The Commissioner published today two communications to the Committee of Ministers in the context of the supervision of the execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights relating to the protection of the rights of people with intellectual disabilities or mental health conditions in Romania.

Regarding the cases Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania and N. (No. 2) v. Romania, concerning deficiencies in the legal protection system for adults with intellectual disabilities or mental health conditions and their access to justice, the Commissioner underlines the need for further steps to replace guardianship with supported decision making and to ensure that vulnerable persons, notably those in institutions, can benefit from independent and effective support. She also stresses the importance of enabling close monitoring of institutions, including by NGOs; establishing accessible complaints mechanisms; ensuring adequate reporting and investigation of cases of abuse and death; and increasing capacity building with the justice system.

With respect to the case of Parascineti v. Romania, the Cristian Teodorescu group and the N. v. Romania group, concerning human rights violations in the mental health context, the Commissioner highlights the imperative of a human rights approach to mental health care, involving a fundamental shift from coercion and institutionalisation to community-based services respectful of persons’ rights and dignity. There is a need to repeal legislation allowing for the discriminatory detention of persons with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities and to ensure the provision of health care, including psychiatric care, on the basis of free and informed consent.

“The authorities should initiate measures to progressively develop and ensure access to quality, human rights compliant mental health care services across the country”, writes the Commissioner, pointing out, in addition, the need to address the situation of the large number of persons who continue to live in psychiatric establishments because of the lack of services in the community.

• Read the Commissioner’s communication regarding the cases of Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania and N. (No. 2) v. Romania
• Read the Commissioner’s communication regarding the case of Parascineti v. Romania and other cases

Children, youth and older people Judicial cooperation and rule of law

When 26 March 2024

Where Belgium

External event

On 26 March, FRA will give a keynote speech at the closing conference of Child Front. This is an EU-funded project on ‘Transformative Judicial Training for Child-Inclusive Justice Systems’.

VISIT PROJECT SITE

In the panel on innovative approaches to child-friendly justice, FRA will contribute online to the discussion on interdisciplinary insights into how to best ensure child-friendly proceedings.

Building on its evidence, FRA will stress particularly important procedural safeguards for inclusive systems such as children’s right to information and to be heard, access to legal representation and individual needs assessments.

For more, see its work on child protection systems, procedural safeguards, and the perspectives and experiences of children and professionals.

Berlin: (hib/HAU) Der Petitionsausschuss setzt sich für einen verstärkten Ausbau internationaler Zugverbindungen ein. In der Sitzung am Mittwochmorgen verabschiedete der Ausschuss mit dem Stimmen der Fraktionen von SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, FDP und AfD die Beschlussempfehlung an den Bundestag, eine dahingehende Petition dem Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr (BMDV) „als Material“ zu überweisen und sie dem Europäischen Parlament zuzuleiten. Die Unionsfraktion sowie die Gruppe Die Linke hatten für das höhere Überweisungsvotum „zur Erwägung“ plädiert.

Europa biete geeignete geographische und politische Voraussetzungen für ein internationales Zugnetz, heißt es in der öffentlichen Petition (ID 137062). „Leider machen die meisten Züge - trotz Schengen und einheitlicher Spurbreite - an den nationalen Grenzen halt“, bedauert der Petent. Deutschland habe eine strategisch wertvolle Position für Verbindungen durch Europa und befinde sich dadurch in der Position, „mit der Infrastruktur sowohl die diplomatischen Beziehungen und die Völkerverständigung mit unseren Nachbarn zu vertiefen als auch den Wirtschaftsstandort Deutschland zu stärken“.

