El Defensor del Pueblo acoge con satisfacción la recuperación, en los presupuestos para este año 2015 y en el proyecto para el próximo 2016, del programa estatal de ayudas para la adquisición de libros de texto y material didáctico, con una previsión de gasto de aproximadamente 51 millones de euros.

La inclusión en las previsiones presupuestarias de estas ayudas ha sido reclamada por esta Institución desde hace tiempo y de manera precisa en el estudio hecho público en 2013 sobre “Gratuidad de los libros de texto: programas, ayudas, préstamos y reutilización”. Así, ante el inicio del curso escolar, se ha recordado a todas las administraciones educativas la necesidad de fomentar la gratuidad y la reutilización de los libros de texto para aliviar la carga económica que la adquisición de estos materiales supone para las familias.

En particular se solicitó al Ministerio de Educación “incrementar la aportación para alcanzar la gratuidad de los libros de texto”, y a las comunidades autónomas “los esfuerzos necesarios” para alcanzar dicho objetivo.

El mantenimiento y mejora de esta línea de actuación, conjuntamente con las que son responsabilidad de las administraciones educativas de las comunidades y ciudades autónomas, resultan imprescindibles para alcanzar el objetivo último de la gratuidad de la enseñanza obligatoria que proclama la Constitución.

Two homeowners faced a struggle to sell their homes after South Oxfordshire District Council failed to give them full information about a restriction on their properties, the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) has found.

The homeowners both lived out of the area when they bought their ex-local authority homes some years ago. They were aware of a restriction on the properties at the time but the council did not inform the complainants’ legal representatives of the full extent of that restriction. The homes should only have been sold to people living in a specific area. The council also did not check if the homeowners were entitled to buy the properties.

By the time the homeowners decided to sell in 2014, the council had revised its policy and was enforcing the local restriction. One of the homeowners lost a sale, while the other’s sale was more difficult. The sales prices of both houses were affected because of the restriction.

Section 157 of the Housing Act allows councils to impose a restriction on the future sales of homes bought under the ‘Right to Buy’ scheme if the property is in a national park, area of outstanding natural beauty or designated rural area. This also means that the property cannot be sold without the consent of the local council; and the person intending to buy the home must have lived or worked in the specified area for three years. Councils do, however, have the discretion to agree to the sale of the property if the potential purchaser does not have a local connection.

The pair complained separately to the LGO that the council failed to inform them fully of the restrictions when they bought their properties and also did not tell them when the policy was clarified in 2013, reintroducing the local restrictions.

Both homeowners complained that they would not have bought their properties had they known the council would only grant consent to a person with a local connection as this limited the future market for their properties. Neither of the homeowners were the first purchasers of the properties.

The council argued that the onus was on the homeowners’ solicitors to check the full details and inform them of the restrictions and added that it exercised its discretion not to enforce the full terms of the restriction until 2013.

The LGO found South Oxfordshire council at fault for failing to check either homeowner had a local connection before granting consent to buy, and found no evidence that the council actively made a decision to exercise discretion not to enforce the local connection requirement.

The LGO said the council should have informed the women of the restriction. The investigation also found the council at fault for failing to give the solicitors complete information about the section 157 restrictions.

Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin, said:

“Selling a home is a stressful time for most people, but in these two instances South Oxfordshire Council made the moving process all the more difficult because of the historic restrictions they were now enforcing on the properties.

“I have found no evidence that the council made an active decision not to enforce the restrictions when the homeowners bought their properties, and officers should have properly informed the sellers and buyers’ legal representatives when they made enquiries.

“I now urge the council to consider my report and provide the remedy I have recommended.”

To remedy the injustice, the council should instruct the district valuer to assess the value of the properties at the point at which both homeowners sold them with the partial restriction imposed when they bought them. The district valuer should complete a similar assessment of the value of the properties complete with the full section 157 restrictions imposed.

If the properties’ values were affected, the council should pay fifty per cent of the difference to both homeowners. The council should only pay half the amount because the LGO cannot hold the council fully responsible for any advice given to the homeowners about the restrictions when they bought their properties.

The council should also pay £250 each to acknowledge the significant stress caused to them.

Ein von der Marktgemeinde bestellter Standesbeamter nahm außerhalb seines Zuständigkeitsbereichs in einer anderen Gemeinde in den Jahren 2013 und 2014 Trauungen vor. Die Eheschließungen beurkundete er im Ehebuch der Marktgemeinde. Mit dieser Vorgangsweise löste er bei zahlreichen Ehepaaren eine große Rechtsunsicherheit über die Gültigkeit der Eheschließungen aus.

Die Marktgemeinde bezeichnete die Ehen den Betroffenen gegenüber in einem Schreiben vom April 2015 als „rechtlich gesehen absolut nichtig (unwirksam)“ und „Nichtehe“. Eine Sanierung dieses Umstandes sei nur durch eine neuerliche Eheschließung möglich, so der Bürgermeister wörtlich.

Im konkreten Fall hatten die Eheleute zwei Jahre zuvor, im Mai 2013, die Ehe vor dem Standesbeamten, der ihnen empfohlen worden war, geschlossen. Medienberichten zufolge waren auch andere Ehepaare von der Situation betroffen. Gegen den Standesbeamten wurden laut behördlicher Stellungnahme ein Strafverfahren wegen Verdachts auf Amtsmissbrauch und ein Disziplinarverfahren eingeleitet.

