L’Avv. Lucia Annibali è il nuovo Difensore Civico della Toscana e l’Avv. Marco Enrico è il nuovo Difensore Civico della Regione Sardegna. Le due Regioni hanno così designato le figure di garanzia previste dalle rispettive Leggi Regionali.

Con queste investiture ora solo la Calabria, la Puglia e la Sicilia risultano sfornite della designazione di tale organismo a beneficio e a garanzia dei cittadini quale punto di incontro tra il cittadino stesso e la Pubblica Amministrazione.

L’Ufficio di Presidenza del Coordinamento Nazionale dei Difensori Civici composto dal Presidente Marino Fardelli (Difensore Civico della Regione Lazio), e dai Vice Presidenti Antonia Fiordelisi (Difensore Civico della Regione Basilicata) e Marcello Pecorari (Difensore Civico della Regione Umbria) formula ai neo colleghi buon lavoro con l’augurio di intraprendere insieme iniziative sempre più autorevoli per far conoscere maggiormente questo ruolo a beneficio dei cittadini italiani.

Assessing what is the procedure for realization the public’s right to appeal to the courts on environmental issues in Lithuania, whether it is compatible with the international obligations of the Republic of Lithuania according to the Aarhus Convention and whether there are fundamental problems of ensuring human rights in this area, Seimas Ombudsperson Erika Leonaitė came to the conclusion that the legislation of the Republic of Lithuania does not clearly define what interest is considered sufficient for society to have the right to defend violated subjective rights and public interest in court on environmental matters in accordance with the procedure established by law; moreover, examples of court practice have revealed the risks of legal uncertainty due to the application of the Aarhus Convention.

In the opinion of the Seimas Ombudsperson, the limits of application of Article 9, Parts 2 and 3 of the Aarhus Convention are not clearly separated in Lithuania, certain legal norms, which provide for the conditions that must be met by the public concerned seeking to exercise the right to appeal to the courts, raise doubts about their compliance with the provisions of the Convention.

“In order to ensure that the opportunities of the public concerned, and especially of public legal entities operating in the field of the environment, to apply to the courts on environmental issues are not unreasonably restricted, the criterion of sufficient interest specified in Article 9, Part 2 of the Convention, as well as the criteria mentioned in Article 9, Part 3 of the Convention, in the Republic of Lithuania law should be clearly defined while ensuring that these criteria (conditions) do not conflict with the goals set out in the Convention”, – notes the Seimas Ombudsperson in the report.

The Seimas Ombudsperson observes that the examples of court practice presented in the report revealed the risks of legal uncertainty, when in each specific case the courts have to interpret freely and sometimes inconsistently the provisions of the Aarhus Convention and related legal acts: “This can lead to inconsistent practice formulated by the courts in administrative and civil cases.”

The report also notes that according to the Law on Environmental Protection, only the public concerned has the right to apply to the court for the protection of public interest by challenging the material or procedural legality of decisions, actions or inaction in the field of the environment and its protection and the use of natural resources. However, only associations and other public legal entities can defend the public interest in courts that are established in accordance with the procedure set by legal acts and promote environmental protection, while other persons, i.e. one or more natural or legal persons, the right to defend the public interest in the field of environment is granted on the condition that they seek to defend their subjective rights or legal interest in the same matter.

However, in the opinion of the Seimas Ombudsperson, this provision in the Law on Environmental Protection is not formulated precisely enough; moreover, it is not clearly defined what activities are considered to be promotion of environmental protection.

The report highlights that although Lithuania has made changes to the Law on Administrative Proceedings in order to implement the recommendations of the European Commission, it nevertheless provides for the right to apply to an administrative court with a appeal to investigate whether a normative administrative act related to the environment (or part of it) complies with the law or the normative act of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, only the public concerned as defined in the Law on Environmental Protection can use it. Persons who meet the definition of the term “public concerned” in other environmental laws, such as the Republic of Lithuania Law on Territorial Planning and the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment of Proposed Economic Activities, do not have this right under the Law on Administrative Proceedings.

“It is worth considering whether such legal regulation complies with Lithuania’s obligations under the Convention to create broad opportunities for the public concerned to apply to the courts for all environmental issues of concern to them, to ensure due recognition and support for associations, organizations or groups promoting environmental protection, and for the national legal system to comply with this obligation”, – the Seimas Ombudsperson E. Leonaitė notes in the report.

In addition, the report shows that Lithuania does not adequately ensure that relevant, clear and detailed information is available to the public about the procedures for implementing the right to appeal to the courts on environmental matters, which may not only affect the fact that the public has little knowledge about the limits, opportunities and procedure for the implementation the right to appeal to the courts on environmental issues in Lithuania, but also to create obstacles to effectively use the rights provided for in the Convention.

