Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva sent an opinion to Ivan Ivanov, Chair of the Energy and Water Regulatory Commission (EWRC), regarding the Draft Ordinance amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 1/14 March 2017 on the Regulation of Electricity Prices (OREP) to warn about texts that create preconditions to allow the violation of the electricity customers’ rights.

1 March 2024

Ombudsman Diana Kovacheva sent an opinion to Ivan Ivanov, Chair of the Energy and Water Regulatory Commission (EWRC), regarding the Draft Ordinance amending and supplementing Ordinance No. 1/14 March 2017 on the Regulation of Electricity Prices (OREP) to warn about texts that create preconditions to allow the violation of the electricity customers’ rights.

The Draft provides for the abolition of Art. 9 of the existing OREP to which the EWRC conforms to align the needed earnings and/or prices of each power company for each price period depending on the achievement of the energy quality and service quality targets in the previous year.

Hence, Prof. Kovacheva is firm that the abolition of the cited text would create a precondition to allow the violation of fundamental principles in the exercise of the EWRC’s regulatory powers, one of which is, inter alia, to ensure the measures needed to supply customers with electricity that meets certain quality standards. Further, she emphasizes that the Workgroup’s Report gives no reasons to explain what necessitates the abolition of the mentioned text.

Diana Kovacheva insists on the non-abolition of Art. 9 OREP but on its precision to make it relatable to the EWRC regulated prices for connection to and transmission by the power distribution networks.

“I think I should remind that when a public discussion was held in 2021 on the prices in the electricity sector, the EWRC made a commitment to revise the set of methods of report on and achievement of the targets and control on the electricity quality targets and on the quality of the service of the network operators, public providers and end suppliers (the Methodology) so that quality targets reported do not pertain to the entire licensed territory as this distorts the result. It is necessary to report on certain smaller territories. In this way, it will be clear where a problem exists affecting the quality and respectively where customers should be recompensed for the poor quality of the electricity. However, the Methodology has not been changed to date,” the Ombudsman emphasizes.

She notes that Art. 37d, para 3 provides for the calculation of the component of the end supplier’s price in the event that a basis value has not been determined under para 1. She emphasizes that the Energy Act provides that the determination of the basis value subject to the State Budget Act for the respective year and/or a program adopted by the Council of Ministers shall be an unconditional obligation and not a legal option.

“This is confirmed by the text of Art. 30а, para 3 Energy Act: The household end customer shall pay a price which is the sum of the basis value under Art. 21, para 1, subpara 8c, calculated for the electricity used and the component under para 1.“ In addition, according to Art. 21, para 1, subpara d Energy Act, the forecasted market price of electricity is calculated only to cover the operational costs of the operator of the electricity transmission network and of the operators of the electricity distribution networks. Hence the unlawfulness of the planned amendment to Art. 37б, para 2 of the Draft – “a new subpara 9 about end suppliers”, the Ombudsman writes.

Further, she notes that it is inadmissible to supplement the EWRC powers as laid down in the Energy Act with an ordinance.

“Moreover, the reasoning does not make it clear how the ceiling of the component – up to 7 per cent – was arrived at and what economically justified costs of the end suppliers are included in it,” the Ombudsman emphasizes.

She adds that Art. 37d, para 5 provides that the component shall not exceed the amount of the component determined for the previous price period, adjusted by an inflation index for the previous calendar year based on National Statistical Institute data.

”I object to the application of an inflation index as it takes into account the change in the prices of certain types of goods and services consumed by the households over a certain period of time such as: food; strong and soft drinks; wear and footwear; house furniture; healthcare; entertainment and culture; restaurants and hotels that do not have an immediate and direct impact on the costings of the power companies. The price increase in such a way is not economically validated. Moreover, the provision is not clear as to which index is taken into account – the annual/average annual index,“ Prof. Kovacheva states firmly.

She draws attention to yet another fact: the provision of Art. 37e does not make clear the time limit for the EWRC to provide the information to the Minister of Energy and what information is to be provided for the purpose to determine the basis value.

“According to Art. 37f, para 1, the compensation to cover part of the costs of the household customers is the difference between the achieved weighted average price of the Day-Ahead market segment and the basis value of electricity of 1 MWh that the household customer is to pay and that is determined by the State Budget Act for the respective year and/or program, adopted by the Council of Ministers. This is in reconfirmation of the above stated, viz., that the determination of the basis value is a codified obligation,” Diana Kovacheva emphasizes.

