Editoriale di Marino Fardelli
Presidente del Coordinamento nazionale dei Difensori civici italiani e Difensore civico della Regione Lazio

Uno degli elementi più preziosi per il buon funzionamento di una democrazia è la fiducia tra cittadini e istituzioni. È un legame spesso invisibile, ma fondamentale: quando i cittadini percepiscono le istituzioni come giuste, accessibili e capaci di ascolto, il rapporto con lo Stato diventa più sereno, più partecipato e più costruttivo.

Negli ultimi anni, tuttavia, questo rapporto ha conosciuto momenti di difficoltà. La complessità delle procedure amministrative, la lentezza di alcune decisioni, la distanza percepita tra cittadini e apparati pubblici hanno alimentato in molti casi un sentimento di sfiducia.

Molte persone, quando incontrano un problema con la pubblica amministrazione, hanno la sensazione di trovarsi di fronte a un sistema difficile da comprendere e ancora più difficile da modificare. Spesso non sanno a chi rivolgersi, come far valere le proprie ragioni o quali strumenti possano utilizzare per ottenere una risposta.

È proprio in questo spazio che si inserisce il lavoro, spesso discreto ma fondamentale, della difesa civica.

Il Difensore civico rappresenta un punto di riferimento per i cittadini che incontrano difficoltà nei rapporti con la pubblica amministrazione. Il suo compito è quello di ascoltare, verificare e intervenire quando emergono disfunzioni amministrative, ritardi o situazioni che rischiano di compromettere i diritti delle persone.

Si tratta di un lavoro che raramente occupa le prime pagine dei giornali, ma che incide in modo concreto nella vita quotidiana dei cittadini.

Ogni pratica esaminata, ogni segnalazione accolta, ogni intervento che contribuisce a sbloccare una situazione amministrativa rappresenta un piccolo passo verso la ricostruzione di un rapporto più equilibrato tra cittadini e istituzioni.

La forza della difesa civica sta proprio nella sua capacità di operare come luogo di mediazione e di equilibrio. Non si tratta di contrapporre cittadini e amministrazioni, ma di favorire il dialogo, chiarire le procedure, individuare soluzioni che consentano di superare incomprensioni e rigidità burocratiche.

Molto spesso dietro un conflitto amministrativo non c’è una violazione intenzionale dei diritti, ma un problema di comunicazione, una norma interpretata in modo eccessivamente formale o semplicemente un sistema amministrativo che fatica ad adattarsi alla complessità delle situazioni reali.

La difesa civica interviene proprio per riportare il rapporto su un terreno di correttezza, trasparenza e ragionevolezza.

In questo senso il Difensore civico svolge anche una funzione più ampia: contribuisce a migliorare il funzionamento delle istituzioni. L’analisi delle segnalazioni dei cittadini, l’individuazione delle criticità ricorrenti e il dialogo con le amministrazioni permettono infatti di individuare margini di miglioramento nei servizi pubblici.

Ogni problema risolto diventa così anche un’occasione per rendere l’amministrazione più efficiente, più trasparente e più attenta alle esigenze della comunità.

Ricostruire la fiducia tra cittadini e istituzioni non è un processo immediato. Richiede tempo, coerenza e soprattutto la capacità delle istituzioni di dimostrare, nei fatti, la propria attenzione verso i diritti delle persone.

La difesa civica contribuisce a questo processo con un lavoro quotidiano fatto di ascolto, dialogo e ricerca di soluzioni. È un ruolo silenzioso, ma profondamente democratico: quello di garantire che, anche nei momenti di difficoltà, il cittadino non si senta mai solo di fronte alla pubblica amministrazione.

Quando le istituzioni sanno ascoltare, quando sono disponibili a correggere i propri errori e quando mettono al centro il servizio alla comunità, la fiducia può tornare a crescere.

Ed è proprio in questo spazio di equilibrio tra diritti, amministrazione e responsabilità pubblica che la difesa civica continua a svolgere la propria missione: rafforzare il rapporto tra cittadini e istituzioni, contribuendo ogni giorno alla qualità della nostra democrazia.

