Eine Frau verdiente gerade einmal 279 Euro für ihre Tätigkeit in einer Einrichtung für Menschen mit Behinderung. Weil die offiziell nicht als Arbeit gilt, musste sie sich selbst versichern, um im Krankheitsfall abgesichert zu sein. Die Selbstversicherung kostete sie 114 Euro im Monat. „Dieser Fall zeigt, wie dringend auch Menschen mit Behinderung ‚Lohn statt Taschengeld‘ bekommen müssen. Auch die volle Einbeziehung in die Sozialversicherung ist überfällig, damit sie krankenversichert sind - und im Alter einmal eine Pension bekommen“, so Volksanwalt Bernhard Achitz.

Der Anlassfall findet sich auch im aktuellen Steiermark-Bericht der Volksanwaltschaft, der im Jänner im Landtag Steiermark behandelt wurde. Ursprünglich hatte die Volksanwaltschaft auf das Thema bereits 2019 in einem Sonderbericht aufmerksam gemacht. „Seitdem gab es viele Diskussionen und verbale Unterstützung, auch einige Pilotprojekte laufen, aber immer noch werden Beschäftigte in sogenannten ‚Behindertenwerkstätten‘ mit einem Taschengeld abgespeist, und sie haben keine Chance, sich eine eigenständige Alterssicherung aufzubauen, weil sie nicht pensionsversichert sind.“

Eine Frau mit einer Behinderung war gezwungen, sich trotz extrem niedrigen Einkommens selbst in der Krankversicherung zu versichern. Sie erhielt die Leistungen „Trainingswohnen für Menschen mit Behinderung'' und „Teilhabe an Beschäftigung in der Arbeitswelt'' im Rahmen der Behindertenhilfe. Dadurch war es ihr möglich, in einer Einrichtung für Menschen mit Behinderungen zu arbeiten. Sie erhielt 165 Euro Familienbeihilfe, den Kinderabsetzbetrag von 58 Euro sowie eine Prämie von 56 Euro (Teilhabe an Beschäftigung in der Arbeitswelt), also insgesamt 279 Euro an Einkommen im Sinn des Steiermärkischen Behindertengesetzes (StBHG).

Widerspruch zur UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention (UN-BRK)

Krankenversichert war sie nicht, sie musste sich also selbst versichern und dafür 114 Euro bezahlen. Paradoxerweise wäre sie krankenversichert gewesen, wenn sie nicht gearbeitet hätte. Deshalb hat ihr die Behörde geraten, zu Hause zu bleiben und keiner Beschäftigung nachzugehen. Volksanwalt Achitz: „Das steht klar im Widerspruch zur UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention, zu deren Umsetzung sich Österreich verpflichtet hat. Menschen mit Behinderung haben das Recht auf ein möglichst selbstbestimmtes Leben, und dazu gehört natürlich auch, dass sie einer Arbeit nachgehen können.“

Die Volksanwaltschaft richtete in ihrem Sonderbericht folgende Empfehlungen an die Bundesregierung und an alle Landesregierungen:

1. die Einteilung von Menschen mit Behinderung in arbeitsfähige und nicht arbeitsfähige (unter 50 Prozent Arbeitsfähigkeit) abzuschaffen,
2. eine eigene, auf ihre Tätigkeit bezogene, sozialversicherungsrechtliche Absicherung für Menschen, die in Beschäftigungstherapiewerkstätten arbeiten, zu schaffen,
3. neue Modelle der Entlohnung anstelle des bisherigen „Taschengeldsystems“ zu prüfen.

SERVICE: Die Volksanwaltschaft ist unter post@volksanwaltschaft.gv.at sowie unter der kostenlosen Servicenummer 0800 223 223 erreichbar.

In an editorial titled “The Ombudsman’s job to recommend, the government’s job to listen,” published in The Malta Independent, Parliamentary Ombudsman Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon’s perspective on the importance of the Ombudsman’s moral authority was highlighted. During an interview with the newspaper, Judge Zammit McKeon emphasised that the Ombudsman’s primary responsibility is to issue recommendations rather than wield executive power.

