Luna revela que estas familias vienen sufriendo retrasos en el pago de tres meses desde 2022
El síndic de Greuges de la Comunitat Valenciana, Ángel Luna, ha advertido a la Conselleria de Servicios Sociales, Igualdad y Vivienda que tiene la obligación legal de abonar a las familias acogedoras la prestación destinada a crianza de menores de edad acogidos en los cinco primeros días del mes vencido. Por tanto, le ha recomendado que establezca un procedimiento de abono de la prestación más ágil y que no se vea interrumpido por los trámites contables de cierre de ejercicio económico y apertura del nuevo.
La institución critica que, al inicio de cada año, estos trámites presupuestarios provocan que todas las familias que hay en la Comunidad Valenciana no cobren hasta el mes de marzo. Una situación que se originó a raíz de la aprobación de un decreto que precisamente intentaba arreglar el problema. Sin embargo, lo que provocó fueron más retrasos tanto en el gobierno anterior como en la actual Conselleria de Servicios Sociales, Igualdad y Vivienda.
En su informe, el Síndic destaca, de entrada, el interés superior del menor, que establece que el dinero público debe priorizarse para estos fines en los que están involucrados los niños y niñas. Además, señala que «las personas menores de edad acogidas siguen generando gastos de alimentación, vestido, etc. de forma continuada durante el tiempo de permanencia con la familia acogedora y, en consecuencia, la prestación no debería interrumpirse, pues hacerlo puede repercutir en la adecuada atención a estos menores de edad».
Por su parte, la Conselleria justifica los retrasos en los pagos escudándose en los fallos de una nueva aplicación informática, hecha para agilizar los plazos pero que no ha conseguido su objetivo. También explica que el embudo que provoca la aprobación de los presupuestos cada año hace que las familias no cobren hasta el mes de marzo.
La institución dirigida por Ángel Luna critica también que, tres años después de aprobarse el decreto que tenía que solucionar el problema «parece un tiempo más que razonable para que se hubieran resuelto las posibles incidencias derivadas de su implantación inicial».
Por otra parte, en su resolución el Síndic recomienda a la Conselleria de Servicios Sociales que informe a las familias sobre su derecho a reclamar intereses de demora por el retraso de los pagos, y anima a los afectados a hacerlo, ya que prácticamente nadie conoce esta posibilidad.
Por último, también reivindica la falta de explicaciones por parte de la Conselleria de Servicios Sociales, Igualdad y Vivienda, sobre todo en esta última queja, y pide más transparencia.
FRA Director Sirpa Rautio addresses EU Justice Ministers during the EU's Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting on 23 July 2024 in Budapest. The Director focused on AI and its use in the digitalisation of justice.
I would like to thank the Hungarian Presidency for having invited FRA to speak on this important subject today.
The use of artificial intelligence, or AI, in the justice sector offers great potential. While it should be noted that other digital solutions and new technologies also offer scope for advancement, the focus – and real concerns – lie with AI and its uses.
The topic of AI in the justice sector is nothing new. FRA has been working on AI and fundamental rights for several years now. Our analysis has accompanied the major policy developments in this area, including the AI Act and, at the Council of Europe, the ‘Framework Convention on AI and human rights, democracy and rule of law’.
With this in mind, and given the evidence that FRA has gathered over the years, I would like to recall some of the potential dangers of the use of AI, from a fundamental rights perspective. I will also outline possible solutions and ways forward, which will allow us to benefit from technological advancements in the justice area.
I think a natural starting point is to first acknowledge how far we have come. The past years have seen significant progress in the availability of AI tools. As of today, the Council of Europe’s ‘Resource Centre on Cyberjustice and AI’ counts 118 AI systems that are used or developed in European countries in the field of justice.
In addition to technological progress, there has been considerable progress on regulation at the EU level. Namely, the Artificial Intelligence Act, which was adopted by the Council in May and progressively enters into force in August.
The benefits of using new AI technologies are obvious. AI tools allow for faster and more efficient processing of information and therefore have the potential to increase the efficiency of justice. Given that efficiency is rightly lauded as one of the core quality components of justice systems, any enhancement of it must be welcomed. In various ways, AI, and digitalisation more broadly, may help to reduce workload, case load, and bottle necks. AI tools can overcome obstacles that stand in the way of people’s ability to access justice – for example, by providing targeted and easy to access information about rights, obligations and available legal avenues.
AI is very powerful, as it can detect complex patterns. Through revealing certain patterns in human behaviour, AI tools – when used correctly, in compliance with the law – can also be useful in uncovering fundamental rights abuses where they exist in the justice sector – including, for example, potential bias in decision-making.
However, when it comes to the use of AI, it is indisputable that the protection of fundamental rights must be prioritised above efficiency, where that efficiency risks rights violations. We must not sacrifice the quality of justice processes for the sake of speed and technology. FRA’s report from 2020, entitled ‘Getting the future right’, highlights that most developers and deployers want to use AI for more efficient procedures. However, the question remains: at the same time as using AI for efficiency, why are we not also trying to use AI to design and implement better procedures and higher quality decisions – meaning ones that are also fundamental rights compliant?
