Our consultation on the updated SPSO Statement of Complaints Handing Principles is now open and we are accepting responses until Friday 31 January 2025.

Updated SPSO Statement of Complaint Handling Principles (PDF, 799KB). This document is formatted for consultation and the content may be presented differently for different audiences and media.

The Principles have been in place, and remain largely unchanged, since they were approved by the Scottish Parliament in January 2011. Recently, we have had the addition of the Whistleblowing Principles in April 2021, and the Child friendly Complaints Handling Principles in July 2024 as part of the overall suite of principles.

The purpose of this consultation is to gather responses on the updates regarding language to ensure the Complaints Handling Principles are clear and easy to understand.

The consultation is open to any organisation required to comply with the Principles. We would also like to hear from public services organisations that are not within our jurisdiction and from third sector organisations, especially those that work with public bodies.

The consultation questionnaire can be found here: https://forms.office.com/e/H8UudSL8Y8 

Alternatively, you can download and complete a Word version of the document and submit this to ISE-Standards@spso.gov.scot.   

The European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (“ENNHRI”)

ENNHRI brings together 49 NHRIs with a diversity of mandates from across Europe with a mission to enhance the promotion and protection of human rights in the region. The network provides a platform for collaboration and solidarity in addressing the challenges in protecting human rights and a common voice for NHRIs at the European level.  

Malta does not have an NHRI.  However in 2024 the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta (“the Office”) was admitted as Associate Member of ENNHRI. This status entitles the Office to participate in all the activities of the Network but does not give the Office any right to vote.  The Office was granted that status on the basis of the Ombudsman Act 1995 as it stands to date.  The Act gives the Office constitutional protection and independence.  

To qualify for Full Member A status of ENNHRI, the NHRI of a country must be fully compliant with the UN Paris Principles.  The Office has strongly and in concrete terms advocated in favour of robust legislation that brings about radical and substantial changes to the Ombudsman Act in the sense that on the hand the Office maintains fully its present Ombuds mandate and on the other is given an additional mandate for the promotion and protection of the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the person in accordance with the UN Paris Principles.  Such an extended mandate would raise even further the profile of the Office.  The Office strongly believes that on the basis of past experience it has all the credentials to become the NHRI of Malta.

ENNHRI`s mission is to:

• Strengthen NHRIs by facilitating the exchange of information and good practices, and the organisation of capacity-building activities.
• Assist and support NHRIs in their efforts to comply with the UN Paris Principles in the process of constitution, accreditation and when they come under threat. 
• Connect NHRIs to European institutions by facilitating their engagement with regional mechanisms, raising their visibility and intervening on regional legal and policy developments
• Promote and protect human rights by strengthening, supporting and connecting NHRIs present in Europe.

Where human rights are concerned, ENNHRI works hard to ensure:

• Respect for international standards
• Transparency
• Cooperation
• Accountability
• Non-discrimination and respect for diversity
• Participation
• Independence
• Solidarity

The Network addresses human rights issues in Europe, with the focus on:

• Democracy & Rule of Law
• Economic & Social Rights
• Asylum & Migration
• Artificial Intelligence
• Human Rights in (Post-)Conflict
• Business & Human Rights
• Climate Change and Human Rights
• Communicating Human Rights
• Rights of Older Persons
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• Sustainable Development Goals

Today, we are celebrating an extraordinary day – the upcoming International Human Rights Day, and the 30th anniversary of the Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia. We celebrate the efforts not only of our institution, but of everyone who sincerely strives for a better tomorrow. Not just for ourselves, but for the whole community.

In the last thirty years, we have witnessed global events that have had a major impact on security, stability, and solidarity. We are still witnessing them. Violence, conflicts, radicalisms, populisms, health disasters, and ecological and environmental threats, these all remind us how destructive we can be and how very vulnerable humanity is. However, we also know that it is possible to learn from our mistakes, as well as knowing from good experiences that we can control bad ones. Therefore, we know that it is possible to build a more just, community-based, and safer future with trust, dialogue, and community thinking.

