Date of article: 26/10/2024
Daily News of: 14/11/2024
Country: 
Hungary
Author: Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary
Date of article: 15/11/2024
Daily News of: 15/11/2024
Country: 
EUROPE
Support for human rights systems and defenders
When
Where Brussels, Belgium
External event
FRA will present its report on EU Funds: Ensuring compliance with fundamental rights at a meeting of the Member States' expert group on the Common Provisions Regulation for EU Funds.
FRA will focus on the need for compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as a horizontal enabling condition for the EU Funds. It will also cover the role of national fundamental rights bodies in that process, based on the report’s findings.
The session will contribute to discussion among Member States' representatives on the effective implementation of fundamental rights in all Funds covered by the Common Provisions Regulation.
The meeting takes place on 21 November in Brussels.
Date of article: 13/11/2024
Daily News of: 15/11/2024
Country: 
Malta
Author: National Ombudsman of Malta
Published November 13, 2024
Article published on Movers and Shakers 2024 - An Official publication of the Malta Chamber
The objective of the Office of the Ombudsman (which includes the Commissioners) is not simply to investigate complaints submitted in writing by persons with regard to the exercise of administrative functions by Government or any public authority or public body to which Chapter 385 applies, but also to promote a public service culture based on fairness and accountability by democratic scrutiny and control that counters malpractice and misplaced bureaucracy.
Any physical person of any nationality, and any “legal” person, can submit a written complaint against a public authority to which Chapter 385 applies. This point of law and of fact should encourage the business community to come forward to the Office of the Ombudsman and file written complaints when public authorities fail to give redress. I very much hope that what I shall be stating today will suffice to satisfy the business community that the Office of the Ombudsman is there for them as well when they feel that public authorities have failed them.
First and foremost. The fact that at law the Ombudsman (and the Commissioners) make recommendations and not executive orders does not in any manner whatsoever make the Office a useless or toothless institution as some mistakenly think. Experience has disproved this wrong impression. The majority are the cases where the public administration endorses and implements recommendations. Where in the minority of cases the public administration holds back, the Ombudsman can react by referring the matter ultimately to the House of Representatives. The Commissioners and myself have used this discretion with prudence and attention on numerous instances where it was felt that the matter or the issues involved were of public interest. There have been cases on record where recommendations were applied at that final stage. The Office considers non-implemented recommendations as missed opportunities for the public administration to put its act in order. When the Office recommends against the public administration in individual complaints, the public administration would be wrong to consider the Office as an adversary of some sort. Many a time recommendation push towards changes in “red-tape” methodology that could have been acceptable years back but which are no longer relevant today.
In its investigations, the Office strives to ensure fair treatment, promote transparency, and facilitate resolution in a neutral manner. The Office operates according to principles of secrecy and confidentiality, meaning that persons can share their concerns without fear of reprisal. This unique approach that is required at law fosters trust, as persons feel secure in discussing sensitive issues without the concern that information could be disclosed to others. Ombudsmen are expected to be impartial and fair in their assessments and interventions.
In my eighteen months in office, I have seen this happen and can therefore convincingly state that complainants and the public administration are treated alike equitably. Accessibility of the Ombudsman is crucial. At the Office we have done our very best to be approachable and available when needed. Knowing that there is a reliable and responsive channel for conflict resolution contributes to a sense of trust in the Office. Another positive fact is that the operations of the Office are clear and understandable because in essence they are open to scrutiny.
The independence of the Office is its benchmark. Because it is a constitutional institution, that is separate and distinct from the other organs of the State, the Office has been decisive in identifying weaknesses, malfunctions, failures and bad practices in the administration of public bodies. The Office has proved itself to be fast, resolutive, informal and inexpensive. As an overseer of Government, the Ombudsman has the tangible ability to ensure that the public administration conducts itself lawfully, makes decisions reasonably, and treats all persons equitably and fairly.
I strongly believe that in the public service there are officials who are professional and sensitive enough to decide what is right (and oppose what is wrong) not simply in order to make better the workings of Government but also to improve really and truly the everyday lives of people who knock at the doors of the public administration.
I have done my fair share to convince Government and the public administration to move away from arguments that favour a status quo approach. The Ombudsman has proved to be a successful mechanism for holding the Executive to account because people trust the institution. People will vouch for the Office when it shows that it will not give in to pressure of any sort from the public administration, although a respectful non-necessarily confrontational relationship with the public administration does not affect trust. The Office has to continue to be innovative and adapt to changing challenges and opportunities.
The Office is there for all without any distinction whatsoever to avail oneself of its services. Our commitment is there for all to experience.
Date of article: 13/11/2024
Daily News of: 15/11/2024
Country: 
United Kingdom
- England
Leicester City Council has refused part of the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay a homeless woman for not giving her the right support when she asked it for help.
The Local Government and Social Care stepped in to investigate after the mother and her children were forced to flee their home to escape domestic abuse.
The council first placed the family in interim bed and breakfast accommodation before referring them to a refuge which provided self-contained accommodation.
The mother contacted the council repeatedly as she thought the refuge was negatively affecting her children’s health conditions and was too far away from her support network. The council failed to respond.
