When

06 December 2021 - 07 December 2021

Where Strasbourg, France

Organised By FRA, Council of Europe

Joint event 

FRA and the Council of Europe gathered experts to support the publication of a joint handbook on European law relating to cybercrime and fundamental rights.

MORE ON THE HANDBOOK

The experts hail from EU and Council of Europe institutions, as well as national judicial bodies. This is the third expert meeting. It is expected to provide further guidance on the structure and focus of the handbook. It will take into account the latest legislative developments from the Council of Europe and the EU. Experts will discuss challenges and expected outcomes. The meeting takes place on 6 and 7 December.

A patient suffering with Asperger’s Syndrome underwent unnecessary extensive surgery on his colon at the University Hospital of Wales after incorrect diagnosis and treatment decisions, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales has found.

The Ombudsman launched an investigation after receiving a complaint from Mr D about the care and treatment received at the University Hospital of Wales during a scheduled admission for surgery to remove the right side of the colon.

Mr D complained that his condition was not clearly diagnosed and that clinicians were slow to identify that he suffered a post-operative bleed and required further emergency surgery.  Mr D also complained that information about his treatment and care was not conveyed clearly to him despite his Asperger’s Syndrome.  Finally, he complained about aspects of his care following his discharge from hospital.

The Ombudsman found that Mr D’s surgery was conducted on the presumption that Mr D had Crohn’s Disease.  However, surgical findings later suggested complex chronic appendicitis.  Neither condition required the extensive surgery that Mr D underwent.  The Ombudsman also concluded that there was no complete record of how Mr D’s condition was monitored following his surgery and that his post-operative bleed might have been detected sooner. In addition, although clinicians were aware of Mr D’s Asperger’s Syndrome, they did not clearly communicate the information about his diagnosis and treatment to him.  Finally, the Ombudsman found that although Mr D requested to be seen by a mental health clinician, this was not arranged.  However, the Ombudsman did not uphold Mr D’s complaint regarding his care post-discharge.

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

‘This regrettable case highlights yet again the importance of one of the key principles of prudent healthcare formulated by the Welsh Government – ‘do only what is needed, and do no harm’.  Physicians responsible for Mr D’s care should have employed a ‘watch and wait’ approach in which his condition would probably have settled without surgical treatment.  Instead, Mr D, a vulnerable individual, faced completely avoidable trauma of unnecessary surgery and post-treatment complications – a trauma which saw him seek mental health support.  I anticipate that my findings will be extremely distressing for him.  This is reflected in my recommendations in this case.’

The Ombudsman recommended that Cardiff and Vale University Health Board provides Mr D with a detailed apology and a redress payment of £10,000.  He also recommended that physicians and nurses involved in Mr D’s care undergo relevant training in the management of Crohn’s Disease and chronic appendicitis as well as in the care and management of patients with Asperger’s Syndrome.  The Ombudsman additionally recommended that the nursing team consider the importance of conducting and documenting post-operative observations and of preparing accurate and relevant care plans.

Cardiff and Vale University Health Board has accepted the findings and conclusions of the Ombudsman’s report and has agreed to implement his recommendations.

To read the report, click here.

7 DEC

Uncategorised |

In a letter to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation published today, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Dunja Mijatović, expresses her concerns over the liquidation proceedings against two prominent Russian human rights groups - International Memorial and Human Rights Centre Memorial - based on the legislation governing the activities of non-commercial organisations receiving foreign funding, known as the “foreign agents” law. She urges the General Prosecutor to discontinue those proceedings and encourages him to take an active role in contributing to bringing the relevant legislation and related practice in line with European human rights standards.

The Commissioner points out that the law in question has been found to be at odds with the state’s duty to create a safe and enabling environment for civil society actors by various Council of Europe bodies as it largely interferes with the rights of freedom of association and expression and stigmatises and marginalises the persons concerned, with a significant chilling effect on the work of civil society organisations. In this context the liquidation proceedings are far from appearing as necessary and proportionate measures that could be justified under human rights standards.

The Commissioner also expresses dismay that the public scrutiny of domestic judicial decisions carried out by Human Rights Centre Memorial over the years is now seen as a justification of extremism and terrorist activities by the prosecuting authorities. More generally, she regrets that the Russian authorities continue to restrict the space for independent civil society activities and free speech through the use of criminal law provisions and procedures. Therefore, she stresses the urgent need for the Russian authorities to change their attitude towards independent civil society actors, including human rights defenders.

• Read the Commissioner's letter addressed to the General Prosecutor of the Russian Federation

L'édition 2021 du baromètre est consacrée à la jeunesse

A l’occasion de la publication de la 14e édition du baromètre sur la perception des discriminations dans l’emploi, la Défenseure des droits, Claire Hédon, alerte quant à une surexposition de la jeunesse aux discriminations dans l’emploi.