Date of decision: 2025-02-28Decision case number: 5786-2024Decision maker: Erik Nymansson Summary of the decision: On a forensic psychiatric ward with security class 3, staff of Uppsala University Hospital in Region Uppsala routinely ask patients returning from leave or ground privileges to show the contents of their pockets and bags. The Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman establishes that the procedure...

ommisisoner's introductory remarks at the exchange of views with the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers

Merci Madame la Présidente,
dear Ambassadors,

Thank you, I appreciate the opportunity to be with you this afternoon to present my annual report for 2025. I hope you've all had a chance to review it, and I will not go through it in great detail now, I would rather just point to a few issues.

The report itself is clustered by priorities, and I'll go through a few aspects of each of these, but just before that a word on the toolbox.

I've been able to make a full use of my toolbox over the course of the reporting year and subsequently. That means extensive missions, visits to the Member States, either in the formal framework of a country visit or for some other reason. This has been a large part of my work.

I have also had the opportunity, either at the level of the States themselves or otherwise, to engage with States, with the human rights actors of given countries, with civil society and of course, very importantly, with the relevant international organisations. No less important has been my interaction, which I'm seeking to ever deepen, with the breadth of the Council of Europe system. I have increasingly invested in what I can call for want of a better term conference diplomacy, which I see as an important part of my work and I have made an adjustment in the type of written output that you are used to from the Commissioner.

You have seen in the past year a lot from me, of statements, of letters, in the public domain and to a lesser extent, but still very important, third party interventions and rule nine interventions. However you have seen far fewer from me than my predecessors of formal reports of a classic kind. That is because frankly with no disrespect I am not a research institute and I am not sure that producing such reports is the way in which I can be of most use to you. Instead I see myself essentially as a diplomatic actor closely embedded in and at the level of the field.

Now turning to the priorities, again and those of you who've listened to me a few times will find it tedious by now, I still have just four priorities and they are the same ones they were the last time I spoke to you, but I would like to give you an update on where I am with each of them.

The first is standing up for the people of Ukraine. This is now and will remain my top priority. I had the chance again during the year to visit Ukraine and I was able during the year, I tried during the year, with others, to maintain attention including through social media, to the ongoing atrocities, the criminal acts of the Russian aggressor.

I think it is important never to let up on shining a light on what the Russian Federation is doing.

In a more thematic way, I continued again, over the year, to pay attention to what we might say is embedding human beings in the path to peace and making sure that human well-being, human rights is ever more visible in the different pathways towards a peaceful end to the aggression.

You already know of my memorandum which I issued already last summer which laid out 10 areas where attention needs to be paid if humans are to be at the heart of peace. I presented the memorandum and engaged in discussions around it in the Rome Recovery Conference of last summer. In autumn I convened a meeting of senior representatives of international organisations expert in conflict and human rights and peace in Warsaw to see how we could further operationalise the 10 attention areas. And if you were to ask me is there any progress here? Well, we know what we know in terms of peace and conflict, but I do see an increasing willingness to nudge open doors around the issue of women in the context of the path to peace, and in particular as framed by UN Security Council Resolution 1325 Women, Peace and Security.

For myself now and into the coming months my focus is just one of my 10 attention areas and that is that of displaced people. I am looking at on the one hand refugees, very much having in mind that the EU Temporary Protection Directive is scheduled to cease to apply as of April next year. And we need to see what will replace that because it is obvious that many people will not have returned by then. We also, no less importantly, need to look at the situation of people displaced within Ukraine itself.

So moving on from my first of my priorities to the second. This is a bit of an amalgam one because this is, you may recall, working with others to embed attention to human rights, human beings, human well-being within the heart of the great issues that confront our societies right now. I have been focussing on four of these great issues.

The first is migration.

It has been a very important area of attention for me throughout the year. In terms of ongoing engagement you will have seen from my outputs and my words I have had to address the issue of pushbacks in a number of our member states. I have had to address the issue of the refusal of access to asylum procedures within the territory of the Council of Europe. I have had to address the persistent issue of a failure to deliver state accountability for criminal acts of state officials within the migration context.