We Slovenians prove this all the time. We are building our country, we are part of the European Union, we have developed advanced technologies, raised the standard of respect for human rights and achieved an enviable level of prosperity alongside a welfare state. Although we know how to be extremely community-based, we have too often neglected many on this path towards progress. For example, even for those who take care of the individual and the community – medical personnel, social care workers, teachers, educators and thousands who perform noble and important work, their income is still below the minimum wage. Despite the fact that they are fully employed, these important workers do not have enough resources for a decent life. Although we often talk about standards and norms and agree that decent payment is necessary for the work done, in practice we often cannot find a solution. It is the same in many other areas. We condemn hate speech and talk about the importance of ethics of public speech, but we still easily stir up hatred in our communities, we do not condemn incitement, non-acceptance, stigmatisation, or discrimination. In spite of this lack of condemnation, we have nothing against disabled people, migrants, Roma people, prisoners, or others... As long as they are far away from us and our children.

Maybe some of you also have the feeling that egocentricity and collective narcissism are trying to take root in us, but I firmly believe that most of us know and are aware that we belong to a community that is predominantly good, humane, understanding, and believes in unity. We have already proven so many times that we can be a socially responsible community that cares about the well-being of others. We know that we are, and can be, a society that creates a positive social climate with joint efforts. A society where the rights of individuals are not undermined, the values ​​of tolerance not destroyed, where each member is treated with respect and dignity. For this to happen, we do not need a revolution, but only a firm and decisive commitment to the common good.

In 30 years, our institution has dealt with almost 88,000[1] cases of people who turned to us because the authorities overlooked and neglected them or interfered with their rights and freedoms. We have answered almost twice as many calls and letters, held a huge number of personal conversations and, together with the National Preventive Mechanism, made several thousand recommendations. All these many people are from our community. Those in charge did not notice their plight. Furthermore, the rules-makers and implementers, who are supposed to act fairly, responsibly, and in the public interest, these people did not know, were unable or unwilling to listen to them, when asserting their rights. If they had, we wouldn’t have dealt with so many cases.

You know, I recently came across a record of the late first human rights ombudsman, mag. Ivan Bizjak. As early as 1995, he identified unreasonably long and complicated decision-making procedures, avoidance of decision-making, unequal treatment, and ineffective supervision in the work of the authorities. If I add to this list the lack of explanation of duties and arrogance, I can, unfortunately, say that I have identified the same bad practices as mag. Ivan Bizjak, 30 years on. The violation of the principle of good governance is still one of the most common violations of human rights today. And it will persist until we as a society recognise that human rights are not a luxury, but the foundation of every democratic and legal state. This violations will continue whilst we see that the people who turn to us are not just numbers, applications, forms and other documents that we get on the table, but real people who need and deserve our help.

Any violation is inadmissible, it is too much. This is why tonight, as so many times before, I repeat my appeal and expectation that the country should carefully consider the recommendations, warnings, and suggestions of the institution of the Ombudsman. With this, it will not only give a clear sign of how it behaves towards the institutions of democracy, but will also prove to the population that it cares about everyone and that it wants to correct the injustices it has caused. I believe that is the only way we can progress as a society.

The culture of dialogue is the basis of a democratic and pluralistic society in which trust reigns. Where co-operation is not a one-way street, but an alliance. Where everyone is aware of their responsibility for common progress. Where actions count, not words and promises, but our activation in practice. In co-operation and dialogue, which are the key building blocks of justice, we can create a better tomorrow here and now. Without dialogue and justice, phrases such as human rights, democracy and the rule of law risk becoming mere phrases, devoid of meaning.

May the celebration this evening be an inspiration to us. An inspiration for philanthropic action. For strength and courage in recognising and correcting injustices in our communities. To oppose hostility, intolerance, discrimination, and disrespect. We are not yet a just society, there is a lot of inequality in our environment, but we are open and big-hearted. This is also why I believe that we can use our wisdom and skills to spread the culture of dialogue. This value, which is increasingly missing for me, is necessary for the search for progress, because we can only encourage good in others with the good in ourselves.

Without a culture of dialogue, we cannot really change society for the better, we cannot implement real changes, if you want reforms that can bring lasting prosperity and progress for all. When I say all, I mean the thousands in queues in our health facilities, thousands without a GP or gynaecologist of their choice; to all those living below the poverty line – who do not have decent wages or pensions; to people with disabilities who face online and physical inaccessibility and other problems that plague them in everyday life; to all children in social hardship; to all young people who have an unsolved housing problem due to wild real estate prices and a lack of non-profit housing; to all the elderly who, despite empty beds, are without adequate care due to personnel problems in homes for the elderly; to all who are imprisoned in institutions due to our lack of understanding of deinstitutionalisation; to all who were affected by last year's floods or face the consequences of climate change differently; to those erased after the independence of Slovenia, for which we cannot find a solution; to all those who are discriminated against on the basis of various personal circumstances, for example religious affiliation, nationality, race, or sexual orientation. In short, to everyone who is one way or another pushed to the edge of society.

