Upon learning from the media that in an Elementary School near Jagodina, according to parent’s allegations, a teacher has physically harmed a pupil, the Protector of Citizens issued an own-initiative investigation to control work legality and regularity of “Joca Milosavljević” Elementary School, Jagodina Social Welfare Center, as well as the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development.

Due to the possibility of child’s rights and best interests being endangered, the Protector of Citizens has requested “Joca Milosavljević” Elementary School in Miloševo near Jagodina, to submit, within 15 days, a detailed report on actions, measures and activities undertaken in this case by the school.

The Protector of Citizens requests Jagodina Social Welfare Center to submit within 15 days the report on whether the boy’s family has been on the Center’s records, and whether there have been any reports, knowledge or suspicions of possible violence against the boy before.

The Protector of Citizens has requested the line ministry to monitor the work of the said school and to submit within the same deadline the report on actions, measures and activities undertaken in this case.

MEPs adopted their position on the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiries and its collaboration with Parliament during 2019.

The text, adopted on Wednesday (results announced Thursday) with 576 votes in favour, 11 against and 108 abstentions, commends the European Ombudsman work in 2019 and its good cooperation with the European Parliament and Committee on Petitions. MEPs endorse the Ombudsman’s continued effort to ensure the “EU delivers the highest standards of administration, transparency and ethics”, remains accessible and provides a quality service to citizens.

Transparency and access to documents

Parliament reiterates its support on the European Ombudsman’s special report on transparency in the Council and welcomes the ambition to uphold the highest possible standards of transparency and ethics, especially during a health crisis. The report notes the Ombudsman’s recent inquiry into Commission’s refusal to give access of documents related to vaccine purchases and reiterates Parliament’s call to publish contracts and other agreements signed with pharmaceutical companies.

MEPs repeat their call on the Council of the EU to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations keeping in mind that as co-legislator it must guarantee the highest level of transparency and accessibility of documents. They also urge Council to engage in dialogue with Parliament on the revision of the Statute of the European Ombudsman.

MEPs also regret the rotating presidencies’ practice of accepting corporate sponsorships, which according to the text undermines the institution’s reputation and integrity as a whole.

Ethical standards in EU institutions

Parliament praises the Ombudsman’s successful work on revolving doors inquiries in EU institutions, which led for example the European Banking Authority (EBA) to update its staff policy on post-employment and the European Commission to introduce a specific appointment procedure for its Secretary-General.

In view of promoting the highest ethical standards throughout the EU institutions, MEPs call for the independent evaluation of declarations of interest of Commissioners-designate and the revision of the current rules in order to strengthen integrity requirements for Commissioners during and after their mandate.

An own-inquiry of the Ombudsman led the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to improve the independence of its marketing authorisation process for medicinal products and increase transparency for clinical trials, according to the report, which urges the EMA to implement the latest recommendations as well.

Active involvement of citizens and accessibility

MEPs welcome the Ombudsman’s commitment to involve citizens in the EU democratic process and its decision to reply to requests in the language of the received complaint. They endorse the draft guidelines on the use of languages on EU institutions’ websites and call on EU administration to allow citizens to communicate in all 24 official EU languages as well as in national sign language.

Nomination of the Ombudsman

As the institution responsible for electing the European Ombudsman, Parliament calls to “overhaul the nomination process” that takes place at the start of each term. MEPs want a more “informed, uniform, transparent and orderly” procedure, as well as a more detailed detailed description of time limits for collection of signatures and campaigns.

Quote

During the plenary debate in the presence of the EU Ombudsman, Emily O’Reilly’s, the rapporteur Sylvie Guillaume (S&D, FR) underlined that “combating the risks of maladministration or conflicts of interest, but also ensuring the necessary transparency of the institutions’ activities towards the public allows for greater involvement and scrutiny by citizens, thereby increasing the accountability of the institutions.”

“Our report insist on improving the status and powers of the Office of the European Ombudsman, so that it is better equipped to fulfil its tasks and objectives which are essential for the proper functioning of the institutions and guarantee their openness. I also urge the institutions and agencies to cooperate and respond more systematically to the recommendations made by the European Ombudsman”, she added.

Background

In 2019, the Ombudsman’s office handled 2201 complaints, opened 458 inquiries of which two were on its own initiative, closed 552 inquiries and 8 own-initiative investigations.

The European Ombudsman is an independent and impartial body, established in 1995 to hold the EU’s institutions and agencies (excluding the Court of Justice) to account and to promote the principles of good administration. The 2019 report was the final report of Emily O’Reilly’s first term. She was re-elected by the European Parliament in the same year. Last autumn, the Office of the European Ombudsman celebrated its 25th anniversary.

– Défenseur des droits de l’Homme de la République d’Arménie –

Le personnel du Défenseur des droits de l'Homme de la République d'Arménie a reçu des alertes selon lesquelles des tireurs d'élite sont clairement visibles depuis les fenêtres de l'Assemblée nationale de la République d'Arménie stationnée dans la direction de l'assemblée qui se tient sur l'avenue Baghramyan. Des préoccupations similaires ont été signalées au public. Le personnel du Médiateur effectue une surveillance à la fois par le biais des médias et en étant physiquement sur le terrain (sur le lieu du rassemblement) où des enfants et des personnes âgées sont également présents.

L'exposition ouverte d'armes à feu depuis les fenêtres du bâtiment de l'Assemblée nationale de la République d'Arménie, y compris la présence démonstrative de tireurs d'élite en uniforme militaire, est un moyen et une utilisation inappropriés des mesures de sécurité par l'État lors de l'assemblée pacifique en ce moment et dans la situation actuelle sur l'avenue Baghramyan.

