Chaired by Rosita Hickey, Director of Inquiries at the European Ombudsman

Agenda

09.00   Participants are invited to log on

09.30   Welcome statement

Emily O’Reilly, European Ombudsman

09.40   Presentation of the recent research of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) in the area

Martha Stickings, Policy Analyst

Just, Digital and Secure Societies (FRA)

10.00   Overview of the EU context as well as the European Ombudsman’s plans as regards AI and e-government

Valentina Stoeva, Inquiries Officer, European Ombudsman

10.10   Discussion

10.45   Break

11.00   Presentations by ENO members

Jos van de Wiel, Strategic Advisor, National Ombudsman of the Netherlands

A citizen is not a set of data: view of the Dutch ombudsman on the use of algorithms and data by the government

Pekka Liesivuori, Senior Legal Adviser, Chancellor of Justice, Finland

Tracking apps and personal information

Ana Muñoz Sánchez, Tax and Economy specialist, Ombudsman of Spain

AI and the possibilities of supervision within the mandate of the Spanish Ombudsman (tbc)

11.30   Discussion

12.00   Wrap up and final remarks

Rosita Hickey, Director of Inquiries, European Ombudsman

Register now

Contact

If you wish to have further information on the webinar, please do not hesitate to contact:

Ms Gundi Gadesmann
Head of Communication
T. +32 (0)2 284 26 09
M. +32 (0)4 753 48 993
gundi.gadesmann@ombudsman.europa.eu

Rund zwei Wochen vor Ablauf der Frist ruft der Thüringer Bürgerbeauftragte, Dr. Kurt Herzberg, die Thüringer Bürgerinnen und Bürger in den vom geplanten SuedLink betroffenen Gemeinden noch einmal dazu auf, sich an der Anhörung im Rahmen des Planfeststellungverfahren zu beteiligen.

„Im gesamten formalen Verfahren ist dies die wichtigste Möglichkeit, seine Einwände einzubringen“ so Herzberg. „Wenn diese Frist verstrichen ist, besteht kein Anspruch mehr darauf, dass Bedenken und Vorschläge im weiteren Verfahren beachtet werden müssen.“ Er habe es in der Vergangenheit häufig erlebt, daß den Betroffenen bei größeren Vorhaben erst mit Baubeginn wirklich bewusst wurde, was für Konsequenzen ein Projekt für sie nach sich zieht. Herzberg weiter: „Den oft wütenden oder verzweifelten Bürgerinnen und Bürger, die sich dann Hilfe suchend an mich wenden, kann ich zu diesem Zeitpunkt leider nur noch sagen, dass die Gelegenheit für rechtlich wirksame Einwände vorbei ist.“

Die Anhörung sei ein wichtiges Element der Demokratie, so Herzberg weiter. Gerade bei umstrittenen Infrastrukturmaßnahmen sei der Ausgleich der unterschiedlichsten Interessen von elementarer Bedeutung für die Akzeptanz eines Vorhabens. Dies setze aber eine rege Beteiligung am Diskurs voraus. Die im Verfahren vorgesehene öffentliche Antragskonferenz findet coronabedingt nicht statt. Stattdessen erfolgt das Verfahren schriftlich. Die Frist für Stellungnahmen läuft bereits am 19. März ab.

Stellungnahmen müssen schriftlich eingereicht werden, alle Informationen dazu finden sich unter www.netzausbau.de/leitungsvorhaben unter dem Punkt „Fristen“.

8 de marzo de 2021

A mayor igualdad de género, más democracia, mejor protección de los derechos humanos y mayor bienestar para toda la ciudadanía
Vitoria-Gasteiz

El Ararteko quiere dirigirse hoy a las instituciones vascas y a la ciudadanía de Euskadi, porque el 8 de marzo nos recuerda cada año la central relevancia de la igualdad de género para el desarrollo humano y para el avance de nuestras sociedades.