Only great people create a great nation. People who give back to a community they can be proud of. And these great people are and can be all of us, respected and revered.

The verses of our greatest poet, Dr. France Prešeren, from Zdravljica, with which the extraordinary Nina Strnad made a wonderful introduction to this evening, "Unity, happiness, reconciliation to us, let them return" are not only a poetic echo of the past, but a call to responsibility for the future. Prešeren's messages are still somewhat relevant today, as they urge us to create a society where diversity will not be a reason for discord, but a source of strength, where dialogue will be a tool for strengthening trust and a more inclusive and just society.

Let me end by thanking everyone who has created and are currently creating the story of the institution of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia. There cannot be a successful institution without a great team, so thank you, dear colleagues, for your expertise and efforts, your drive and energy, your passion and dedication to people in need.

Thank you also to all of you, fellow travellers in this journey for justice, for honouring us with your participation this evening. I'm delighted that we can celebrate together.

I wish you all the best!

Plus de quatre ans après le début du déploiement de l’Administration numérique des étrangers en France (ANEF), plateforme dématérialisée pour les demandes de titres de séjour des ressortissants étrangers, le Défenseur des droits est saisi de dizaines de milliers de réclamations. Il publie ce jour un rapport qui fait état des nombreuses carences de cet outil numérique et des graves ruptures de droits qui en découlent pour les usagers.

Un outil dématérialisé aux défaillances importantes

Déployée depuis 2020 dans un objectif de simplification des démarches administratives, l’ANEF s’est imposée comme canal unique dématérialisé pour les demandes de certains titres de séjour par les ressortissants étrangers. Or, depuis la mise en service de cet outil, le Défenseur des droits est saisi de très nombreuses réclamations de personnes qui ne parviennent plus à accomplir les démarches nécessaires à l’obtention d’un titre de séjour ou à recevoir une réponse dans un délai normal, y compris s’agissant d’un simple renouvellement.

Le service manque à sa promesse de simplification des démarches administratives. Problèmes techniques persistants, choix ou impensés dans la conception de l’outil sources de difficultés, déploiement parcellaire et manque d’informations aux usagers, absence de flexibilité pour compléter ou modifier une demande déposée... L’outil souffre de nombreuses limites qui affectent tant le dépôt que l’instruction des demandes de titres.

Entre 2020 et 2024, le nombre de réclamations reçues par l’institution du Défenseur des droits en matière de droits des étrangers a cru de 400 %. En 2023, ce nombre représentait un quart du total de ses réclamations - il sera sans doute d’un tiers en 2024. Parmi ces réclamations, les trois quarts portent sur les titres de séjour. Enfin, la forte majorité de ces demandes (trois quarts également) portent sur des renouvellements de titres de séjour, concernant donc des personnes qui vivent déjà en France et bénéficiaient déjà d’un titre régulier.

Les délégués du Défenseur des droits sont quotidiennement confrontés à des situations de ruptures de droits inacceptables.

Des atteintes massives et graves aux droits 

Dans une décision du 3 juin 2022, le Conseil d’Etat a jugé que le dépôt d’une demande de titre de séjour via l’ANEF ne pouvait être imposé qu’à la condition de garantir un accès normal au service ainsi que l’effectivité des droits. Cela implique d’accompagner la dématérialisation de services d’accueil et d’accompagnement spécifiques, notamment pour les personnes éloignées du numérique, et de garantir la possibilité de recourir à une solution de substitution lorsque le dépôt dématérialisé de la demande s’avère impossible malgré cet accompagnement (par exemple, le dépôt physique d’un dossier).