Here, we have to also acknowledge how AI can negatively impact on several rights, if used without due consideration and control for fundamental rights compliance. As FRA has repeatedly highlighted through its research on AI ‘use cases’:
The use of AI can interfere strongly with people’s right to a private life and data protection. In this regard, the use of AI cannot deviate from applying the EU’s high standards on data protection. But, reassuringly, as FRA’s research has shown, this is an area that developers and deployers are most familiar with when it comes to rights compliance. Still, more guidance on the practical application of data protection when using AI is needed.
The use of AI can interfere with people’s right to non-discrimination. FRA’s report on ‘Bias in algorithms’ has shown that AI tools can easily pick up information on people’s sex or ethnic origin and can overstate this factor, which can in turn lead to discrimination. If not effectively controlled for, the use of AI systems can undermine equality in the application of the law.
The use of unchecked AI also potentially risks interfering with the right to a fair trial and an effective remedy. Without the fully transparent use of AI, and accountable systems to control its use, people’s faith in the accountability of the justice system can be undermined. FRA has repeatedly highlighted that
People need to know when AI is used for decisions that affect them.
People need to know where and how to complain about AI-supported decisions.
And those using AI need to be in a position to explain its use – for accused, victims and witnesses – to ensure that fair trial principles are met, and to ensure good administration.
While I have noted some examples of risks to fundamental rights, it should be remembered that the use of AI may also interfere with many other rights, depending on the context in which it is used.
Therefore, it must be remembered and repeated that the rights and duties enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights do not bend to technological advances. We cannot allow for any use of AI that would dilute the hard-fought-for milestones we have achieved in the areas of democracy and rule of law.
These instruments, alongside the AI Act, also provide us with a roadmap for navigating through technological progress and unknowns. FRA’s experience with working on real AI ‘use cases’ has shown that we have to repeat the basic messages and continue to encourage a fundamental rights approach in the development and use of AI tools.
So, how do we best protect fundamental rights when using new technologies, such as AI?
Let me highlight two areas: First - supporting the effective implementation of the law, including the available fundamental rights safeguards in practice, and Second - sharing experiences and working together.
First - When it comes to implementing the law, we must look to the AI Act. It prohibits certain uses of AI and includes rules for high-risk AI systems in predefined areas – such as biometrics, employment, access to essential private and public services, law enforcement, migration and the administration of justice. The latter area, administration of justice, includes AI systems intended to be used by a judicial authority for interpreting facts and the law, applying the law or in alternative dispute resolution. Importantly, the recitals of the Act mention that: “final decision-making [by judges] must remain a human-driven activity.” The AI Act also introduces a new option to complain about possible infringements of the Act to the relevant ‘market surveillance authority’. However, regardless of how good the rules seem on paper, the real test is how they work in practice. Access to effective complaint procedures is an important part of that.
Amongst its projects in this area, FRA is currently focusing on how we can support the effective implementation of the AI Act in view of protecting fundamental rights:
FRA will be one of the five permanent members of the Advisory Forum under the AI Act, which will, together with rotating members from business, academia and civil society, advise the Commission and the AI Board.
FRA is currently running several projects with those developing and using AI, including in high-risk areas, which will inform the implementing guidance of the AI Act.
FRA’s previous research has shown that those developing and using AI often do not know how to implement laws in practice, particularly with respect to fundamental rights impact. Good implementing guidance will be of major importance for the Act’s success, and the Agency will support the AI Office in DG CNECT with its findings.
Second - When it comes to sharing experiences and working together, I very much support the idea presented by the EU Presidency about coming together to share expertise and guidance on fundamental rights compliant uses of AI in the justice sector. Through effective cooperation on AI, we can ensure that we have the necessary tools available to embrace and use AI that is fundamental rights compliant.
FRA stands ready to support you in this endeavour. We are currently examining digital tools and systems, including those based on AI, that are already in use in civil, criminal or administrative justice in EU Member States. We will be carrying out interviews with selected technical experts and justice practitioners in different countries – such as judges, prosecutors, lawyers and law enforcement officers – who have direct experience in developing, deploying or using digital tools, including AI systems. We are particularly interested in how this can affect individuals - for example as a complainant, defendant or victim - in their interaction with justice systems. On the basis of our findings, we will develop practical guidance on the fundamental rights implications - both positive and negative - that arise when Member States employ digital technologies in the administration and delivery of justice.
To conclude - fundamental rights compliant use of AI is not hampering innovation. To the contrary, it is to our competitive advantage in developing better and more sustainable tools that support the efficiency of work and ensure justice for all.
The Ombudsman of Sint Maarten recently published the 2023-year report. In 2023 there were a total of 367 complaints handled of which 43 resulted in a report by the Ombudsman.