The Ombudsman warns that if the EWRC sticks to the opposite, after a way of calculating the component is proposed in the event that no basis value is determined, it raises bewilderment as to why such a way of calculating the compensation is not provided for. Further, she notes that if there exists no definite basis value, there will not be any calculated compensation either. She adds that there is no prescribed procedure of how and when the compensation will be reflected in the customers’ bills and regarding the possibility to pay for all or part of the electricity bought, the differentiation of the electricity and when these possibilities will be applied.

Further, Diana Kovacheva points out that practically it is not clear which previous year will be taken into account: the year before the 2024-2025 regulatory period or the year before the 2023-2024 regulatory period.

Last but not least, the Ombudsman emphasizes the need to change the general terms and conditions of the power companies, in the part that concerns the information to be provided to household customers in the invoice. She notes that it is necessary to provide for a fast and efficient mode of the payment of compensations to household customers in case of poor quality of the service provided.

”It is also imperative to launch a broad public awareness campaign regarding the enforcement of the new pricing rules for household customers of electricity and to publish/upload sample invoices for household electricity consumption to show the options that the Draft provides for. I expect you to make an objective analysis of what has been set forth and to take the necessary measures to protect the rights of electricity customers,” the Ombudsman concludes.

National institutions for human rights, such as the Ombudsman institution in Croatia, play a key role in realizing the fundamental rights of citizens and in promoting EU values: fundamental rights, democracy and the rule of law.

This role was recognized and further strengthened with the help of the project “Supporting National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) in monitoring fundamental rights and the fundamental rights aspects of the rule of law “.

The goal of the project was to advance the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, one of the fundamental documents in the field of human rights protection and the rule of law in the EU. We participated in the project as partners of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), together with NHRIs from Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Latvia, Poland and Cyprus, as well as the European Network of National Institutions for Human Rights (ENNHRI).

The project was completed with an international conference on February 21 and 22, 2024. in Brussels. Ombudswoman Tena Šimonović Einwalter spoke in the first panel on the topic “Role of NHRIs in promoting the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights “.

“National human rights institutions play an important role in encouraging the implementation of the Charter in our countries, as highlighted in the EU strategy to strength the implementation of the Charter, which recognizes us as those who reduce the “gap” between the rights of citizens and the responsibility of the state. Through our broad mandate, we use the Charter in numerous activities – when monitoring the state of human rights and reporting to the Croatian Parliament, in dealing with complaints, in the education and training on human rights that we conduct and in raising awareness on human rights”, said Ombudswoman Šimonović Einwalter.

She also reminded that the enabling space for the NHRIs is an important benchmark of rule of law in the reports of the European Commission, as well as the goal of the Commission’s recommendations to member states. Thus, in the fourth annual report on the rule of law, one of the recommendations to the Republic of Croatia is to further improve the implementation of recommendations and respond more systematically to the Ombudswoman’s requests for information.

The Ombudswoman compared the situation with equality bodies, which in Croatia is also one of the mandates of our institution, reminding that two directives will soon enter into force that will determine the standards for their work. “Standards at the European level are very important for the position of independent institutions in the member states,” emphasized the Ombudswoman.

This is especially important because, as the participants of this international conference agreed, the previous year has brought new challenges for the protection of human rights and the rule of law at the level of the European Union. “Challenges to the rule of law require an even closer exchange of information and best practices beyond borders. Regional cooperation can empower NHRIs to play out their role more effectively, by pooling their resources, expertise and influence,” said Ragna Fidjestøl, Managing Director of the EEA Financial Mechanism and the Norwegian Financial Mechanism (EEA and Norway Grants), which financed the project.

One of the results of the project is the concluding statement “Strengthening the implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union: strong and effective national institutions for human rights in the EU”, which offers the European Commission and member states proposals for further steps in this direction. You can read the statement here (in English).

By implementing this project, we organized a whole series of activities in Croatia: training on the application of the Charter for Ombudswoman advisors, training for civil servants working on EU funds and training for civil society organizations. Among other things, we also organized discussions in Osijek, Rijeka, Split and Zagreb on the rule of law, with a focus on various aspects of the latest Report on the rule of law of the European Commission for the Republic of Croatia.

