.

The Ombudsman has initiated an inquiry on her own initiative to investigate the conditions for performance of protective treatment, specifically the justification and scope of regime measures, the justification and scope of placement in an isolation room, exercise of the right of access to the courts, handling of personal belongings and the behaviour of the hospital’s medical staff after the patient’s inclusion in one of the so-called remote monitoring groups.

The psychiatric clinic made an error when it unjustifiably placed and kept the patient in an isolation room, moreover under undignified conditions, and when it needlessly kept him under a regime of remote monitoring, limited activities and limited therapeutic action. Unjustified, prolonged and time-unlimited keeping of a patient under a remote monitoring within which he or she had to conform to a strict regime measures, including a stay in an isolation room, made such an impact on the personality and human dignity of the patient that the Ombudsman evaluated it as ill-treatment.

In its statement to the report, the psychiatric clinic stated that it could not refute some of the points given in the report However, it did not dispute the Ombudsman's findings and assessments. The psychiatric clinic promised to take measures to prevent such errors from re-occurring. The Ombudsman subsequently closed the inquiry.

Based on appeals by parents, the Chancellor of Justice initiated a discussion about whether charging a transition fee is justified when a child changes his/her sports club. Several sports federations, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Education and Research, the Estonian Youth Work Centre, the Estonian Olympic Committee, and the Tallinn Sports and Youth Department participated in the discussion.

Summarising the discussions, the Chancellor of Justice made recommendations for applying transition fees if children change their sports club:

• determine the child’s interests in the case of all decisions, actions, and activities influencing the child and the young person, and regard them as being the most important when making decisions;

• ensure that the child and young person also have the opportunity to train and compete at a time when there is an ongoing dispute regarding their transitioning between clubs;

• do not use a child’s rights as a guarantee or leverage when resolving the disputes arising from the agreement;

• explain to the parents the contractual rights and obligations upon concluding an agreement between the sports club and a parent, including the principles of the transition fee;

• counsel parents regarding issues related to choosing a relevant sport that takes into consideration the needs and abilities of their child and a young person;

• develop best practices for protecting a child’s interests in a sports federation and update them, as necessary.

Regarding decisions about a child’s participation in sports and training activities, parents also need to put their child’s interests first and set aside their own personal ambitions. Parents must also take into consideration the proper development of their child, including the education level required for current needs, when concluding an agreement, including a professional agreement, in the name of their child or a young person. A parent must explain to their child or a young person, in a comprehensible manner, what the contractual rights and obligations are.

During the meetings organised at the office of the Chancellor of Justice, the option to establish a lower age limit within the framework of general good practice was considered. In case of children younger than the lower limit, the transition fee principle shall not be applied. The federations believe that it would be impossible to establish a single lower limit, as the specifics of each sport are different. For instance, to be able to even have the chance to participate in a professional sport, one must start training in gymnastics and ballroom dancing at the age of 4. In such a case, a 10-year-old has already been active in their respective field for a period of 6-7 years.

The Chancellor of Justice calls on the federations to critically evaluate the lower age limits established in their regulations, to ensure the proportionality of the transition fee system in conjunction with the time contributed to training the child. Children must retain the right to change sports, clubs, and trainers without excessive formal and non-formal barriers.

Im April 2016 stellte ein Pensionist in der Porzellangasse 27, in 1090 Wien sein Auto ab. Da er sehr viel zu Fuß in Wien unterwegs ist, ist bis Ende Mai sein Fahrzeug immer noch dort gestanden. Zwischenzeitlich wurde jedoch das Halte- und Parkverbot („Behindertenzone“) ausgeweitet und hatte nun auch seinen bisher völlig legalen Parkplatz umfasst. Daraufhin wurde sein Auto abgeschleppt. Neben einer Strafverfügung erhielt er eine Rechnung über die Abschleppgebühren. Der Pensionist schaltete seinen Rechtsanwalt ein, welcher ihm riet, die Abschleppgebühren nicht zu zahlen und den Bescheid sowie die Strafe zu beeinspruchen.

Erst danach wurde er von der MA 67 informiert, dass er laut Kennzeichenliste bereits vor Verordnung des Halte- und Parkverbotes dort geparkt habe und somit die Kostenvorschreibung gegenstandslos und das Strafverfahren eingestellt worden sei.

Das Magistrat erklärte gegenüber der Volksanwaltschaft, dass die zeitgerechte Verteilung von „Vorwarnzettel“ an Windschutzscheiben parkender Autos zu teuer sei. Außerdem stehe jedem Betroffenen die Möglichkeit des Rechtsmittels offen.

Nerven, Zeit und juristische Grundkenntnisse braucht man also, um als Unschuldiger auch ungestraft davonzukommen. Grund genug für die Volksanwaltschaft, dieses Vorgehen zu überprüfen. Volksanwalt Dr. Fichtenbauer stellte in der Studiodiskussion fest, dass anstatt bürgerfreundlich zu agieren, die gesamte Last auf die Bürgerinnen und Bürger überwälzt werde. Die Betroffenen seien gezwungen, Rechtsmittel zu erheben und damit Zeit, Kosten und Mühe zu investieren. Ein Verwaltungsstrafverfahren hätte mangels Verschuldens gar nicht erst begonnen und die Abschleppkosten nie vorgeschrieben werden dürfen.

Ein Vertreter des ÖAMTC erklärt überdies, dass es keinerlei Verpflichtung eines Fahrzeughalters gebe, laufend die aktuelle Parkraumordnung am Abstellplatz des Fahrzeuges zu überprüfen. Da die Abschleppung verschuldensunabhängig sei, sei diese zwar rechtmäßig gewesen, doch der Aufwand, der einem Abgeschleppten dabei entstehe, sei nicht gerechtfertigt. Die Zeit, um zum Abstellplatz abgeschleppter Autos der MA 48 nach Simmering zu kommen und der Kostenaufwand für Betroffene sei unverhältnismäßig.

„Die Behörde stellt rechtswidriger Weise die Belastungspyramide auf den Kopf“, so der Volksanwalt verärgert. Dies sei nicht akzeptabel.