Klarstellung im Gesetz notwendig: „Sonderruhegeld“ mit Pension gleichstellen

Menschen, die als Kind in einem Heim untergebracht waren und dort Opfer von Gewalt wurden, können eine monatliche Heimopferrente beziehen. Das sind aktuell 433 Euro pro Monat. Ausgezahlt wird die Rente an dauerhaft arbeitsunfähige Menschen ab sofort. Menschen, die in der Lage waren zu arbeiten, bekommen die Heimopferrente, sobald sie das gesetzliche Pensionsalter erreicht haben, oder sobald sie tatsächlich in Pension sind. „Wer aber sein Leben lang Nachtschwerarbeit verrichtet hat und daher früher in Pension gehen kann, bekommt keine Heimopferrente“, sagt Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz. Denn rechtlich gesehen handelt es sich um keine Pension, sondern um ein „Sonderruhegeld“, und das wird im Heimopfergesetz (HOG) nicht extra erwähnt. Achitz: „Ich gehe davon aus, dass das keine Absicht gewesen ist, sondern ein Versehen. Ich ersuche daher das Parlament, eine entsprechende Korrektur zu beschließen.“

Achitz geht davon aus, dass sich dafür eine große parlamentarische Mehrheit finden wird. Ähnliche Vorschläge der Volksanwaltschaft wurden umgesetzt, etwa dass der Bezug von Heimopferente nicht zur Kürzung von Mindestsicherung/Sozialhilfe führen kann. Den Vorschlag zur Gesetzeserweiterung um Sonderruhe- und Übergangsgeld hat die Volksanwaltschaft bereits dem Nationalrat übermittelt – siehe Bericht über das Jahr 2025, Seit 44 f. In der ORF-Sendung „Bürgeranwalt“ ist Volksanwalt Achitz damit auch an den Vorsitzenden des Volksanwaltschaftsausschusses, Nikolaus Scherak, herangetreten.

Herbert J.: Keine Heimopferrente nach Jahrzehnten Nachtschwerarbeit

In der Sendung “Bürgeranwalt” vom 27. Juni thematisierte Achitz auch einen konkreten Fall: Herbert J. aus Tirol war von 1973 bis 1984 in der sogennanten „Taubstummenanstalt“ in Mils untergebracht. Weil er dort Opfer von Gewalt war, hat ihm die Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (PVA) bereits 2023 grundsätzlich bestätigt, dass er die Voraussetzungen für eine Heimopferrente erfüllt. Ausbezahlt wurde die Rente jedoch nicht, weil er damals weder in Pension war noch das Regelpensionsalter erreicht hatte. Er arbeitete als Schleifer im Schichtbetrieb, also auch in der Nacht. Seit Februar 2025 ist er aber „in Pension“ und bezieht J. Sonderruhegeld nach dem Nachtschwerarbeitsgesetz. Er beantragte neuerlich die Auszahlung der Heimopferrente. PVA und Sozialministerium vertreten aber die Ansicht, Sonderruhegeld sei keine Eigenpension im Sinne des Heimopferrentengesetzes. Herbert J. ging zu Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz, der verlangt, dass Sonderruhegeldbezieher im Heimopferrentengesetz ausdrücklich berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Alle Infos zur Heimopferrente:https://volksanwaltschaft.gv.at/fuer-heimopfer/

For the seventh consecutive year, the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (European Network of National Human Rights Institutions/ENNHRI) is calling on its member organizations to report on the state of the rule of law in their respective countries, focusing on various aspects of human rights and promoting and safeguarding democratic values. This report provides an opportunity to view Latvia in the context of other EU countries, to assess where our country is successfully implementing best practices and where improvements are needed. At the same time, it also provides the Ombudsman’s Office with an opportunity to demonstrate exactly what the institution has done to strengthen human rights in Latvia.

The Ombudsman’s Office has received the highest “A” rating in international accreditation (alongside countries such as the Netherlands, Ireland, Slovenia, and Ukraine). This is the highest rating an institution can receive, demonstrating its ability to independently address human rights issues across various fields.

It should also be noted that we have been entrusted, on behalf of Latvia, to work on the AI Act together with Belgium, Cyprus, and Denmark, where the working group is led by Anete Ilves, Advisor to the Ombudsman on international law and artificial intelligence.

ENNHRI also noted the work on the Law on the Protection of Persons Engaged in Public Interest Activities, which was introduced in Latvia to comply with Directive (EU) 2024/1069 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 11, 2024, on the protection of persons engaged in public participation against manifestly unfounded claims or abusive legal proceedings.