We thereby helped to strengthen the capacities of civil servants who participate in the preparation of policies and the use of European Union funds. This activity was presented to the participants of the conference by the deputy Ombudswoman Tatjana Vlašić, where she stated that the response to the training was extremely good, and the numerous practical examples of the application of the Charter were most useful to the participants.

The project also confirmed the strength of cooperation and the importance of open and continuous dialogue on human rights between national stakeholders, representatives of the executive power, us as a national institution for human rights and civil society. Thus, on this occasion, our institution acted as a bridge, that is, one that brings together different actors for the sake of stronger protection and promotion of human rights and the rule of law in Croatia.

In the spirit of this cooperation, representatives of state bodies and civil society from Croatia participated in the final conference – Dragana Milunić Pakozdi from the Ministry of Justice and Administration, Gordana Obradović Dragišić from the Ministry of Regional Development and European Union Funds, Klaudija Kregar Orešković from the Office for Human Rights and rights of national minorities of the Government of the Republic of Croatia, Marina Škrabalo from the Solidarna Foundation, Ivan Novosel from the Human Rights House Zagreb and Natalija Havelka from the Center for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights from Osijek. A day before the conference, a workshop was held on the EU funds compliancy with fundamental rights, in which Natalija Šimunović from the Ministry of Regional Development and EU Funds participated, along with some of the already mentioned representatives from Croatia.

The Commissioner for Human Rights Marcin Wiącek has filed complaints against several local resolutions labelled as "anti-LGBT", citing violations of the Constitution, international law and EU law. He criticises the resolutions for violating constitutional rights such as freedom of expression and non-discrimination, as well as EU laws protecting against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Commissioner stresses that while the legal and ideological debate surrounding LGBT people is legitimate, it must respect contemporary human rights standards, avoid discrimination, and respect human dignity. Wiącek also claims that the resolutions overstep the powers of local authorities and create a hostile environment for LGBT people.
The Commissioner also reminds of the measures taken by the European Commission, including the suspension of EU funds to local governments that maintain discriminatory resolutions. The Commission's stance is in line with efforts to uphold the principles of non-discrimination and human rights within the European Union.
Previously, following the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling of 28 June 2022, in which the Court found that the resolutions had been adopted without legal basis and were invalid due to a gross violation of the law, the Commissioner addressed all authorities where such resolutions were still in force. In letters to 24 municipalities and 12 districts, the Commissioner indicated that the authorities should take into account the legal assessment of these resolutions by the administrative courts. As a result, some local authorities repealed or revised the discriminatory resolutions (30 local authorities). Others maintained their positions.
Subsequently, the Commissioner filed complaints to the provincial administrative courts against six resolutions that remained in force. In January 2024, four of these six resolutions were annulled by the administrative courts - those in Kock, Świdnik, Zakrzówek and Potworów.

El informe indica que el 4,3% del parque total de viviendas es vacacional, frente a un 19,4% de vivienda vacía

El Diputado del Común, Rafael Yanes, se reunió con la presidenta de la Asociación Canaria de Vivienda Vacacional (ASCAV), Teodora Borrego, el vicepresidente, Javier Valentín y el gerente, Javier Martín, quienes le presentaron un informe que aporta una visión global de la realidad de la vivienda vacacional en Canarias. En la reunión también estuvieron presentes los asesores de la Diputación del Común, Amanda Armas y Óliver Fariña.

La presidenta de la ASCAV, Teodora Borrego, explicó que el informe evidencia que la vivienda vacacional “no tiene prácticamente ninguna incidencia en la falta de vivienda ni en su encarecimiento. El 4,3% del parque total de viviendas es vivienda vacacional, frente a un 19,4% de vivienda vacía”.

Al mismo tiempo, el informe recoge que el 36% de todas las camas turísticas son vivienda vacacional. De ese 36% de camas, el 26% está en manos de pequeños propietarios. “Hemos logrado generar 43.000 puestos de trabajo directos, una economía que se queda en manos de las familias canarias y que crea calidad de vida a la sociedad canaria”, añade Teodora Borrego.