La igualdad entre mujeres y hombres significa visibilidad, empoderamiento y participación de las mujeres en todas las esferas públicas, significa un acceso igual a los recursos económicos, al tiempo y al reconocimiento del valor de todo el trabajo, también de aquel trabajo de cuidado y atención a las personas que no está remunerado por realizarse en el ámbito doméstico, en el que millones de mujeres dejan su tiempo, su dedicación, su saber y su esfuerzo sin contraprestación alguna.

El Ararteko tiene la convicción de que la igualdad plena -real y efectiva- de mujeres y hombres es una premisa irrenunciable para el funcionamiento verdaderamente democrático de una sociedad, resulta esencial para la protección de los derechos humanos y es un presupuesto necesario para el avance económico y la competitividad de los países. La pandemia nos ha enseñado cuánto han dado las mujeres en primera línea de cuidado por el resto de las personas y nos ha mostrado la importancia de esta dedicación para paliar su impacto. El Ararteko quiere compartir hoy con toda la sociedad su visión inequívoca de que a mayor igualdad de género, más democracia, mejor protección de los derechos humanos y mayor bienestar para toda la ciudadanía.

A pesar de los innegables avances legales y políticos, lamentablemente también en Euskadi, hoy, persisten las desigualdades y las barreras para que las mujeres puedan desarrollarse plenamente como seres humanos en una sociedad que acoja y valore a todas las personas por igual: las violencias machistas siguen siendo un hecho cotidiano para demasiadas mujeres; la brecha económica entre mujeres y hombres se sigue manifestando en salarios y pensiones desiguales, y en una injusta distribución de la riqueza que feminiza la pobreza; la participación de las mujeres en la toma de decisiones políticas y económicas sigue lejos de representar la realidad demográfica; los estereotipos machistas persisten, incluso entre las generaciones más jóvenes; y los cuerpos de las mujeres continúan vulnerables a su mercantilización y a su instrumentalización como meros objetos...

Para este comisionado parlamentario de los derechos de las personas, que inicia su segundo mandato con sentido de la responsabilidad y con fuerzas renovadas por el amplio apoyo recibido, esas barreras constituyen, sin duda, en sus diversas formas, claros atentados contra los derechos humanos.

El Ararteko está convencido de que sólo las alianzas debidamente tejidas entre hombres y mujeres, entre sociedad civil e instituciones (desde la convicción e implicación personal, compartiendo estrategias y canalizando la participación del mayor número de personas) pueden acabar con esas desigualdades y barreras. Por ello, estima que es fundamental elaborar una agenda pública que, además de profundizar en las medidas existentes trazadas en esa ruta por la igualdad, tenga en cuenta también la importancia de la pedagogía para que el mensaje de la igualdad de género alcance al mayor número de personas, como un mensaje de avance humanitario, de progreso político, económico y social.

La inminente reforma de la Ley vasca de igualdad de 2005, actualmente en tramitación parlamentaria, constituye sin duda un paso esencial en la necesaria actualización del marco jurídico vasco para responder a estas demandas contemporáneas en materia de igualdad, que -después de más de 15 años- ya desbordan buena parte de sus previsiones legales, en especial por lo que respecta a la protección y atención de las víctimas de violencia de género. El Ararteko confía en que el legislador vasco, con la amplia participación ciudadana que una ley de esta índole se merece, sabrá ofrecer una respuesta a la altura de los tiempos, para avanzar con firmeza hacia un horizonte de igualdad real entre mujeres y hombres.

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 5 de marzo de 2021

In response to the CHR’s request dated 26 January 2021, ODIHR provided Urgent Opinion on the Draft Act Amending the Code of Procedure in Petty Offence Cases of Poland.

According to ODIHR the Draft Act proposes significant changes to the Code of Procedure in Petty Offence Cases of Poland. First, it would introduce the possibility for rulings in petty offence cases subject to a fine or a reprimand to be issued by court clerks in the form of “orders for punishment”. Second, when a fine is imposed by the police or other authorized officers, the Draft Act would remove the possibility to refuse the penalty notice [mandat karny], the fine becomes enforceable within seven days and can be appealed before a district court. Read together with the new role of the court clerk, such appeal could be heard by a court clerk.

