine Chikhladze, Deputy Public Defender of Georgia, participated in the 18^th Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which was held at the UN Headquarters in New York.

The main theme of the conference was “Enhancing public awareness of the rights and contributions of persons with disabilities for social development”.

In a roundtable format, representatives of UN institutions, as well as governments and civil society organizations of the States Parties, discussed ways of empowering persons with disabilities and enhancing social development policies through innovative financing; “Leaving no one behind”: using AI as a tool for supporting inclusivity to strengthen the participation of persons with disabilities; recognising and addressing the rights of indigenous persons with disabilities and their role in advancing disability inclusion.

In parallel with the conference, other events were also held on the rights of persons with disabilities, which discussed issues of access to justice, amendments to national legislation considering Article 13 of the CRPD, and innovative inclusive communications; importance of accessibility, equal reproductive rights for women with disabilities, and the harmful effects of climate change on mental health.

The participants in the meetings agreed to cooperate in developing a unified approach to the implementation of the UNCRPD.

On Friday 13 June, Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen submitted his Annual Report 2024 to Speaker of Parliament Jussi Halla-aho.

In 2024, there were a total of 6,088 complaints (7,124 in 2023). This is just over 1,000 (14.5%) less than the previous year, but the number has gone up again this year. The largest number of complaints concerned social welfare 1,233 (1,136), the police 699 (855), healthcare 675 (803) and criminal sanctions 577 (591). In the reporting year, 6,286 complaints were resolved. The corresponding figure in 2023 was 6,876.

There were 156 (133 in 2023) submissions and hearings and 77 (83) inspections were carried out.

Ensuring the constitutional status and independence of the Parliamentary Ombudsman

In his general comment, Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen concludes that the Ombudsman’s independence would be infringed if an authority subject to their supervision, such as another supervisory authority, were to target oversight at the Ombudsman, i.e. oversee their overseer. The Constitutional Law Committee has considered that this is not constitutionally possible.

In some situations, a party that is constitutionally subject to the Ombudsman’s oversight has been at risk of being excluded from the Ombudsman’s oversight powers. Such a situation emerged when dealing with the exercise of public power by NATO and US troops in Finland. Even in such a regulatory context, the Constitutional Law Committee did not want to exclude the authority of the supreme overseers of legality, leaving it to be assessed by them on a case-by-case basis.

The supreme overseer of legality is not suited for the “operational” oversight of any activity, by which Jääskeläinen means continuous and detailed oversight, or the oversight of ongoing activities. If the Ombudsman were to intervene in a pending matter or ongoing activities, the Ombudsman could no longer independently and objectively assess the same matter in ex-post oversight of legality.

Jääskeläinen estimates that the greatest threats related to the above situations come from directly applicable legislation of the European Union. This is because no other EU Member States have overseers of legality whose constitutional status and powers are comparable to the Finnish Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice.

The Ombudsman’s role in the ex-post supervision of the constitutionality of laws

In her general comment, Deputy-Ombudsman Maija Sakslin examines the role of the Ombudsman in the ex-post supervision of the constitutionality of laws.

During the reporting year, the debate on constitutional review of legislation was particularly active. Several experts expressed support for strengthening ex-post constitutional review and potentially establishing a constitutional court. Less attention has been paid to how issues concerning the constitutionality of laws would be initiated in ex-post review.

In countries with a constitutional court or where ordinary courts have the authority to review the constitutionality of laws, the Ombudsman often has the power to bring such matters before the court. Some Ombudsmen also have the authority to request a court to confirm whether laws meet the requirements of international human rights obligations.

The Ombudsman’s power to initiate a constitutional review may be limited to cases where the question of the constitutionality of applicable law arises from a complaint. However, in many countries, the Ombudsman can also request abstract reviews, not limited to individual complaints.

The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe has repeatedly recommended that the mandate of the Ombudsmen should include the possibility of applying for an abstract judgement on questions concerning the constitutionality of laws affecting fundamental rights.
If the constitutional reform abolishing the threshold of evident conflict in Section 106 of the Finnish Constitution were to proceed, it would be possible to consider whether the Ombudsman could refer a constitutional issue arising from a complaint to a court (primarily the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court).