You can read the report prepared by ENNHRI here: https://rule-of-law.ennhri.org/?country%5B0%5D=2&country%5B1%5D=28&year%5B0%5D=2026

We also invite you to review the Rule of Law Report prepared by the European Commission (EC): https://commission.europa.eu/publications/2026-rule-law-report-communication-and-country-chapters_en

Both reports are complementary, but the EC report is binding on the country and requires it to act in accordance with the recommendations.

L’attività dell’organo di garanzia si conferma un punto di riferimento per i cittadini nei rapporti con la Pubblica amministrazione. Fardelli: «Continueremo a lavorare con indipendenza e spirito di servizio».

Prosegue il rafforzamento del ruolo del Difensore Civico della Regione Lazio quale punto di riferimento per la tutela dei diritti dei cittadini. I dati relativi ai primi sette mesi del 2026 evidenziano un significativo incremento delle istanze presentate all’Istituzione, con una crescita del 121 per cento rispetto allo stesso periodo del 2025.

L’aumento delle richieste conferma una sempre maggiore fiducia dei cittadini nei confronti dell’organismo di garanzia della Regione Lazio, chiamato quotidianamente a svolgere un’attività di ascolto, mediazione e tutela nei rapporti tra cittadini e Pubblica amministrazione.

L’analisi dell’andamento mensile evidenzia una crescita costante nel corso dell’anno: gennaio +136%, febbraio +93%, marzo +133%, aprile +144%, maggio +99%, giugno +44% e luglio +55% rispetto ai corrispondenti mesi del 2025.

«Questi numeri raccontano prima di tutto una storia di fiducia – afferma il Difensore Civico della Regione Lazio, Marino Fardelli –. Dietro ogni istanza c’è una persona, una famiglia, una realtà che si rivolge a noi per trovare ascolto, orientamento e una risposta concreta. La crescita delle richieste dimostra quanto sia importante il ruolo della Difesa Civica come presidio di prossimità, capace di favorire un rapporto più semplice, trasparente ed efficace tra cittadini e Pubblica amministrazione».

L’attività del Difensore Civico si inserisce nell’ambito delle funzioni di garanzia previste dall’ordinamento regionale e mira ad assicurare la tutela dei diritti dei cittadini, promuovendo il buon andamento dell’azione amministrativa, la trasparenza, l’imparzialità e il dialogo tra amministrazioni e utenti.

Nel corso degli ultimi mesi l’Istituzione ha ulteriormente rafforzato la propria presenza sul territorio, consolidando un’attività orientata non solo alla gestione delle singole segnalazioni, ma anche alla diffusione della cultura della legalità amministrativa e della conoscenza degli strumenti di tutela a disposizione dei cittadini.

«Continueremo a operare con indipendenza, competenza e spirito di servizio – prosegue Fardelli – affinché nessun cittadino del Lazio si senta solo davanti alle difficoltà amministrative. Vogliamo essere un punto di riferimento sempre più vicino alle persone, capace di facilitare il dialogo con le amministrazioni e contribuire alla soluzione delle problematiche che ci vengono sottoposte».

L’incremento registrato nei primi sette mesi del 2026 rappresenta un indicatore significativo del crescente riconoscimento del ruolo svolto dal Difensore Civico della Regione Lazio e della fiducia riposta dai cittadini in un’Istituzione gratuita, indipendente e al servizio della collettività, impegnata quotidianamente nella tutela dei diritti e nella promozione di una Pubblica amministrazione sempre più efficiente, trasparente e vicina alle esigenze della comunità regionale.

Keynote speech at "WorldPride Human Rights Conference" in Amsterdam, Netherlands

Dear friends,

At the outset I extend my deepest sympathy to the loved ones of the person killed in the attack at Berlin Pride, as well as my solidarity with all those who were injured, and all the participants in that Pride.

I also offer solidarity to communities in those many countries where Pride parades and gatherings have been banned, attacked, or are otherwise unsafe for participants.

Friends, for me, participating in this WorldPride in Amsterdam is deeply personal. It was to this city that I came in 1992 from Ireland, where homosexuality was still criminalised, to figure out my own identity as a gay man.

I remain deeply grateful for the acceptance that I found here.

It is no less personal for me that we meet on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the legalisation in the Netherlands of marriage equality. That act of global leadership began the impetus that allowed me, years later, to marry my own partner in Ireland – who, I should say, I met in Amsterdam.

There is one additional anniversary in my mind today. That is this year’s twentieth anniversary of the Yogyakarta Principles. The Principles serve to map out the application of universal human rights law to the lived realities of LGBTI people. They were drafted by a group of human rights experts from across the world, and I had the honour to coordinate the drafting process.