From the information provided on the website of the Ministry of Environment, it is not clear what is the specific procedure and conditions for the realization of the right to apply to the courts on the basis of Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Convention in Lithuania. In addition, it does not detail what conditions individuals must meet in order to be able to apply to the court on the basis of Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Convention, whether certain criteria are established in national law, whether all members of society can exercise the right provided for in this provision, what is considered an interest, what criteria NGOs must meet in order to be recognized as active in the field of environment and to justify to the court their right to defend the public interest in the field of environment.

Leonaitė recommended to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania to ensure that the national law of the Republic of Lithuania guarantees the widest possible opportunities for the public to apply to the courts when challenging the actions, inactions and decisions of various entities in the field of environment, as well as in order to protect the environment as a public interest, and that the criteria (conditions) applied to persons seeking to use the opportunity to appeal to the courts on environmental issues would be clearly defined in legislation, they would not deviate from the objectives provided for in the Convention, and that the public would be properly and constantly informed about these possibilities.

The Seimas Ombudsperson also made recommendations to the Ministry of Environment to take measures to provide detailed, accurate, visually clear information to the public on the website of the Ministry, as well as in other ways, and to constantly review and update information as needed, and to the Ministry of Justice to take measures to ensure that legal acts provide for clear and non-contradictory objectives set forth in the Convention defining sufficient interests, activities promoting environmental protection and other criteria (conditions) applied to the public concerned seeking to use the right to apply to the courts on environmental issues, and the Law on Administrative Proceedings would be improved.

The Seimas Ombudsperson asked the Government and the ministries to examine the provided recommendations and to inform her within thirty days at the latest about the measures planned to achieve the results of the implementation of the submitted recommendations.

The Ombudsman has received media requests regarding the reasons for his resignation from the European Ombudsman Institute (EOI). The Ombudsman would like to clarify the key facts:

The Ombudsman resigned from the EOI on 16 September 2022.

The cause of the resignation was the lack of condemnation from the EOI towards Russia’s war in Ukraine, as well as the organisation’s continued cooperation with the National High Commissioner for Human Rights of the Russian Federation.

The Ombudsman welcomes the intention communicated to her by the Executive Council of the Social Security Institute (ISS) to extend the validity of the informal carers ID card to one year.

The current period of validity of the card is only three months, and it is true that among the approximately 11,000 informal carers already recognised, there are those who face literacy and computer literacy problems that make it difficult to renew the card through Social Security Direct.

As it did not appear reasonable, either for the interested parties, or for the services, to need to go in person to the services every three months, the Ombudsman suggested that the validity of the card should be extended to a period of one year, as this also appeared to be more in line with the concrete situations of care, as well as with the requirement to present the card in order to access the rights consecrated in the status of informal caregiver.

Following receipt of various complaints regarding the reduced validity period of the informal carer’s card, the Directive Council of the ISS was consulted, having shown itself to be sensitive to the arguments presented by the Ombudsman. The implementation of the decision to extend the validity period is now awaited.

Les défaillances dans l’accueil d’un mineur non accompagné et la détermination de son âge : le Comité des droits de l’enfant sanctionne la France

Dans des constatations rendues publiques le 6 février 2023, le Comité des droits de l’enfant de l’ONU chargé de veiller à la bonne application de la Convention internationale des droits de l’enfant (CIDE), sanctionne la France pour l’absence de protection d’un mineur non accompagné qui se trouvait à la rue, sans hébergement, sans aucune prise en charge, ni aucun moyen de subsistance.

Au titre de sa mission de protection des droits de l’enfant que lui confie la loi organique du 29 mars 2011, le Défenseur des droits, qui est mécanisme de suivi indépendant de l’application de la CIDE en France et garant du respect des droits de l’enfant protégé par cette Convention, est intervenu dans la procédure (décision n° 2022-063).

Il s’agit de la première décision rendue par le Comité des droits de l’enfant sur le processus de détermination de la minorité mis en place par l’Etat en France. Cette affaire avait donné lieu pour la première fois, en décembre 2020, à des mesures provisoires prononcées par le Comité, qui avait demandé à l’Etat la mise à l’abri du mineur dans un dispositif de protection de l’enfance. Ces mesures n’avaient pas été exécutées par l’Etat.

Les constatations du Comité suivent les observations faites dans cette procédure par le Défenseur des droits et, au-delà, elles viennent conforter ses analyses, lesquelles sont présentées régulièrement dans ses décisions, devant les juges, et rassemblées dans son rapport, publié en février 2022, « Les mineurs non accompagnés au regard du droit ».

La Défenseure des droits sera particulièrement attentive aux réponses qu’apportera la France à sa prochaine audition devant le Comité en mai prochain, dans le cadre de la procédure d’examen périodique de l’application de la Convention par l’Etat, à laquelle elle participe, en adressant un rapport indépendant.