Die Petition stimme mit den Zielen, die sich die Bundesregierung im Koalitionsvertrag gesetzt habe, überein, heißt es in der Begründung zur Beschlussempfehlung des Petitionsausschusses. Darin wird auch auf eine Stellungnahme des BMDV verwiesen, wonach sich Deutschland auch im europäischen Schienenverkehr für die Verbesserung des grenzüberschreitenden Schienenpersonenfernverkehrs einsetze. Auf Grundlage des 2020 von der Bundesregierung vorgestellten TEE-Konzepts, das zum Ziel habe, den grenzüberschreitenden eigenwirtschaftlichen Schienenpersonenfernverkehr zu stärken, seien weitere attraktive Verbindungen zwischen europäischen Metropolregionen per Eisenbahn etabliert worden. Zudem sollen laut BMDV grenzüberschreitend Buchungen verbessert und durch Digitalisierung erleichtert werden.

Zudem weist der Petitionsausschuss darauf hin, dass auch der Schienengüterverkehr im einheitlichen europäischen Eisenbahnraum vergemeinschaftet sei. Basierend auf einer EU-Verordnung seien insgesamt elf Schienengüterverkehrskorridore eingerichtet worden, die Häfen, Terminals, Verkehrsknotenpunkte in allen europäischen Mitgliedstaaten miteinander verbinden. Die EU-Kommission erarbeite außerdem zurzeit ein „greening freight package“, das rechtliche Regelungen enthalten werde, um im Bereich des Güterverkehrs zu mehr Nachhaltigkeit zu kommen. Ein Schwerpunkt werde auch sein, vorhandene Kapazität besser zu nutzen. Vor diesem Hintergrund und um auf das Anliegen der Petition besonders aufmerksam zu machen, empfiehlt der Petitionsausschuss, die Petition dem Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr als Material zu überweisen, heißt es in der Vorlage.

The Office of the Ombudsman investigated the regularity of the reactivation of an application for the development of a hotel after this was withdrawn by the Planning Authority.

The investigation

The application in question, dating back more than a decade, was withdrawn and reactivated three times during its processing by the Planning Authority even though no reactivation request was ever submitted by the applicant.  Furthermore, there is no justification for the reactivation results from the proceedings.

The Development Planning Regulations 2016 clearly state that failure to fully answer a call for information following the enactment of these regulations, the planning application in question should be considered as tacitly withdrawn by the applicant.  The Planning Authority correctly followed the call procedure. However, the Planning Authority reactivated the application through a procedure that is not allowed by the regulations.  Neither did the Planning Authority inform the representees who were notified about the withdrawal that the mentioned application was reactivated.

The Commissioner found that any eventual confirmation of this application at the decision level can only lead to uncertainties and difficulties for the applicant through the anomaly of obtaining a decision on a tacitly withdrawn application.  Furthermore, any further processing might set a serious precedent for withdrawn applications since this would mean that withdrawn applications can then be reactivated against regulations at the whim of the Planning Authority.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The Commissioner concluded that any further processing of this application is irregular since the applicant tacitly withdrawn this application in line with regulations.  The Commissioner recommended that the Planning Authority shall immediately halt any further processing of this application, which process should have stopped following withdrawal.

Outcome

The planning application in question was withdrawn in line with the Commissioner’s recommendations.

In this month’s edition of the Ombudsman’s findings, we highlight the need for clear and consistent communication.

This month we published decision reports from 18 complaints investigated by the Ombudsman. Fourteen of these were about health services, one about health and social care and three about local government. The outcome of these 18 complaints were

• Fully upheld: 9
• Some upheld: 3
• Not upheld: 6

Recommendations and feedback 

We made 61 recommendations to public bodies. Thirty-three of these were about steps public bodies could take to learn and improve from the complaint. A further 11 recommendations were about how complaints handling could be improved.

A common theme of these recommendations was the need for clear and consistent communication between public sector organisations and they people they serve. It is important people know what to expect, and are kept informed of any delays or changes to their service. Discussions between healthcare providers and patients are especially important. Patients should be aware of all the risks associated with their treatment, including the risk of declining any care.

We also a highlight a case where an individual experienced a loss of income due to the actions of a public body. We asked the public body to reimburse the individual, returning them to the position they would have been in had the failure not occurred. Our Redress Policy sets out our approach to resolving a complaint or request through recommendations for redress.
 

All our published decision reports can be read in full on our website.