On 27 June 2019, Deputy Ombudsman Maija Sakslin issued a decision concerning assistance provided to the victims of human trafficking. The case concerned organising measures to help a person who had fallen victim to human trafficking and arranging social services for this person. In the decision, the social welfare service had been found to have neglected its statutory duty to arrange the kind of assistance that a victim of human trafficking would have needed. The social welfare service’s negligence endangered the person’s legal protection and her special right to receive help as a victim of human trafficking. Due to the exceptional nature of the negligence, in addition to issuing a reprimand regarding the case, the Deputy Ombudsman has proposed that the municipality pay compensation to the victim for the violation of her fundamental rights. 

The municipality in question has apologised for its erroneous action revealed in the case and has paid the victim the sum of EUR 3,900 in compensation for the violation of her fundamental rights. 

When investigating the case, the Deputy Ombudsman became concerned on a more general level about how the victims of human trafficking can obtain assistance and how familiar the municipal authorities are with the legislation concerning assistance to the victims of human trafficking. 

In her decision, the Deputy Ombudsman referred to the report of the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman adopted by Parliament and the relevant statement, EK 45/2018 vp, in which Parliament required the Government to implement the necessary measures to ensure equal rights of access to assistance for the victims of human trafficking and investigate the potential need for legal amendments (among others) with regard to helping the victims of human trafficking and strengthening the victim-based approach to the assistance given. 

The Deputy Ombudsman decided to speed up the preparation of the amendments required by Parliament by submitting an information request to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health to report on the measures it has taken on the matter by the end of 2019. 

In the report, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health listed measures taken, including issuing the municipal bulletin, Kuntainfo 3/2019, on helping the victims of human trafficking. In addition, in its report, the ministry referred to the policies included in the Government Programme and the plan on the implementation of the Government Programme policies agreed between four ministries. The report concluded that the structure of work against human trafficking needs to be clarified and permanent resources assigned for the purpose. The system must also be simplified in order to ensure equal services regardless of the municipality of residence. Also, the measures for identifying child victims of human trafficking and for preventing human trafficking and prostitution must be intensified.

According to the Ministry’s announcement, a separate law will be enacted about helping the victims of human trafficking. At the same time, references to the victims of human trafficking will be added to the Social Welfare Act and the Health Care Act and the Act on the Reception of Persons Applying for International Protection and on the Identification of and Assistance to Victims of Trafficking in Human Beings will be updated. Also, other legal amendments that might be necessary and EU legislation will be taken into account. 

In future, helping the victims of human trafficking will fall within the administrative sector of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health. However, the new legislation will be prepared in co-operation with the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. A joint Government Anti-Trafficking Coordinator has been appointed to the Ministry of Justice.

The full text (in Finnish) of the decision, 3489/2017, concerning assistance for the victims of human trafficking is available on the Ombudsman's website, www.oikeusasiamies.fi

Further inquiries: information officer Citha Dahl, tel. +358 9 432 3352.

Councils across England are being reminded by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman of their duties under the Care Act to administer ‘top-up fees’ for people contributing towards relatives’ care.

The warning comes after two councils – Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council, and Lincolnshire County Council – disputed some of the Ombudsman’s recommendations against them.

Top-up fees are the difference someone (often a relative) chooses to pay for a loved-one’s stay in a care home over and above the amount the council has agreed to pay.

In the case of Dudley, the Ombudsman found the council, as standard practice, had been asking relatives to enter into an agreement with the care home to pay the amount, rather than administer the funding itself and claim the money from the relatives.

The Ombudsman asked the council to consider stopping this practice, however the council challenged the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It argued it would cost too much to administer the changes, and that it did not have to give the relative a choice of who to pay. It also argued that other councils continued to administer fees in the same way.

In Lincolnshire, the Ombudsman found the council did not give people the option to pay the top-up fee to the council. Again, the Ombudsman asked the council to review its procedures to give people the option of paying the top-up fees directly to the council.

Lincolnshire rejected the Ombudsman’s recommendations, again arguing it would cost too much to administer and that the use of agents – in this case, the care homes – to carry out the council’s functions was allowed.