D’après l’enquête menée avec l’Organisation internationale du travail (OIT) auprès d’un échantillon représentatif de la population de jeunes actifs de 18 à 34 ans (3 201 personnes), plus d’un jeune sur trois rapporte avoir vécu une situation de discrimination ou de harcèlement discriminatoire dans le cadre de sa recherche d’emploi ou de sa carrière et près d’un jeune sur cinq déclare y avoir été confronté à plusieurs reprises.

Les discriminations ne surviennent pas isolément ; elles résultent d’un ensemble de processus complexes, impliquant :

• Des représentations sociales (préjugés, stéréotypes, normes stigmatisantes) ;
• Des rapports de domination et des interactions spécifiques au domaine de l’emploi ;
• Et des inégalités collectives, durables et cumulatives, qui structurent les différentes sphères de la vie sociale

1· LA PERCEPTION DES DISCRIMINATIONS EN FRANCE

Une perception massive des discriminations chez les jeunes

Plus d’un tiers des jeunes âgés de 18 à 34 ans considère que les discriminations constituent un phénomène massif dans la société française.

Certains critères de discriminations ressortent davantage. Ainsi, 68 % d’entre eux considèrent que les personnes sont souvent ou très souvent discriminées en raison de leur origine, de leur couleur de peau ou de leur nationalité, 63 % en raison de leur apparence physique, 61 % en raison de leur identité de genre, 60 % en raison de leur orientation sexuelle, 54 % en raison de l’état de santé ou du handicap, 57 % en raison de leur religion.

Contrairement à la population globale qui identifie massivement les discriminations dans les sphères de l’emploi et du logement, les personnes âgées de 18 à 34 ans considèrent davantage qu’elles se produisent dans l’ensemble des domaines de la vie sociale : recherche d’emploi, contrôle de police, recherche d’un logement, d’un stage, d’un crédit ou d’une assurance, etc.

Un continuum d’attitudes hostiles

Comme l’a rappelé le 13e Baromètre sur la perception des discriminations dans l’emploi, les discriminations au travail s’inscrivent dans un continuum d’attitudes hostiles, allant de propos et comportements stigmatisants à tout un éventail de situations de dévalorisation, qui peuvent in fine être constitutives d’un harcèlement discriminatoire. Seules 0.1 % des victimes de discriminations ou de harcèlement discriminatoires l’ont été sans mentionner d’autres faits de dévalorisation ou d’hostilité.

(...)

01 diciembre 2021

El Pleno del Parlamento de Navarra aprobó por unanimidad la modificación de la Ley Foral 4/2000, de 3 de julio, del Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra, al objeto de facultar a la institución para la imposición de multas coercitivas a aquellas Administraciones públicas que desatiendan su deber de auxiliar al Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra en la labor de supervisión que tiene encomendada, en relación con el cumplimiento de su función primordial consistente en salvaguardar a los ciudadanos y ciudadanas frente a los posibles abusos y negligencias de la Administración.

La modificación de la ley foral reguladora de la institución responde a la necesidad de establecer una medida efectiva y proporcionada que contribuya a revertir la persistente e incluso creciente falta de colaboración de algunas Administraciones públicas, que dificultan, dilatan o directamente se niegan a atender los requerimientos del Defensor del Pueblo a propósito de los abusos y negligencias en sus actuaciones.

La multa, previo apercibimiento último, será de 1.500 euros, si bien se contempla que pueda ser reiterada cada 20 días hasta el cumplimiento íntegro de lo requerido.

En cuanto a la difusión de las actitudes indebidas, hasta ahora circunscritas a la identificación de las autoridades o del personal concernido en el informe anual o, dado el caso, en uno especial, el Parlamento de Navarra acordó hacer extensiva esa práctica a los medios de comunicación y a la página web de la institución. A su vez, se dará traslado de esas conductas, para su conocimiento, al Parlamento de Navarra.

Así las cosas, se procedió a la adición de un artículo 29 bis a la Ley Foral 4/2000, de 3 de julio, del Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra, que dice lo siguiente:

“Artículo 29 bis.

En el caso de que una Administración pública o entidad no remitiera, en todo o en parte, la información o documentación requerida o no respondiera a las resoluciones en el plazo establecido, el Defensor del Pueblo de Navarra, previo un último apercibimiento para que se remita la misma en el plazo de diez días, podrá adoptar cualesquiera de las medidas siguientes:

a) Imponer multas coercitivas de 1.500 euros a las Administraciones o entidades responsables, pudiendo reiterar la multa cada veinte días hasta el cumplimiento íntegro de lo requerido.

b) Hacer pública la actitud incumplidora de las Administraciones o entidades que resulten responsables en su página web, en su informe anual o en un informe especial, en los medios de comunicación y dar traslado de la conducta al Parlamento de Navarra, para su conocimiento”.