On the first Monday of October, Chancellor of Justice Ülle Madise joined patrol officers of the North Prefecture in their daily work. While riding along with the patrol, she visited both the Emergency Response Centre and the sobering-up facility, and gained an overview of the conditions there. More could certainly be done to protect police officers against infectious tuberculosis and other infections. During the patrol, the officers also came across a situation in which a man, who was in fact wanted by the police, tried to escape after throwing a toddler to the ground. The child received help from the ambulance that was called, and the patrol set off in pursuit of the man.

Madise considered taking part in the police patrol a very useful and interesting experience. “The work that patrol officers encounter is full of surprises, where an everyday situation can turn into a crisis in an instant, requiring a lightning-fast decision and action,” Madise said. “I already knew that the Estonian Academy of Security Sciences provides excellent education and that our police officers are true professionals. Now I saw with my own eyes how humanity is shown when a person breaks traffic rules for the first time and regrets it. And how officers selflessly go out in the dark, storm and rain to catch a dangerous criminal. Among other things, I saw masterful drone operation and noticed several justified concerns that the Riigikogu should resolve.”

Ülle Madise accompanied the police patrol until 11 p.m., when she felt that the circumstances related to her role as president-elect might unnecessarily burden the police officers’ necessary work. “At one point I felt that it was reasonable to draw a line under my participation, even though I very much would have wanted to stay. In such a complicated situation, no outsider should interfere. Since, alongside the role of Chancellor of Justice, I now also have a highly professional close protection team as president-elect, and they have their own responsibility, it is fair to save everyone’s energy.”

Madise thanked the officers for the opportunity to gain first-hand experience and expressed her respect for all police officers. “Thank you, Dan Pähkel and Reio Ilau, for the honour of experiencing your valuable work from very close up.” Madise also invited Dan and Reio to Kadriorg, so that she could in turn introduce them to her future work.

In the autumn of 2025, the Ombudsman carried out a monitoring visit to Egely at ‘Socialcenter Lillebælt’, which is a secure residential institution in Middelfart Municipality for young people. During the monitoring visit, the young people told the Ombudsman’s visiting team that they were not offered schooling. According to management at the institution, the schooling had been reduced due to a shortage of teachers.

Pupils in a special education programme such as Egely have the same right to receive schooling as pupils in primary and lower secondary school generally have. Middelfart Kommune must enter into a quality agreement with the institution and monitor whether the schooling is of the necessary quality and complies with the requirements under the Folkeskole Act (the Act on the Danish Municipal Primary and Lower Secondary School). 

Middelfart Municipality informed the Ombudsman that it had not been aware that there had been a shortage of teachers and schooling at Egely. The Municipality also could not account for which period there had been a shortage of teachers – or what schooling there had been during that period.

However, on the basis of the monitoring visit and his investigation, the Ombudsman gathers that, at least for a prolonged period during the summer and autumn of 2025, the young people at Egely had not received the schooling that they were entitled to. And that the municipality’s monitoring etc. had not been sufficient in order to observe its obligations in relation to the young people receiving schooling in accordance with the rules of the Folkeskole Act with respect to quality and extent.

The Ombudsman finds this criticisable.

‘As a society, we must support young people placed in care in the best possible way in order for them to get a good foothold in life. Therefore, it is also important that the municipalities live up to their responsibility for the young people getting the schooling they are entitled to. Failing to do so is not an expression of support and help – it is in fact the opposite’, says Parliamentary Ombudsman Christian Britten Lundblad.

The Ombudsman involved the National Agency for Education and Quality in the case. The Agency has now started monitoring that Middelfart Municipality ensures that the schooling at Egely complies with the requirements and is of the necessary quality.

The Ombudsman has asked the Agency to inform him of what the monitoring of the Municipality leads to.

Read the Ombudsman’s letter to Middelfart Municipality (in Danish).

Police, prosecutors and data protection authorities across the EU need clearer guidance, training and more resources to apply data protection rules effectively, according to a new report from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The report provides insights into the implementation of the EU's Law Enforcement Directive and calls for greater awareness, resources and guidance for applying it in practice.

Read report

Criminal investigations increasingly rely on large volumes of sensitive personal data, from witness statements and biometric information to digital evidence. The EU’s Law Enforcement Directive (LED) aims to ensure that authorities can use such data when fighting crime while respecting the fundamental right to data protection.

The report ‘The Law Enforcement Directive – data protection challenges in practice’ looks into the experiences, practices and challenges of law enforcement and supervisory authorities when protecting personal data under the Directive. It calls for:

• Greater awareness and understanding: despite greater awareness of data protection principles, staff in law enforcement and the judiciary often lack a clear understanding of the Directive’s core principles and requirements, including when it comes to international data transfers. This risks unlawful data processing and can undermine trust in and the effectiveness of criminal investigations. Member States should offer specific practical guidance and training on the Directive and how to apply it. The European Commission and the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) should provide further guidance on the rules on international data transfers to non-EU countries.
• More resources: data protection officers in law enforcement and the judiciary often face heavy workloads and limited resources. Data protection authorities face similar constraints, which can limit proactive inspections and monitoring. Member States should ensure authorities have sufficient human, financial and technical resources to effectively fulfil their tasks under the Directive.
• Technological expertise and support: Rapid technological advances have left some data protection experts without access to specialised technical knowledge and expertise for preparing for the application in practice of new regulations that intersect with the Law Enforcement Directive, including the AI Act. Modern technologies can raise concerns about bias, transparency, accountability, and the adequacy of data protection safeguards, particularly when data is transferred outside the EU. Member States should regularly review the use of such technologies and ensure access to specialised technical expertise to support compliance with the Directive.

FRA's report comes as the European Commission reviews how the Directive works in practice. 

The report draws on over 130 interviews with experts across all EU Member States. Interviewees include staff from data protection authorities, as well as law enforcement and the judiciary, including their data protection officers, across all EU Member States. It provides first-hand evidence from these interviewees about where implementation can be strengthened to ensure the Directive’s data protection legal safeguards are not viewed as an obstacle to effective policing rather than an integral part of it.

Upon closing an inquiry related to general purpose AI models and energy consumption, European Ombudswoman Teresa Anjinho encouraged the European Commission to continue to improve technical solutions to better enable AI providers to estimate their models’ energy use and meet the objectives set out in the EU’s AI Act.

The Ombudswoman’s inquiry followed a complaint from a Member of the European Parliament who had raised concerns about possible discrepancies regarding energy consumption between the AI Act and guidelines meant to assist its implementation for general purpose AI models – the Code of Practice.

In her findings, the Ombudswoman acknowledged that the Code of Practice is only a temporary measure for ensuring compliance with the AI Act. She stressed that the Commission has an obligation to regularly monitor and evaluate how the Code is performing and to encourage its review and adaptation if necessary. The Code may ultimately be replaced with targeted instruments such as harmonised standards.

Background

The AI Act requires providers of general purpose AI to keep up-to-date technical documentation about their models, including information about energy consumption. If a model’s provider lacks the information necessary to estimate energy consumption, the current Code of Practice enables them to explain which information they do not have. The Commission’s AI Office will then make its own assessment based on the explanations it receives from the model’s provider regarding the information they lack, as well as other data at its disposal.