The Parliamentary Ombudsman interprets and develops good governance

In his general comment, Deputy-Ombudsman Mikko Sarja examines certain questions concerning the interpretation of general acts applicable to public administration, which are often discussed in the oversight of legality of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Ombudsman traditionally oversees the legality of the official proceedings, in which acts applicable to public administration play a central role.  Their objective is to ensure that everyone has the right to have their case dealt with appropriately and that the guarantees of good governance are implemented in accordance with the Constitution. Good governance is at the heart of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s task of overseeing fundamental rights. In most common cases it is a question of applying the Act on the Openness of Government Activities, the Administrative Procedure Act and the Language Act. 

The Deputy-Ombudsman Sarja examines in more detail issues related to the decision-making of authorities, the ways of obtaining information from the authorities enabled by different laws and questions related to linguistic rights. Especially when it comes to the latter, the emphasis has shifted from language issues in the use of the authorities’ traditional services to assessing the authorities’ websites, social media use, individual and sometimes fairly specific linguistic issues, and the use of foreign languages.  

In terms of their basic solutions, the oldest general acts have already been in force almost in their current forms for a long time, approximately between 20 and 25 years, and they do not always provide unambiguous answers. On the other hand, the broad nature of the acts makes interpretation possible, which reduces the need for changes. It is still advisable to review these acts from time to time, as well. It is important that the general acts laid down for different purposes and at different times are clear and up to date not only separately but also in relation to each other. The reform of the Act on the Openness of Government Activities is therefore pending at the Ministry of Justice. There is also a need to review the Language Act, the Sámi Language Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. 

The Annual Report of the Parliamentary Ombudsman has been published (in Finnish) on the Ombudsman's website, and a summary in English will be published at a later date.

For further information, please contact Administrative Assessor Astrid Geisor-Goman, tel. +358 9 432 3391.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Judge Joseph Zammit McKeon, paid an official visit to the Malta Communications Authority (MCA) at the invitation of the Authority. During the visit, he delivered a presentation and engaged in a dialogue with management and employees about the role and function of the Ombudsman in Malta’s democratic system.

The visit began with a meeting between the Ombudsman and the MCA Management Committee, led by Chief Executive Officer Mr Jesmond Bugeja. During the meeting, Mr Bugeja provided an overview of the MCA’s mission and regulatory functions. He explained that the Authority’s core objective is to promote and safeguard a communications environment that supports investment, innovation, economic growth, and social well-being.

The management also presented the Authority’s ten strategic objectives, ranging from ensuring high-quality services in electronic and postal communications, to supervising digital services, maximising the potential of radio spectrum, and contributing to sector policy development.

Following this exchange, the Ombudsman met with all staff members and delivered a presentation titled “The Ombudsman Remedy in Malta”. He explained the constitutional and legal foundations of the Office, its powers, its jurisdiction, and the investigative processes it follows. He underlined that while the Ombudsman does not issue executive decisions, the institution’s recommendations often lead to meaningful redress and systemic improvements in public administration.

Judge Zammit McKeon also highlighted the importance of transparency, accountability, and fairness in fostering a culture of good governance within public institutions. He concluded by expressing the Office’s ongoing commitment to strengthening the protection of human rights and enhancing trust between persons and the public administration.

At the end of the session, employees were invited to ask questions, leading to an open and constructive discussion on the role of the Ombudsman in upholding administrative justice.

The Ombudsman was accompanied by Dr Brian Said, Head of Investigations and Mr Jurgen Cassar, Head of Communications and Research.

Claire Hédon, Défenseure des droits, ainsi que ses adjoints Éric Delemar (Défenseur des enfants en charge de la défense et de la promotion des droits de l’enfant) et George Pau-Langevin (adjointe en charge de la lutte contre les discriminations et de la promotion de l’égalité) rendent public le rapport annuel d’activités de la 19e promotion de Jeunes ambassadeurs des droits (JADE).

Le Défenseur des droits recrute des jeunes volontaires de 16 à 25 ans en service civique qui deviennent des Jeunes ambassadeurs des droits (JADE). Grace à ce programme, le Défenseur des droits sensibilise les enfants et les jeunes aux droits de l’enfant, à l’égalité et à la lutte contre les discriminations.

La 19e promotion de JADE dresse le bilan

Chaque année, le rapport annuel du programme JADE dresse le bilan des huit mois de sensibilisation aux droits réalisés par les JADE auprès d’autres jeunes partout en France. Entre octobre 2024 et juin 2025, 82 jeunes ambassadeurs se sont engagés en faveur des droits de l’enfant et de la lutte contre les discriminations.