Sowohl das von der Volksanwaltschaft kontaktierte Bundesministerium für Inneres (BMI) als auch das Bundesministerium für Justiz (BMJ) stimmten nach intensiver Prüfung überein, dass die von dem Standesbeamten außerhalb seines Dienstbereichs vorgenommenen Trauungen trotzdem gültig sind. Obwohl für eine vor dem österreichischen Recht gültige Eheschließung ein rechtswirksam bestellter Standesbeamter nötig ist, wurden die Ehen durch eine Eintragung in das Ehebuch der Marktgemeinde geschlossen. Das Bundesministerium für Justiz betonte in seiner Stellungnahme aber auch, dass letztlich ausschließlich die Gerichte dazu befugt seien, in rechtsverbindlicher Weise über die Rechtswirksamkeit einer Ehe abzusprechen.

Die Volksanwaltschaft kritisiert, dass man die betroffenen Paare durch das Vorgehen eines einzelnen Standesbeamten einer solch unangenehmen Situation ausgesetzt hat und die Gültigkeit ihrer Ehen für längere Zeit unklar blieb. Positiv soll jedoch hervorgehoben werden, dass die Ministerien den Sachverhalt eingehend prüften und erfreulicherweise Entwarnung geben konnten.

PRESS RELEASE The Hague, 1 September 2015 National Ombudsman notes points for improvement in repatriation process

Dutch authorities go to considerable lengths to ensure that repatriation procedures are conducted with due regard for the rights of the individual.; Nevertheless, a study by the National Ombudsman concludes that some aspects can be improved. The Ombudsman has made recommendations to the State Secretary of Security and Justice with regard to the availability of medical care, the accessibility of the complaints procedure, and the exchange of information. In his report, he also advocates multidisciplinary supervision of the entire repatriation process as well as standard investigation of incidents. The National Ombudsman examined the process by which persons refused leave to remain in the Netherlands are removed from our country, and specifically the manner in which repatriation flights are organized and monitored to ensure no violation of individual’s rights. The investigation was prompted by a request from the European Ombudsman.

Persons who are denied permission to remain in the Netherlands and who fail to leave voluntarily can be repatriated, a process known as ‘forced return’. Generally, they are booked onto a scheduled flight operated by a commercial airline. In 2014, the Netherlands returned 1,520 persons to their country of origin in this way. In some cases, ‘Joint Return Operations’ (JROs) are organized under the auspices of the European Frontex agency, in which case one Member State is responsible for the flight itself and for the monitoring arrangements. In 2014, the Netherlands repatriated fourteen persons on a Frontex flight.

Implementation

The repatriation procedure is subject to strict protocols, and the relevant authorities do much to ensure that the individual’s rights are respected at all times. The National Ombudsman finds that officers of the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (Koninklijke Marechaussee) generally succeed in establishing a good rapport with the returnees they are required to escort, thus fostering cooperation and reducing the likelihood of a situation in which force or restraint becomes necessary. Nevertheless, the National Ombudsman sees room for improvement in terms of medical support and the exchange of information. For one thing, the circumstances in which it is necessary to verify whether a returnee is ‘fit to fly’ have not been adequately defined. Then there are occasions on which police escorts are required to make judgements of a medical nature, while they neither possess nor have ready access to the necessary expertise. In the Ombudsman’s view, medical support must be available at all times.

The National Ombudsman also draws attention to shortcomings in information exchange. Police escorts rely to a significant degree on ‘TISOV’, the joint information system in which a returnee’s personal details (such as height, the language he or she speaks, and whether any resistance to repatriation can be expected) is – or should be – recorded. In some cases, essential information is not to hand. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the exchange of information in the repatriation process should be improved.

Monitoring and supervision

An effective system of independent monitoring provides an essential safeguard, ensuring that all government responsibilities with regard to returnees’ rights are met. Since 2014, the Security and Justice Inspectorate (Inspectie Veiligheid en Justitie) has been responsible for supervising return operations from the moment the returnee arrives at the departure airport until he or she arrives at the destination airport. The National Ombudsman finds that this supervision must be extended to include the preparations for the return flight. In addition, the Inspectorate should be required to investigate all incidents. And furthermore, the quality of supervision will be enhanced by adopting a multidisciplinary approach. Currently, the Inspectorate only ascertains whether the correct procedures have been followed with regard to medical issues, but does not make a medical assessment. An effective and accessible complaints procedure is another essential safeguard. The National Ombudsman finds that returnees must be actively informed about their right to submit a complaint, and that relevant information should be made available both before and during the return flight.

Monitoring of Frontex flights

The organization and supervision of a Frontex flight falls to one of the participating Member States. Frontex has produced a Code of Conduct to which all members subscribe. However, Member States each have different standards when it comes to repatriation flights. The National Ombudsman recommends that the definition of ‘proportional force’ is harmonized at European level, together with agreements on monitoring and supervision. This calls for improved cooperation between Member States.

Background

The National Ombudsman’s investigation was prompted by a request from the European Ombudsman, who in late 2014 announced the intention of reporting on the ‘Joint Return Operations’ conducted under the banner of the Frontex agency. She invited the National Ombudsmen of the Member States to contribute information about the return procedures in their respective countries. Similar studies were therefore conducted simultaneously by the Netherlands’ Ombudsman’s counterparts in other Member States. The European Ombudsman’s report, How Frontex can ensure respect for migrants’ fundamental rights during forced returns, was submitted to the European Parliament on 6 May 2015.

Note to editors

The full report (ref. 2015/126) can be found online at www.nationaleombudsman.nl.

For further information, please contact Sandra Loois (+31 70 356 3641) or Erna van Eerden (+31 70 356 3637). The European Ombudsman’s report is available at www.ombudsman.europa.eu/nl/press.

For news, reports and background information about the National Ombudsman, see www.nationaleombudsman.nl.
Follow the National Ombudsman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/nat_ombudsman.

The National Ombudsman’s office is an independent institute which each year receives some 38,000 complaints from individuals who are dissatisfied with the service provided by public sector authorities in the Netherlands. The National Ombudsman is appointed by Parliament. The incumbent is Reinier van Zutphen.