And my particular focus, as some of you will be aware, beyond what I have just said, is on the phenomenon of externalisation. The contracting out in various formats to other states of our own state responsibility in terms of the management of migration.

This is always timely but, of course, takes on a particular resonance in the context of the growing policy direction towards externalisation on this continent.

I focused on three contexts:

• The first is the externalisation of asylum procedures.
• Second the externalisation of return procedures.
• Third the externalisation of border management.

Two general observations.

These are sometimes as you well know described as innovative solutions it is important to recall there is nothing innovative here. Everything that we are trying in Europe has been tried somewhere else and everywhere else it has been tried it has been seen as very problematic.

The second general observation is that these innovative or new approaches are from a human rights point of view replete with risk. This requires at a minimum that our member states proceed with three preoccupations.

• The first is in all such venturing forth into these areas they adopt what I describe as a precautionary principle. Aware that things can go wrong ensuring from the outset that they are alert to how to avoid things going wrong.
• Second this requires putting in place in any arrangement with other states human rights preconditions and safeguards.
• Third it means ensuring the effectiveness of such safeguards through putting in place sturdy human rights monitoring systems which in return themselves need a commitment to transparency and accountability.

To assist the member states as they address these issues going forward, I am now engaged in a new area of work which is the development of guidance for the rollout by states of human rights assessment tools. In other words, tools to help in delivering on those three areas that I mentioned that need attention.

There are two further migration related issues that cause me a considerable degree of concern.

The first has to do with deaths at sea. The IOM told us in recent days that the incidence of death in the Mediterranean already this year is at the highest we have ever seen it in the current context of crisis. This is deplorable since we could deploy the search and rescue capacity overnight if we had the will. People are drowning in part because of inadequate search and rescue.

Second, there is the context right now in the EU setting of the continued negotiation of a new or a recast return regulation. I have issued an observation on this on the 2nd of March. I will not go into it in detail here but as the negotiation heads towards a conclusion it is so important that such principles be protected as individualised asylum assessment, great care ne taken from a human rights point of view in the management of return hubs, there be a return to an earlier draft which allowed that the first option for people to go home is voluntary return. That if they want to go home they can go home in a voluntary way. However, for reasons I don't understand, in later negotiations a forced return is now the default option even if somebody wants to go home which doesn't seem to me to be very convincing.

And then finally there is a presumption of a default option of detention for those subject to return which may not always be necessary and which certainly in the case of children is very problematic as we know from the established practise under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and of UNICEF.

The second great issue has to do with artificial intelligence. There are four contexts for my work and my focus on AI.

• The first is the extraordinary speed of the rollout of new generations of the technology.
• Second there is the coterminous push for deregulation.
• Third closely attached to this, there is the zero-sum presentation of the options of regulation on the one hand and innovation on the other.
• Fourth there is, and this is very welcome, a growing awareness of the inherent risks and dangers of unregulated artificial intelligence.

In these regards, by and large, the models for oversight have not caught up with the technology, on the one hand, and the discourse, on the other. We need a new generation of models for oversight and so I will propose elements for how we can embed human rights in oversight of artificial intelligence in a report in coming months.

Third of my four of the great issues is the environment. This is of course the great existential issue of our moment. There will be no future if we do not get this one right. I have been slow to come to the table because I wanted to make sure what I brought was value-added and I am pleased to let you know that I and my team are now fully invested in supporting a human rights approach to the climate crisis. I am doing it using a classic model of promoting implementation of judgements of the European Court of Human Rights. There have been over 300 judgements of the Court around issues of the environment and what I am seeking to do is support across the member states implementation by all of us of a common core content from these judgements. This is not implementation of judgements in the classic sense. It is identifying the common key so that we can all be led by the Court towards clarifying within the Council of Europe the meaning of the right to a healthy environment.

Fourth and finally, I am pleased to say I become engaged much more, in a much more consequent way in the past year around issues of inequality. I focus on the issue of child poverty, and I will stay with this topic until the end of my mandate. My focus is on how we can approach child poverty with human rights at the heart of our efforts. I have done two country visits on this theme already and I will issue a report with hopefully useful guidance for states next year.