When the council did finally get in touch following her complaint, it told the mother to go back to the refuge for support.
The council finally accepted it had a duty to house the family some four months after it should have done so, and it offered the family bed and breakfast accommodation as temporary accommodation, which they moved into after the refuge. However, it failed to tell her that it had accepted the main housing duty towards her family, and of her right to appeal the suitability of the accommodation offered through the courts. The family remained in the bed and breakfast for 19 weeks.
The council eventually offered the family a one-bedroomed property, and while the council acknowledged that it was not suitable for the family, it again failed to tell the mother she could appeal.
Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:
“While I acknowledge the work Leicester City Council has already done to improve its support for homeless people in the city, and its acceptance of the service improvements I have recommended, I am disappointed with its reluctance to fully acknowledge what has gone wrong in this case. It is not accepting the gravity of the injustice to this family by not agreeing the pay the financial remedy I have recommended.
“The law states that families should only be put in bed and breakfast accommodation as a last resort, and this should be for no longer than six weeks. This family was in bed and breakfast accommodation for 19 weeks. The family was split over two rooms, and had no access to cooking facilities which no doubt had a significant impact on their mental health.
“The council has told me it has 170 other families who have been in this sort of accommodation for longer than six weeks. I hope the changes it is making will ensure that other families in Leicester are considered appropriately, and informed of their appeal rights in future.”
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman remedies injustice and shares learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council should apologise to the mother and pay her £500 for the distress caused by not responding to her concerns about the suitability of the refuge accommodation. It has agreed to pay this amount.
It should also pay the family £1,300 for the distress caused by living in unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation for longer than they should have done and a further £150 per month for every month she remains in unsuitable temporary accommodation.
The council has not agreed to these recommendations.
The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to draw up an action plan for reducing the number of families it has in bed and breakfast accommodation. It will also train or remind officers about their duties towards homeless families and improve its template letters to ensure they reflect people’s rights are highlighted.
Date of article: 12/11/2024
Daily News of: 15/11/2024
Country: 
Slovenia
On 11/11/2024, at a consultation in the National Council entitled Deficiencies in the System of Assistance to Children and Young People in Need – A call for action by professional centres, the Human Rights Ombudsman Peter Svetina pointed out some shortcomings that the institution of the Ombudsman perceives during visits to expert centres in the role of National Preventive Mechanism and when considering complaints. The purpose of the consultation was to shed light on the problems in this area and to formulate ideas and proposals that will be addressed to decision-makers with the hope of immediate implementation.
Ombudsman Svetina said that the NPM, which regularly monitors the situation in institutions such as expert centres, training institutes, crisis centres, the department of the University Psychiatric Clinic for Children and Adolescents, and the Radeče Juvenile Correctional Facility, has in recent years noticed an increase in the number of children and adolescents who have the most severe emotional and behavioural problems. Their hardships result in crisis situations, such as peer violence and violence by children and adolescents towards employees, self-harming behaviour, escapes from expert centres, consumption of prohibited substances, and the commission of various misdemeanours and crimes. "These are serious challenges that require a comprehensive approach and coordinated co-operation between all stakeholders. The NPM has warned the expert centres and the Ministry of Education (even under its previous name) of systemic problems and made recommendations several times," said Ombudsman Svetina at the consultation and listed some of the challenges with which expert centres meet and are perceived as pressing by the Ombudsman or the NPM.
"We often find that placing children according to their place of residence, as stipulated by the Act on the Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Emotional and Behavioural Problems and Disorders (ZOOMTVI), is not always in their best interest. Therefore, we recommended that the Ministry study the possible shortcomings of such a system and take measures that will ensure optimal treatment for every child," he said. The NPM also recommended that the Ministry ensure the acquisition of additional knowledge and experience for expert workers in the new intensive groups, so that they will be able to solve crisis events effectively. It should ensure that there are sufficient medical staff and should examine legal and systemic options for more effective enforcement of placement decisions. The NPM also recommended that the Ministry help expert centres in providing adequate accommodation for children and adolescents with emotional and behavioural problems and ensure standards for their equipment and operation.
The Ombudsman is convinced that it is only in co-operation between various stakeholders, including the health, educational, and judicial systems, that it is possible to provide adequate support to these children and adolescents. He concluded that the goal of the consultation is not only to improve conditions in expert center, but also to establish mechanisms of assistance, including to families, so that children and adolescents do not end up in such institutions. "We need effective early treatment programmes that will prevent the development of more severe forms of disorders and enable young people to develop in a safe and stimulating environment," said Ombudsman Peter Svetina and appealed to the public to react when they sense distress. Although we are more and more burdened by our ailments and feel that we must leave our fellow man alone, not intrude into his privacy, "a discreet watchful eye and an appropriate reaction can be just as effective in such cases as resuscitation of people after a stroke: they help in time and thus prevent more severe consequences. My appeal goes beyond the space of this hall: let's be human to our fellow man and ask them if everything is all right with them. We offer help or just a shoulder to lean on. In this way, we can prevent or mitigate many sad stories with serious consequences," said Ombudsman Peter Svetina.