Overall, the Draft Act presents a number of shortcomings, which substantially impact the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 14 of the ICCPR.

First, it is doubtful whether court clerks could be considered as a court or tribunal fulfilling all the requirements of Article 6(1) of the ECHR and Article 14(1) of the ICCPR. Further, it is not clear whether the objections against court clerks’ orders will lead to a review by a court of full jurisdiction, where substantive and procedural allegations may be raised. If not the case, this would be incompatible with the right to a fair trial. The proposed reform would also mean that there will be two parallel systems for adjudicating on petty offences cases, one carried out by a court, another by a court clerk, thereby potentially having similar cases being adjudicated according to different procedures, depending on the courts/location of the petty offence case, which goes against the right to equality in the administration of justice.

Second, the availability of a tribunal with full jurisdiction over the issuing of penalty notices – as required by fair trial guarantees – is similarly not sufficiently secured in the arrangements envisaged in the Draft Act.

Third, the proposed amendments mean that in fine proceedings in petty offence cases, the burden of proof will be shifted and no longer be on the prosecution, contrary to the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Fourth, the alleged wrongdoer, when appealing against the penalty notice has only seven days to gather all the evidence proving that they did not commit the offence and are precluded from submitting any further evidence (except those not known at the time of lodging the appeal). This de facto places them in a substantial disadvantage compared to the prosecution, without reasonable justification, and is therefore contrary to the principle of equality of arms embedded in Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 14 of the ICCPR. Moreover, the appellant will not be able to defend herself/himself with regards to the materials submitted by the prosecution, which are to be submitted only after the lodging of the appeal, which is at odds with the right to adversarial proceedings. It is therefore unlikely that the appellant will have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of a defence, which is also an essential element of the fair trial guarantees. Critically, it also potentially enables the police or prosecuting authority to tailor their evidence of what allegedly happened in a way which can exploit opportunities presented by the appellant’s evidence. Thus, not only does the appellant enjoy no right to require the prosecution to establish its case, but the appellant need not be made aware, and maybe will not be aware, of the detailed allegations against her or him when advancing evidence supposedly establishing her or his innocence at the time of lodging the appeal.

Fifth, the proposed amendments are likely to have a chilling effect on the exercise of fundamental freedoms, especially freedoms of expression and of peaceful assembly.

Attachments:

1. Urgent_Opinion_Poland_Draft_Amendments_Code of Procedure in Petty Offence Cases.pdf

Nottinghamshire County Council left a man in a care home away from his family for five months, without having any regard for his basic human rights, a Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman investigation has found.

The man, who has dementia, had been placed in the care home by his wife while she struggled to look after her son who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.

The family only intended the placement to be temporary, but after two weeks the wife felt she could not cope with the man at home. At the time, Nottinghamshire County Council believed the man could return home with additional care calls. But it did not complete a review or assessment despite his change of circumstances, and did not review or assess his wife’s needs as a carer.

The council also did not complete a mental capacity assessment of the man to find out whether he could understand his situation, make a decision about his care or support, or decide whether he would like to remain in the home. It also failed to assess his capacity to understand and agree to the care home costs.

When the council eventually carried out an assessment five months later, it found he did not have the mental capacity to decide where to live or to make a decision about his finances. Despite this, the family was charged for the man’s care for the time he was in the home – incurring debts of more than £15,000, which the care home has chased them for and threatened bailiff action if they did not pay.

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

“The man had a right to respect for his family life, and to enjoy his existing home peacefully. But the council did not have any regard for the man’s Human Rights during those five months he was away from his family.

“The council could have identified these problems during its own investigation of the complaint, but it failed to acknowledge the errors and the impact they have caused. However, I welcome the steps the council agreed to take during my investigation, and am pleased it has already started acting on my recommendations to improve its service.”

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 has taken over responsibility for paying the outstanding care home fees. It will also pay the wife £500 to acknowledge the distress caused by the situation, and the daughter £250 to acknowledge her time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to review the reasons for the delay and implement any identified improvements to its service. It will also give relevant staff training on the Human Rights Act.

Article date: 04 March 2021