The third of my four priorities, again familiar to those of you who have been listening to me over the last two years, is seeking out the most abandoned forgotten marginalised people in our societies and standing up for them.

That is why I have invested so much time over the past two years in the situation of Roma and Travellers. I have done five country visits, looking specifically at the issue. I published my book “The Unheard 12 million” and there is a travelling exhibition moving around Europe right now associated with the work. All of it intended to break through the hidden in plain sight experience that Roma live and so that we can move their plight up the policy agendas. I will continue to stay focused on this work at the regional and country levels. as well as, of course, with the relevant bodies here in Strasbourg.

A second of these forgotten people that I finally was able to turn my attention to in recent months is the people in occupied territories. They have been very much on my mind in Ukraine in the temporarily occupied territories, but in addition recently, I have been able to pay attention to the people of  Abkhazia and Tskhinvali region/South Ossetia. This focus will continue.

The third and final of these forgotten or overlooked people that I am beginning to work on now is an entirely different group but no less forgotten from a human rights point of view and that is older people in institutional care. This is a neglected group from a human rights point of view. COVID was already five six years ago but it reminded us of how so many people died because of an inadequate attention to their needs. So I intend to put a heavy investment in this group, over the coming year in particular.

The fourth and the final of my priority areas is standing up for human rights defenders in particular and civil society more generally. It is as I have said to you before a surprisingly large part of my work. I was not expecting that not a week would go by without me having to intervene with a government around issues, but that is the simple fact.

Over the last year the concerns have more or less clustered in two areas. The first is freedom of assembly. The freedom, the space to operate, just a space to exist as organisations. We have increasingly suffocating laws in too many places which have the effect of massively limiting the work, are completely impeding the work of civil society organisations. And secondly, we have had a concentration of problems around a meaningful space for the freedom of peaceful protest which again engages issues of freedom of assembly, freedom of expression and so on.

You will see by the way in the fourth of my priorities a very clear link to the very important work that you are doing around democracy.

Dear President, Ambassadors,

There is one priority area that I was not expecting. I did not design it. It was imposed on me and that is to contribute, with many other actors, to a defence of the Convention system.

My views are very well known. I have expressed them here on a number of occasions. I do not intend to rehearse them again today other than just a few very brief recollections.

• The first is that I continue to be of the view that the letter and statement of last year by some member states were unhelpful.
• Secondly, I consider that it was good that the discussion was brought in-house, with the work that the CDDH and yourselves are bringing to a close right now.
• Third, I consider that the elements for the draft declaration are a lot better than some of the language we saw in the earlier documents. Some of the pitfalls have been avoided. I will leave it there.
• Fourth, I accept that the draft language that has been largely finalised is the language that will go to Chișinău, to the summit.

I would just ask that you and the member states would keep in mind four things as you proceed out from Chișinău.

• The first is that you will never cease to demand full respect for the independence of Courts. I pluralise that. It is the Court of Human Rights, but it is also domestic courts when engaging in issues of human rights.
• Secondly that you will never cease to stand up for the universality of human rights, for the equal enjoyment of human rights, regardless of the accident of who you are or where you were born or how you have found yourself in the hands of the state.
• Third, we have to be so careful going forward that we do not instrumentalise the European Convention on Human Rights for some other policy ambition.
• And fourth and finally, across everything we do going forward, please make every effort to anticipate the unintended consequences. There is a risk of consequences in 10, 15, 20 years’ time, maybe when the politics of our continent change, based on actions we take now. We must anticipate and ward off these consequences.

I have taken some time this afternoon, Madam President, but I want to close with a positive note, if I may.

I normally end up getting rather dystopian at the end of these things and I do not want to do that today. I want to reflect briefly on the fact that I have been two years in this job and during those two years I have come to know the Council of Europe. I knew it as an outsider, I have come to know it as an insider.

I think it is important that I end my remarks by saying how deeply impressed I am by the continuing achievements of this organisation. It has built strong foundations and infrastructure for the defence of human rights and we must occasionally recall these.