The Care Act says that only with the consent of the people involved, and the care home, should someone pay a top-up fee direct to the care home. It also says this method is not recommended. By leaving top-up fee contracts to be agreed directly between people and care providers, it can potentially leave people vulnerable to the risk of fee increases. It also devolves the responsibility to collect any unpaid fees to the care provider sector.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“Councils are encouraged to administer the top-up fees, and recoup the money from relatives, because it gives the best security for vulnerable people living in care homes should there be any problems with payments.

“The reasons both councils have given for departing from the Guidance – the financial cost of doing things properly – is irrelevant. At the heart of the matter, we have two councils absolving themselves of their responsibilities to offer the public its basic protections set out in law.

“We also issued guidance to councils back in 2015 on administering these fees, and were quite clear that leaving the administration of top-up fees to care homes was wrong.

“I now call on both authorities to reconsider both my reports and make the necessary arrangements to ensure they comply with the recommendations I have set out.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In these cases, both councils have been asked to review their procedures on top-up fees to ensure they are in line with the Care Act.

Article date: 12 February 2020

e Défenseur des droits rend public le rapport de sa visite à Mayotte les 2 et 3 octobre dernier.

Depuis la création de l’institution en 2011, la situation des droits des personnes vivant à Mayotte est un sujet de préoccupation constant du Défenseur des droits, justifiant plusieurs déplacements depuis 2012, la mise en place d’un réseau territorial de trois délégués à Mayotte et l’installation d’un chef de pôle régional assurant la représentation permanente du Défenseur des droits à la Réunion et à Mayotte.

Chargé par la loi organique de mars 2011 de défendre notamment les usagers des services publics et de promouvoir les droits de l’enfant, le Défenseur des droits s’est, à de nombreuses reprises, prononcé sur les situations d’atteintes aux droits dans ce département, en soulignant l’écart entre les droits consacrés et les droits effectifs. Il publie ce jour un rapport « Etablir Mayotte dans ses droits » qui éclaire une nouvelle fois le problème majeur d’accès aux services publics et d’exercice réel des droits qui affecte l’ensemble de la population. L’accent mis sur la lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière détourne les regards de l’urgence qu’il y a à garantir aux habitants de Mayotte une égalité de droits réelle avec ceux de la métropole.

Les droits fondamentaux – le droit à l’éducation, à la sureté, à la santé, le droit à vivre dans des conditions décentes, notamment - y sont gravement entravés du fait de la carence des services publics.

En matière de droits de l’enfant, le Défenseur des droits déplore l’ineffectivité à Mayotte du droit à la scolarisation ainsi que les défaillances multiples du dispositif de protection de l’enfance

Il rappelle en particulier qu’il appartient aux autorités de permettre la scolarisation de tous les enfants présents sur le territoire national en particulier lorsqu’ils sont en âge d’obligation scolaire et en situation de vulnérabilité.

En matière d’accès à la santé, le Défenseur des droits relève une offre de soins sous-dimensionnée au regard des besoins : 20 médecins généralistes pour une population totale estimée à 250 000 habitants, absence de médecin scolaire, et un ratio de 1,6 lits d’hôpital pour 1000 habitants (contre 6 lits / 1000 hab. en métropole).  Le Défenseur des droits prend la mesure de l’effort financier fourni pour développer la qualité de l’offre de soins à Mayotte, notamment via le financement d’un projet d’extension du Centre hospitalier de Mayotte. Il estime toutefois que, compte tenu de l’ampleur des carences dont souffre le dispositif, ces moyens devraient encore être renforcés. Il regrette, par ailleurs, que le droit dérogatoire qui s’applique à Mayotte prive encore les personnes les plus vulnérables de dispositifs tels que l’AME ou la complémentaire santé solidaire (auparavant CMU-c), comme c’est le cas en métropole. L’accès à de tels dispositifs, outre la progression vers l’alignement des législations, permettrait à ces derniers de bénéficier de soins en ville et de désengorger ainsi l’hôpital public dans l’intérêt de tous. Au regard de la nécessaire prise en compte de l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant, le Défenseur des droits recommande l’affiliation directe à l’assurance maladie des enfants à charge de majeurs non affiliés ainsi que des mineurs isolés.

