Recommends that all newborn children should be screened in order to detect hearing problems at an early stage

The Commissioner for Health, Mr Charles Messina has concluded an Own Initiative Investigation on several difficulties faced by people with Hearing Problems. The investigation was initiated following complaints in the local media.

The Commissioner proposed the setting up of an ad hoc Committee aimed at bringing to the attention of the authorities the various difficulties and challenges encountered by people with hearing problems and recommend a way forward.

In his Final Opinion, the Commissioner specifically recommended that all newborn children should be screened, so that those having hearing impairments are diagnosed at the earliest possible stage. The Commissioner further recommended the employment of interpreters especially in educational institutions and hospitals.The Commissioner for Health concluded the report by recommending that the Education Authorities should explore the feasibility of grouping all hearing impaired students in one school.

The Commissioner for Health concluded the report by recommending that the Education Authorities should explore the feasibility of grouping all hearing impaired students in one school.

Click here to access the full report: Own Initiative investigation – Hearing Problems

El Justicia de Aragón, Fernando García Vicente, ha recibido la carta del Ayuntamiento de Aísa mediante la cual acepta la sugerencia formulada por la Institución sobre la necesidad de limpiar las alcantarillas de Candanchú.

En la comunicación dirigida al Justicia, el consistorio oscense indica que se revisarán y recompondrán, en su caso, todos los elementos y registros de la red de alcantarillado y recogida de aguas pluviales de la urbanización de Candanchú a fin de adecuar su utilidad plena.

La Administración local responde así a la queja que una vecina de la urbanización de Candanchú expuso ante el Justicia de Aragón por la acumulación de tierra y hierbas en las alcantarillas del tramo comprendido entre el albergue “El Águila” y el edificio “Los Iglos” lo que provoca que se taponen cuando llueve desbordando el agua a la calzada.

El Justicia agradece la colaboración del Ayuntamiento de Aísa y su voluntad de mejorar los servicios públicos de los núcleos urbanos que atiende.

In this case, the complainant was removed by her employer from a managerial position shortly before going on maternity leave. She considered this to be discriminatory and protested against the employer’s conduct in writing. The employer responded by referring to Section 73 of the Labour Code and claiming that she could be removed from such a position without being given a reason.

The Defender agreed with the conclusion that if a senior employee can be removed under the Labour Code, the employer can generally do so at any time, for any reason and even without giving a reason. However, the Defender emphasised that, even in such a situation, the employer was bound by the duty of non-discrimination and could therefore not remove an employee on discriminatory grounds, for example on grounds of maternity. In this conclusion, the Defender relied inter alia on the case-law of the Supreme Court, which had opined analogously on termination of employment during the trial period. She also stated that a mere removal from office would not be the only unfavourable treatment if discrimination was found. The second adverse consequence is that the complainant could not to return to her original job after her maternity leave despite the fact that this is guaranteed by Section 43 of the Labour Code; instead, she would have to accept the offer of some other (lower) position generally corresponding to her qualification and employment contract, and her employment could even be terminated on the grounds of redundancy if she refused that offer.

In assessing whether discrimination had occurred, the Defender referred, on a subsidiary basis, to Section 133a of the Code of Civil Procedure, which lays down the concept of “shared onus of proof”. Considering that the complainant was removed from office only two days before going on maternity leave, unfavourable treatment was obvious prima facie. The Defender was of the opinion that the complainant would be able to bear her onus of proof in potential litigation and it would be up to the employer to prove non-discriminatory grounds for her removal. The Defender therefore requested that the employer provide a statement on the complainant’s case in order to ascertain whether or not her removal had been motivated by different, non-discriminatory grounds (for example, poor work results, etc.). The employer explained in its statement that the complainant’s superior had officially substantiated her conduct by ensuring proper operation of the relevant department.

Since the employer did not provide any other reason for the removal, and did not further specify the proper operation of the department, the Defender concluded that the actual reason consisted, beyond reasonable doubt, in the complainant’s pregnancy and the employer had been guilty of direct discrimination in the sense of Section 2 (3) of the Anti-discrimination Act. The complainant brought the case to the courts, lodging an anti-discrimination action. The court is yet to decide on the case.

Based on agreement with the Police President, the Defender prepared a training programme for police officers responsible for guarding persons placed in police cells. The training was aimed at fostering the prevention of maltreatment, especially in those areas where shortcomings are regularly found on the part of the Police of the Czech Republic during our systematic visits

Lectures were delivered on individual rights of persons placed in cells and the corresponding duties of police officers. Specifically, advice was provided on the rights of persons placed in cells; exercise of the right to legal assistance; notifying a third party of such placement; exercise of the right to receive medical treatment from a physician of choice; serving meals three times a day at reasonable intervals; removal of medical devices; lodging of complaints. The second part of the training provided a general introduction to fundamental rights and freedoms; international treaties on fundamental rights and their protection; the status and activities of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, including the standards issued by the Committee; and activities and powers of the European Court of Human Rights and the binding effect of its rulings on the Czech Republic. The principles governing the possibility to bind persons in cells to a fixed piece of furniture and the use of restrictive/coercive measures in the safe environment of cells were explained using specific examples from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, including the legal case of Kummer v. the Czech Republic.