For sure, it is the Court, it is always the Court, but it is also the other instruments beyond the Convention and their monitoring bodies. It is the impact in countries, in prison cells of the CPT, in women's shelters of GREVIO. I see it in my work every time I visit a country.

It is in the treaty generating capacity of the organisation. This organisation is deservedly known as the global human rights treaty laboratory, and as such, it serves such an important role. Look at the AI Framework Convention, look at the Convention on the Safety of Lawyers, globally groundbreaking. My only concern here would be that we write great treaties but we maybe should work far harder to promote them.

Look at the output of numerous bodies such as the Venice Commission. Look at the impact of the Venice Commission for the oversight of the policing of rule of law on this continent. It is an under-acknowledged achievement.

There is the very diverse work of the Secretariat, which again I have had a pleasure to get to know in the past two years. The imaginative, creative, groundbreaking work on AI. The HUDERIA assessment tool developed by the Secretariat of this organisation is a global leader.

Look at the work on Roma. The vast aquis of input to stay standing up in defence of Roma culture and Roma history is in large part a story of the Roma work of the Secretariat at the Council of Europe.

And there is so much more I will not list now. I have not listed any of the great work of my team but they will understand that it would be a bit odd for me to start listing their achievement in this setting, but I want to acknowledge it nevertheless.

In closing, President, Ambassadors, I agree that there is no room for complacency. It is the most challenging time one could imagine, but as we face into the hard winds of the period, let us do so with a deep appreciation of how well this organisation delivers already on its core business. This is a basis for legitimate pride and for self-assurance as we go forward.

Thank you.

• Download the speech - CommHR(2026)37

Bei der Präsentation des Parlamentsberichts 2025 berichtet Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz über die besorgniserregende Situation im Jugendstrafvollzug. Die Zahl inhaftierter Jugendlicher ist im Vorjahr um 46 Prozent gestiegen. Die neue Jugendhaftanstalt Münnichplatz ist bereits kurz nach Eröffnung zu 114 Prozent ausgelastet. Es gibt zu wenig Personal und Platz. Die Folge ist, dass Jugendliche oft mit Erwachsenen angehalten werden.

„Die Zahl der inhaftierten Jugendlichen ist im Berichtsjahr deutlich angestiegen. 2024 gab es 125 Jugendliche in Haft. Ende 2025 waren es 182. Das bedeutet einen Anstieg von rund 46 Prozent in nicht einmal einem Jahr. Aufgrund des Überbelags werden Jugendliche häufig gemeinsam mit Erwachsenen angehalten. Das ist eine dramatische Situation", betont Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz. Im Parlamentsbericht 2025 sind erneut zahlreiche Fälle prekärer Haftbedingungen dokumentiert - u.a.:

• Mitte März 2025 waren in der Justizanstalt St. Pölten 327 Insassen untergebracht. Wegen des hohen Belagsdrucks musste die Jugendabteilung geschlossen werden. Vier Jugendliche wurden auf andere Abteilungen gelegt, wo sie in Mehrpersonenhafträumen mit Erwachsenen untergebracht waren.
• Im August 2025 waren in der Justizanstalt Wr. Neustadt fünf Jugendliche nicht in einer eigenen Abteilung untergebracht. Es gab auch keine Ergotherapie, Sozialpädagogik oder Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrische Versorgung.

Jugendhaftanstalt Münnichplatz zu 114 Prozent ausgelastet

Nach Jahren der Verzögerungen beim Umbau wurde die neue Jugendhaftanstalt Wien-Münnichplatz im Jänner 2026 offiziell eröffnet. „Die Voraussetzungen waren nach vielen Hürden grundsätzlich gut. Doch mittlerweile ist der Münnichplatz bereits zu 114% ausgelastet. Belagsdruck und Personalmangel sind große Probleme. Die neue Anstalt sollte die gesamte Ostregion entlasten. Davon sind wir weit entfernt“, so Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz.