Le Défenseur des droits observe dans ses réclamations que les personnes étrangères contraintes de recourir à l’ANEF pour le dépôt de leur demande de titre de séjour se heurtent à de nombreuses difficultés que les services d’accueil et d’accompagnement mis en place, tels que le Centre de contact citoyen (CCC) et les Points d’accueil numériques (PAN),  ne permettent pas de surmonter : échanges infructueux avec le CCC,  complexité d’accès aux PAN, manque de qualification du personnel, manque d’effectifs, prérogatives insuffisantes de ces services pour lever les blocages… Et, le droit de déposer la demande par un autre canal est bien souvent entravé. 
Le risque est pour les personnes empêchées d’accéder à une démarche ou de la finaliser, de finir par se retrouver sans preuve de leur droit au séjour. Or, la perte de ce droit peut engendrer d’autres ruptures de droits, en particulier économiques et sociaux : perte du droit de travailler, perte d’emploi, suspension des prestations sociales, perte du logement ou encore des difficultés d’accès aux soins.

Dans tous les cas, les défaillances constatées ont pour effet de maintenir les personnes concernées dans une situation administrative incertaine et précaire durant plusieurs mois voire années pendant lesquelles elles se voient contraintes de suspendre ou reporter nombre de projets, tant professionnels (stages, formations, changement d’emploi, etc.) que personnels (déménagement, visite familiale à l’étranger, etc.), qui nécessitent de pouvoir justifier d’un droit au séjour.

Les recommandations opérationnelles du Défenseur des droits

L’ampleur et la gravité des atteintes aux droits constatées par le Défenseur des droits imposent l’adoption de mesures urgentes. Sans remettre en cause la possibilité d’un dépôt dématérialisé des demandes de titres de séjour, la Défenseure des droits émet 14 recommandations pour faire de l’ANEF un réel outil de simplification au service des usagers, parmi lesquelles :

• Intégrer dans le Code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile une disposition reconnaissant le droit de réaliser toute démarche par un canal non dématérialisé, sans condition préalable,
• Automatiser le renouvellement automatique des attestations de prolongation d’instruction (API) et créer, pour les personnes sollicitant la régularisation de leur situation administrative, une attestation dématérialisée créatrice de droits délivrée après vérification de la complétude du dossier, 
• Améliorer l’information donnée aux usagers sur les sites internet des préfectures, quant aux modalités de dépôt des demandes de titres et la mettre à jour régulièrement. 

Télécharger

• Rapport - L’Administration numérique pour les étrangers en France (ANEF) : une dématérialisation à l’origine d’atteintes massives aux droits des usagers (2024) (pdf, 848.32 Ko)

El Defensor del Pueblo, Ángel Gabilondo, ha clausurado este lunes en Barcelona la séptima edición de los ‘Diálogos por la Interculturalidad’, organizados por la Fundación Secretariado Gitano, por la Oficina del Club de Roma en Barcelona y por la Fundación La Caixa.

Durante su intervención en el Palau Macaya de la capital catalana, el Defensor del Pueblo ha reivindicado el papel de la comunidad gitana y ha asegurado que “los gitanos y gitanas no conforman un colectivo, sino que son más bien una comunidad, un pueblo unido por vínculos familiares y culturales. De ahí la improcedencia de emplear la palabra clan, el término raza, la palabra etnia, que de una u otra forma aluden a imaginarios basados en el nosotros y ellos”.

En su opinión, “ser miembro activo de pleno derecho en una comunidad exige la creación de espacios de justicia y de libertad, espacios éticos”. Ello supone, ha señalado Ángel Gabilondo, que “aunque haya derecho a la diferencia no ha de haber diferencia de derechos”. Según ha subrayado, “la diversidad cultural es absolutamente compatible con la igualdad de los derechos. Más aún, es su verdadera y efectiva posibilidad. Y no se trata de plantear los asuntos en términos de condescendencia o permisividad, lo que no haría sino enmascarar un mal paternalismo o un humanitarismo melifluo”.

El Defensor del Pueblo ha recordado en su exposición la figura del ex vicepresidente de la Asociación Nacional Presencia Gitana, Nicolás Jiménez, que ya hace treinta años propuso que más que hablar de integración se debe hablar de convivencia interactiva, “lo que pasa sin duda por el reconocimiento mutuo”.

En esta línea, el Defensor del Pueblo ha afirmado que “la integración no es asimilación. Ha de llegar hasta la incorporación”. Y ello, ha explicado, es una tarea en la que se tiene que implicar toda la sociedad. “Es una labor de todos nosotros, no de nosotros ante ellos, sino de ese ellos que forma parte de todos nosotros, hasta el punto de que nuestra plenitud es y será parcial en tanto que no haya una verdadera incorporación de pleno derecho de la comunidad gitana, de las comunidades gitanas, en la sociedad”.