Enfin, en matière de défense des droits des personnes étrangères, lesquelles représentent un habitant sur deux à Mayotte, le Défenseur des droits regrette que l’augmentation du nombre d’éloignements de personnes en situation irrégulière s’accompagne d’un nombre préoccupant de manquements à la loi.

Le Défenseur des droits rappelle par ailleurs sa position ferme et constante relative à la rétention des enfants : il demande qu’en toutes circonstances, la rétention administrative des mineurs soit proscrite, conformément aux obligations internationales de la France.

Plus généralement, le Défenseur des droits regrette que l’accent mis sur la lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière se fasse au détriment du développement d’une réelle politique d’accueil et d’intégration des étrangers vivant à Mayotte mais plus encore au détriment d’un investissement conséquent au profit des missions de service public.

Rapport - Etablir Mayotte dans ses droits

CP Défenseur des droits - Rapport Etablir Mayotte dans ses droits

Si amplia l’offerta delle udienze negli ospedali delle due località periferiche.

Su richiesta dei pazienti e delle pazienti, la Difesa civica amplia la sua offerta di udienze negli ospedali di Silandro e San Candido per il 2020: tre volte l’anno, il 6 marzo, il 5 giugno e il 6 novembre 2020, sempre alle 14.30, sarà possibile concordare un appuntamento con la Difensora civica o un’esperta del suo team presso il nosocomio di San Candido. Il 27 marzo, il 26 giugno e il 27 novembre lo stesso varrà per l’ospedale di Silandro.

“In risposta alle esigenze dei pazienti, cerchiamo di metterci a disposizione sul posto, per domande e reclami, anche in questi piccoli ospedali”, spiega la Difensora civica Gabriele Morandell. “Se la risposta a questa offerta aggiuntiva sarà positiva, la manterremo anche l’anno successivo. È importante però che le persone interessate si prenotino presso l’ufficio di Bolzano, al nr. 0471.946020: in questo modo, si potranno organizzare meglio le udienze e garantire a ciascuno tempo sufficiente per il colloquio”.

After a thorough investigation, the Seimas Ombudsman Augustinas Normantas drew the attention of the State Security Department (SSD) to the need to focus more on protection of human rights. The Seimas Ombudsman acknowledged that the gaps left in the regulation of intelligence pose a particularly high risk of negatively affecting human rights, and therefore it is important to strengthen control over officials. The Seimas Ombudsman was happy to note that following the issued recommendations, the Seimas is planning to draft amendments to the law.

The Seimas Ombudsperson, in his investigation, also noted that the existing Immunity Board, established by the SSD, does not assess the performance of officials in terms of ensuring the protection of human rights. Moreover, during the investigation, the Seimas Ombudsman also noted that protection of persons’ rights to defence violated by the actions of intelligence officers, as provided for in the Law on Intelligence currently in force, is not enough.

“It is also important to note that decisions taken by officials to authorize the use of technical measures are not evaluated by independent competent authorities neither before nor after their adoption, thus creating a potential risk of abuse of power by officials. It is noteworthy that neither the previously applicable nor the current legal regulation establishes a clearly defined maximum term for the application of measures restricting the private life of individuals,” observes the Seimas Ombudsman.

 The Seimas Ombudsman also regretted that regulatory loopholes could lead to situations where measures interfering with the private life of an individual could last for an unreasonably long time. It should also be noted that the lack of regulation raises doubts as to whether, by (non)deleting the information collected about the applicant, the State is complying with its obligation to ensure effective protection of the rights of persons whose private conversations were controlled.

In the conclusions of the statement, the Seimas Ombudsman made a recommendation to the Director of the SSD to ensure that the control of the activities of officials includes the control of the observance of human rights protection standards in their activities. The Seimas Ombudsman recommends that the Prime Minister initiate the amendment of the current Law on Intelligence by setting maximum terms for the application of intelligence methods, conditions for the deletion of information collected, and the possibility for individuals to effectively defend their rights in court.