• Der Münnichplatz ist für 72 Plätze ausgelegt. Derzeit werden 82 Jugendliche dort angehalten (Stand 20.4.2026). Nun wurde die maximale Auslastung von der Generaldirektion sogar auf 90 Plätze angehoben. Aus dem Justizministerium heißt es: „Um optimale Bedingungen im Jugendvollzug zu gewährleisten, soll mit Anfang Mai die Belagsfähigkeit erweitert werden.“ Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz übt scharfe Kritik: „Die Erweiterung in ein positives Licht zu rücken, kann wirklich nur ein schlechter Scherz sein! Ich sage es ganz deutlich: Das ist keinesfalls etwas Gutes. Mit der Anhebung der Belagsfähigkeit wird die Anstalt überfordert noch bevor sie richtig läuft.“
• Der Überbelag wird zum Teil durch Stockbetten kompensiert. Die für Jugendliche empfohlene Ein- oder Zweipersonenbelegung ist dadurch nicht mehr möglich.
• Weitere Folge ist, dass die vom Justizministerium vorgegebene Mindesthaftraumgröße pro Insasse nicht mehr eingehalten werden kann.
• Für den Münnichplatz sind 60 Planstellen im Exekutivdienst geplant. Derzeit stehen nur 43 Personen zur Verfügung, davon 10 Dienstzuteilungen (teilweise ohne Vorkenntnisse über die Arbeit im Jugendstrafvollzug).

„Zu wenig Justizwachepersonal bedeutet wenig Beschäftigungsmöglichkeiten und hohe Einschlusszeiten für die jugendlichen Insassen. Es gibt zwar neue Sport- und Bewegungsmöglichkeiten im Innenhof. Doch ohne ausreichenden Justizwachebeamten können sie nicht genützt werden. Diese Situation ist für das Personal und die Inhaftierten gleichermaßen untragbar. Wenn uns sowohl Bedienstete als auch Insassen beim Sprechtag sagen, dass dringend mehr Personal notwendig ist, schrillen bei mir alle Alarmglocken“, appelliert Volksanwältin Gaby Schwarz, den Personalschlüssel rasch anzuheben.

Ombudsman Velislava Delcheva sent a opinion to the acting Minister of Energy, Traicho Traikov, regarding the draft amendment to the Ordinance on the formula for calculating building heating systems, which was published for public consultation on 13 March 2026.

6 April 2026

Ombudsman Velislava Delcheva sent a opinion to the acting Minister of Energy, Traicho Traikov, regarding the draft amendment to the Ordinance on the formula for calculating building heating systems, which was published for public consultation on 13 March 2026.

In her opinion, the Ombudsman emphasises that a fundamental right of heat energy customers is to pay for actual measured and recorded consumption in their properties. Pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, item 2, subparagraph “bb” of the Ordinance, the amount of heat energy supplied by the building heating system can be accurately measured.

In this regard, the Ombudsman maintains her repeatedly stated position on the issue under discussion: if the amount of heat energy emitted by a building’s infrastructure can be measured accurately, it follows logically that all other methods for determining it should be discarded.

According to Velislava Delcheva, the proposed amendments essentially replicate the formula for calculating the heat energy emitted by the building’s heating system—which has already been suspended by the court—with only technical clarifications made to the parameters.

“There has been a formal change, but the identified problems have not actually been resolved,” the opinion states.

Delcheva points out that there is no convincing justification for key elements in the formula, including the equalisation of coefficients for different types of indoor heating systems, as well as the method for determining the adjustment values. In her words, this calls into question the accuracy and fairness of cost allocation among consumers.

The Ombudsman further emphasises that the draft does not sufficiently account for the effect of energy efficiency measures on actual consumption.

“In their current form, the proposals do not guarantee transparency and fair billing of individual consumption,” the opinion further states.

The proposed requirement to inform consumers monthly about the parameters used in the calculations is seen as a positive step, but according to the Ombudsman, this does not compensate for the draft’s fundamental weaknesses.

The opinion also calls for a change in the provisions that allow—but do not require—heat supply companies to reduce capacity when buildings’ energy efficiency improves, noting that this measure should be made mandatory in the interest of citizens.

In conclusion, Velislava Delcheva emphasises that the changes, while urgent, are insufficient and do not meet expectations for real consumer protection, including in light of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union.