The Yogyakarta Principles, and the additional elements drafted ten years later, proved to be highly influential at national levels, as well as within the Council of Europe, the United Nations and elsewhere. The Principles remain, for today, an important reference point in standing up for the human rights of everyone, in full respect of their sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics. They are also a template to assess the overall situation across the world. They allow us to identify astonishing achievements on the one hand, and dreadful gaps and challenges on the other.

What is more, very worryingly, they shine a light on reversals, regression, weakening of human rights protection in many places.

Much has already powerfully been said this morning about these achievements, the gaps and the setbacks. Rather than repeat any of them, please allow me just some observations.

First, in my work across the European continent, I see in country after country how far still that we have to go. On this continent, the challenges are not of the east or west, north or south. They are everywhere. Nowhere is there room for complacency. Even where we had seen deeply impressive legislative or judicial action, these can co-exist alongside deep prejudices in society.

Second, everywhere there is a deep intersectionality at play and every aspect of human wellbeing is impacted

Third, in addressing social prejudice and hatred, do not under any circumstances problematise a whole community. For instance, it is unacceptable to blame migrants, as some have sought to do in the aftermath of the Berlin attack. Europe’s problem of LGBTI-phobia is not imported. It has deep home-grown roots.

Fourth, as you consider how best to engage the challenges, I encourage you to fully employ the international human rights legal system and its national and international protection mechanisms. Here again, the Yogyakarta Principles are a helpful guide.

But why do it?

It can never be over-emphasised that human rights legal claims trigger a duty for states. They are not just requests for fairer treatment. And they trigger an obligation for states to remedy violations and ensure non-recurrence.

Of course, I do appreciate that, for those of you coming from highly oppressive states, this can all sound very theoretical. Nevertheless, experience shows the power and the potential of the human rights legal toolbox to achieve meaningful progress over time.

Fifth and finally, on a daily basis, my work confirms what you already realise. That the pushback against the human rights of LGBTI+ people is part of a wider effort to unravel all that has been achieved since the adoption in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Here, I greatly appreciate the leadership shown by young queer activists. They remind us that we all share a common goal of honouring human dignity, and they are willing to build smart, new alliances towards that goal.

Dear friends, as I wrap up my remarks, I invite you to look around Amsterdam city centre during this week.

What we see is a place of astonishing diversity and a determination to honour and celebrate those differences that unite us as humanity.

This place, created by WorldPride – by you – over the course of these two weeks, in other words, is a microcosm of what we need to see everywhere.

Places where, in the words of the Universal Declaration, everyone is free and equal, in dignity and in rights.

Thank you.

La Unidad de Víctimas del Defensor del Pueblo trabaja actualmente en el análisis de 450 expedientes, de los que 149 ya se encuentran en fase de tramitación, es decir en el final del proceso por el que se reconoce la condición de víctima y se fija la reparación.

Hasta el 31 de julio la Unidad de Víctimas del Defensor del Pueblo ha tenido la ocasión de mantener entrevistas personalizadas con 105 víctimas. Y han inadmitido cuatro casos por estimarse que la solicitud no se corresponde con el objeto de trabajo establecido en el Protocolo, firmado el 30 de marzo de 2026 entre Iglesia, Gobierno y Defensor del Pueblo para reconocimiento y reparación de las víctimas de abusos sexuales en el ámbito de la Iglesia católica.

El Protocolo concreta el funcionamiento del sistema establecido y los plazos previstos. Así, en la cláusula octava 1.2, referente a la fase de evaluación y valoración, se señala que “El Defensor del Pueblo, una vez estudiado el caso y escuchadas las partes involucradas por su Unidad de Víctimas, elaborará en el plazo máximo de tres meses una valoración de reconocimiento o de denegación de la solicitud (…) En el caso de concurrencia de un volumen extraordinario de solicitudes o de la especial complejidad en su valoración podrá acordarse la ampliación del plazo por un periodo adicional de un mes (…)”.

Se detalla, además, en el Protocolo que la reparación podrá ser simbólica o restaurativa, orientada al reconocimiento institucional y al ofrecimiento de herramientas para el acompañamiento o la petición de disculpas. Y económica, por el daño causado y por los gastos registrados en el tratamiento de las posibles secuelas físicas y psicológicas.

La Unidad de Víctimas del Defensor del Pueblo está conformada por profesionales independientes expertos en victimología, psicología, criminología, y en otras disciplinas jurídicas. Comenzó su trabajo el 15 de abril pasado. Y recibe, desde entonces, solicitudes que le remite la Unidad de Tramitación del Ministerio de Presidencia, Justicia y Relaciones con las Cortes.

“Con este proceso se trata de recuperar a la persona y de reparar daños. No es un mero trámite burocrático cosificador sino un procedimiento flexible, personalizado, profesional y humano”, ha venido subrayando Ángel Gabilondo desde el día de la firma del Protocolo.