L'État peut prendre des mesures de sécurité, mais dans chaque cas, elles doivent tenir compte de la situation spécifique ; les mesures prises et/ou utilisées ne doivent pas empêcher la participation à l'assemblée pacifique ou perturber la population.

Traduction non officielle. Lien vers l'article originel

An elderly woman living with dementia was effectively left housebound for the last 8 years of her life due to surgical delays in the treatment and management of her severe rectal prolapse, an Ombudsman investigation has revealed.

Mr A (anonymised) complained about the care that his late mother Mrs B (anonymised), received at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board’s Glan Clwyd Hospital (“the Hospital”), in particular:

• that when it came to the management and care of his mother’s severe rectal prolapse (a rectal prolapse occurs when part of the rectum (back passage) protrudes through the anus), there had been surgical delays by the Colorectal Department going back to 2011.
• the adequacy of the inpatient medical care provided by a Care of the Elderly Consultant.
• a delayed diagnosis of his mother’s terminal ovarian cancer during this admission.

The opportunity to provide prudent health care with Mrs B was missed on a number of occasions as the Ombudsman investigation found that the clinical decision-making and rationale shown by the Colorectal Surgeons, consistently from 2011 onwards, in terms of Mrs B’s rectal prolapse management, was not in keeping with accepted clinical practice.

More straightforward surgical rectal prolapse repair options, including less invasive procedures, were discounted in favour of high risk, unconventional and extreme treatment options, which would have provided Mrs B with little or no clinical benefit.

The offer of only the extreme treatment option caused long term harm and significantly affected Mrs B’s quality of life.   As a result of the failings, Mrs B had to cope with the considerable and ongoing indignity caused by a severe and symptomatic prolapse which included double incontinence.  Mrs B’s worry about “being caught short” because of her incontinence meant she did not want to risk going to social events or the pensioner social group recommended by the dementia Memory Clinic.  It also affected Mrs B’s relationship with her family and the quality of time they spent together.  Although it is not open to the Ombudsman to say that there has been a breach of an individual’s human rights the Ombudsman’s investigation identified that human rights, and in particular Article 8, (relating to the right to family life and personal identity) was engaged, as the failings had such a significant impact on Mrs B’s end years and the time that the family had with her.

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has agreed to a number of recommendations including a full apology to Mr A and an invitation to engage with an equivalent to the Putting Things Right Redress process. It also agreed to share the points of clinical learning from the case and to review how its Colorectal team carries out rectal prolapse procedures.

Commenting on the report, Nick Bennett, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales said:

“The lack of clinical clarity and the mixed messages given to Mrs B concerning the benefits of a colostomy meant it was only on the day of the operation, in March 2018, that she was told definitively the procedure would not benefit her prolapse.  Mrs B decided not to go ahead with the operation.

“As a result, Mrs B had to endure years of indignity on a daily basis as she dealt with her condition and the longstanding physical and mental impact the failings had on her and her family.

“It is clear that there was a significant injustice in this case.  As Ombudsman, given the failings that happened here, it is right that I take a stand on driving forward improvements in care and service delivery, given the effects such failings have on individuals like Mrs B, her family and their human rights.”

To read the report, click here.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has criticised Isle of Wight Council for failing to properly investigate a mother’s complaint about the way it removed her disabled son’s personal budget.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found the council did not follow procedures set out in law for dealing with complaints about children’s services, and by the time the Ombudsman became involved the council had delayed the woman’s complaint by more than a year.

The mother’s complaint centred on the council deciding to stop the money she received as a personal budget for her son, who has complex needs, because it said she was not spending the money in line with their agreement.

After being unhappy with the council’s initial response, the mother asked the council four times to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the three-stage statutory children’s complaints procedure. Each time she asked for her complaint to be escalated, the council decided her dissatisfaction was about a separate issue and was a new complaint. But her complaint was about the same issue throughout and any new issues were the result of the council’s failure to investigate her complaint correctly.

The mother sought help from a solicitor to try to get the council to escalate her complaint. The council then told her she needed to meet certain criteria before it would be progressed.

As part of the Ombudsman’s investigation, it became apparent other people on the island had also not had their complaints properly considered through the statutory process.

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

“Statutory guidance says councils must progress complaints through all three stages of the children’s complaints procedure if that is what the person wants.

“By putting barriers and conditions on the mother’s complaint and insisting she was making new complaints even when they covered the same issues, the council was, in effect, gatekeeping and preventing her from accessing her statutory rights.

“I am pleased the council has accepted my recommendations and hope the training and procedural changes it has agreed to make will ensure other complaints are handled properly in future.

“I will be issuing new guidance to local authorities shortly to clarify how I expect them to tackle children’s complaints.”

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 this case the council has agreed to apologise to the family and pay the son £100 to acknowledge he did not have access to a service he was entitled to for two months. It will also pay the mum £300 to acknowledge the uncertainty and distress caused and £500 to acknowledge the time and trouble caused by not escalating her complaint to stage two.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to review its procedures for personal budgets and develop a procedure to respond to concerns about how a payee is using or managing a personal budget.

The council has also agreed to provide all staff training on the statutory complaint procedure, and task a senior officer not previously involved to contact all complainants that were refused a Stage 2 or Stage 3 complaint and ensure each refusal complied with the statutory guidance. If any do not, it should take steps to reopen those complaint investigations and progress to the next stage if the complainant wishes.

Article date: 11 March 2021