The Belgrade Platform for Promotion and Protection of the Environment was established following the International Conference on the Role of Ombudspersons in Environmental Protection held on 13 and 14 June 2024 in Belgrade, organized by the Protector of Citizens of the Republic of Serbia, supported by the OSCE Mission to Serbia.
The Office of the Ombudsman in Malawi has taken to Kasungu for two-week Mobile Accountability Clinics. The clinics are a proactive mechanism that the Office of the Ombudsman uses to take the Office to the people reaching the heart of communities in the rural areas or areas that are far from the main office.
La Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la Ciudad de México (CDHCM) hace eco de las líneas estratégicas signadas en el Decenio Internacional de los Afrodescendientes (Reconocimiento, Justicia y Desarrollo); y el énfasis que se pone en que estas deben contemplar específicamente líneas para las mujeres.
On 19 July 2024, Toronto’s Ombudsman Kwame Addo released an update on the work his office’s new Housing Unit has done during its first year of operation. Established in July of 2023, the Housing Unit at Ombudsman Toronto investigates and reviews the planning and delivery of the City of Toronto’s housing services, policies, and programs to make sure they are fair and uphold Torontonians’ human right to adequate housing.
The European Ombudsman strongly regrets the European Commission’s refusal to follow her recommendation to give greater public access to four documents related to the drawing up of proposed legislation to combat child sexual abuse.
The Ombudsman for the Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Bahrain signed a memorandum of cooperation and partnership with the Mediator of the Kingdom of Morocco, on the sidelines of the two institutions’ participation in the eleventh meeting of the Board of Directors of the Ombudsman Association of Member Countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OICOA), which was held in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh.
London Borough of Tower Hamlets has agreed to review the way it allocates properties after the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman uncovered it had a long backlog in processing applications to join its housing register. The discovery came when the Ombudsman investigated how the council handled an application from a woman who was resident in its area.
Muhammad Sohail Rajput, the Ombudsman Sindh, presided the follow-up session of the Brand Ambassador Program on 22 July 2024 at the Secretariat of the Provincial Ombudsman Sindh with the 10 selected students as Ambassadors for Ombudsman Sindh from the Hamdard University.
The Commissioner for Fundamental Rights of Hungary hosted the experts of the European Commission monitoring the management of the external Schengen borders of the EU in his Office on 4 June 2024.
British Columbia’s Ombudsperson Jay Chalke released an investigative update on 22 July 2024 assessing government’s progress implementing the sole remaining recommendation from his office’s 2016 report aimed at improving how BC’s ten correctional centres are inspected.
Dos jóvenes fueron abordados por la calle por su perfil racial para hacer de figurantes en una rueda de reconocimiento. El Síndic de Greuges de Catalunya concluyó que la actuación policial no tenía suficientes garantías jurídicas y pidió una revisión.
La Diputada del Común, Lola Padrón asistió a la I Gala de Entrega de los Premios UVA
La Diputada del Común, Lola Padrón asistió a la I Gala de Entrega de los Premios UVA con el que se reconoció a las personas que han sido claves en la historia de la Universidad de Verano de Adeje. Entre los galardonados, el adjunto primero de la Diputación del Común, Antonio Alarcó, que junto a Alfonso Ángel Soleto recibieron el premio a los profesores con mayor intervenciones en la Universidad de verano y que cierra la XXXI edición.
«Hay que poner en valor los 31 años de este proyecto, al alcalde José Miguel Rodríguez Fraga, a Marisa Tejedor, a Carmen Nieves Fraga y a todas las personas premiadas. Sin duda, la Universidad de La Laguna y su descentralización ha sido clave. Y, por supuesto, estoy muy orgullosa de nuestro adjunto. Por tanto, felicito y doy las gracias a todos ellos».
Der Bürgerbeauftragte der Bayerischen Staatsregierung, Wolfgang Fackler, MdL, wünscht allen Schülerinnen und Schülern und allen Lehrkräften in Bayern schöne und erholsame Ferien. „Nach einem anstrengenden Schuljahr mit zahlreichen Prüfungen haben sich sowohl unsere Schülerinnen und Schüler als auch unsere Lehrkräfte die Sommerferien redlich verdient“, so der Bürgerbeauftragte.
„Wer – wie unsere bayerischen Schülerinnen und Schüler – in nahezu allen bundesweiten Vergleichstests an der Spitze steht, hat sich auch entsprechende Erholungszeiten verdient“, ist Wolfgang Fackler überzeugt. In diesem Zusammenhang sind auch die Leistungen der bayerischen Lehrerinnen und Lehrer hervorzuheben. „So bietet sich aus meiner Sicht das Schuljahresende an, unseren Lehrkräften für die herausragende Arbeit des vergangenen Schuljahres zu danken. Nicht zuletzt dank unserer engagierten Pädagoginnen und Pädagogen steht Bayern wieder einmal an der Spitze und ist das Bildungsland Nummer Eins“, macht Fackler deutlich. (...)
Spain
- Valencia