Les JADE ont pu rencontrer plus de 40 000 jeunes à travers la France et les sensibiliser à leurs droits. Après une formation de 150 heures pendant 3 semaines au siège du Défenseur des droits pour acquérir les connaissances fondamentales sur les sujets abordés, les Jeunes ambassadeurs se rendent dans des collèges, des lycées, des centres de loisirs, des hôpitaux, des foyers de l’Aide sociale à l’enfance où ils interviennent et sensibilisent. 

Cette année, les JADE ont participé à de nombreuses initiatives locales : Cross du Calvados, Journée de l’Engagement à Marseille, Hauts-de-Seine Digital Games, ou encore au projet « Jeunes contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme » en Seine-Saint-Denis. 

Le recrutement de la prochaine promotion de JADE ouvre bientôt

Vous avez entre 16 et 25 ans et vous souhaitez vous engager pour les droits ?

Le recrutement pour rejoindre la promotion 2025-2026 du programme JADE sera lancé d’ici la fin du mois de juin. 

Toutes les informations seront disponibles sur la page Devenir JADE

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, ha protagonizado este miércoles un desayuno informativo en el Club Siglo XXI de Madrid donde ha afirmado que las instituciones tienen la “especial responsabilidad de ser eficientes y justas y, a la par, abrir espacios que propicien la concordia y la convivencia”.

En esta línea, ha explicado cuáles son las principales funciones de la institución que dirige y ha destacado que entre ellas está la de “verificar el respeto de los derechos fundamentales por parte de las distintas administraciones públicas y su actuación de acuerdo con los principios de eficacia, jerarquía, descentralización, desconcentración y coordinación, que se establecen en el artículo 103.1 de la Constitución”.

Entre el público asistente se encontraban la adjunta primera del Defensor del Pueblo, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril y la adjunta segunda, Patricia Bárcena, así como representantes diplomáticos de diferentes países y miembros del Club Siglo XXI.

Durante su intervención, Ángel Gabilondo ha apuntado que el Defensor del Pueblo es un órgano de relevancia constitucional, pero no es juez ni parte en ningún proceso ni procedimiento, aunque colabora para aclarar cuestiones en relación con la acción de la Administración. “No somos un órgano de control del Gobierno, de ningún Gobierno, sino un órgano de supervisión de las administraciones en su relación con los ciudadanos para garantizar sus derechos, dando cuenta a las Cortes Generales”, ha subrayado.

Tras recordar que la Ley Orgánica del Defensor del Pueblo establece en su artículo 6.1 que “el Defensor del Pueblo no está sujeto a mandato imperativo alguno, no recibirá instrucciones de ninguna autoridad y desempeñará sus funciones con autonomía y según su criterio”, ha subrayado que “malinterpretaríamos este decisivo artículo si consideráramos que ello deja la resolución de los asuntos en manos de una determinada arbitrariedad”. Al contrario, ha asegurado, “se trata de evitar toda arrogancia, toda autosuficiencia y de acentuar la responsabilidad y la necesidad de una enorme independencia.

En su opinión, “eso llama a estar a la altura del desafío, a lograr merecer ser escuchado, a no dejarse llevar por la comodidad, por el temor, por la prisa, y, menos aún, por una forma de ambición cuyo único objetivo sea no molestar mucho, que es otra forma de decir molestarse lo menos posible”.

Ángel Gabilondo ha desgranado, además, las principales cifras y actuaciones del Informe del año 2024 del Defensor del Pueblo, que fue registrado en las Cortes Generales el pasado 25 de marzo y que esta misma tarde presenta en el Pleno del Senado. Según ha expuesto, el Informe “va más allá de una mera descripción de problemas, centrándose en la supervisión de la Administración para fortalecer los derechos ciudadanos y la confianza en las instituciones”.

En 2024, el Defensor del Pueblo tramitó 34.629 expedientes, de los cuales resultaron 2.501 resoluciones dirigidas a las administraciones (1.190 recomendaciones, 843 sugerencias, 464 recordatorios de deberes legales y 4 advertencias). Se iniciaron 185 actuaciones de oficio y se analizaron 42 solicitudes de recurso al Tribunal Constitucional. Geográficamente, la mayoría de las quejas llegaron desde la Comunidad de Madrid (8.031), Andalucía (4.155), Cataluña (3.441) y la Comunidad Valenciana (3.231). Por ámbitos de actuación, los más recurrentes fueron la Administración de Justicia, Seguridad Social y Empleo, Función y Empleo Público, Asilo, Migraciones, Interior, Educación, Sanidad, Medio Ambiente y Vivienda.