The editorial underscores how the Ombudsman’s work hinges on whether government entities uphold their moral obligation to consider and act upon the institution’s recommendations. While the Ombudsman listens to and investigates complaints brought by citizens—even if not all are justified—the ultimate goal is to ensure fair treatment and responsive governance.

However, a significant concern emerges when recommendations remain unimplemented. The editorial points out that in several instances, sustained recommendations have not been carried out, prompting the Ombudsman to table such cases in Parliament. The 2025 Ombudsplan proposes setting up a Select Committee of the House specifically to address these unimplemented recommendations and reinforce accountability. This idea would harness Parliament’s power—“the cradle of the country’s democracy”—to ensure that authorities do their jobs and that citizens receive proper redress.

The Malta Independent editorial concludes that reducing the number of unheeded recommendations, alongside legislative measures to reinforce the Ombudsman’s moral authority, would be an important step towards more effective, transparent, and accountable governance. 

Read the editorial

Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen has issued an extensive decision on a complaint concerning returning a child to a child welfare institution when the child is absent from the institution without an authorisation. The Ombudsman has assessed the executive assistance provided by the police and the powers of the police in relation to the matter, the powers and tasks of the child welfare authorities, and the guidelines given to the Emergency Response Centre Agency.

Firstly, Ombudsman Jääskeläinen considers it obvious that it must be possible to implement a decision made in the child’s interests to take the child into care and place them into substitute care, when the decision determines the place of substitute care and may have been issued by the Supreme Court. However, the legislation currently in force is deficient. Legislation should contain express and specific provisions on the implementation and the powers related to it.

Secondly, the Ombudsman considers it very unsatisfactory that the right of the police to apprehend a so-called runaway child in order to return the child to the child welfare institution is tied to an apprehension warrant, which as such should not have legal effects in this connection.  For example, in a situation where the child’s whereabouts are known and no apprehension warrant is therefore required, the police do not have the right of apprehension. This means that the police are able to provide executive assistance only if social services is kept from carrying out its official duty. This can only be assessed when a representative of social services is present at the location where the child is found. This in turn is difficult to implement in a situation where the child tries to avoid being returned to the child welfare institution by evading the authorities.

The Ombudsman considers legislation severely deficient in this regard. Legislation should have express and specific provisions on the right to apprehend a child in order to return them to a child welfare institution. In the Ombudsman's opinion, the police should have the right of apprehension.

The Ombudsman proposes to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of the Interior that they should cooperate to take measures to supplement legislation in this respect. In this connection, they should also examine the needs to amend legislation more widely to secure the implementation of a decision on taking a child into care and placing them into substitute care as well as returning a runaway child to the institution. The Ombudsman has requested that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health and the Ministry of the Interior inform him by 30 June 2025 what action they have taken as a result of the proposal. 

As for the police, the Ombudsman has informed the National Police Board of the views he has expressed in the decision and requested it to inform all police departments of the decision. He has requested that the National Police Board notify him by 30 June 2025 whether the decision has given reason for it to take any measures. 

The Ombudsman has also requested that the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health inform the child welfare authorities of all wellbeing services counties of the decision. He has also sent the decision to the Emergency Rescue Centre Agency for information.

The full text of the Ombudsman’s decision no 6723/2024 has been published (in Finnish) on the website www.oikeusasiamies.fi.

Further information is available from Senior Legal Adviser Peter Fagerholm, tel. +358 9 432 3372.

On January 23, 2025, the Public Defender of Georgia held a meeting with representatives of ethnic minorities in Georgia, during which the problems facing ethnic minorities and the activities carried out by the Public Defender's Office were discussed.

The meeting was welcomed by Public Defender Levan Ioseliani, Deputy Public Defender Irine Chikhladze and Coordinator of the Council of Ethnic Minorities Koba Chopliani.

A representative of the Public Defender's Office, Mariam Orzhonia, discussed the mandate of the Public Defender in the field of ethnic minority rights, and also presented information on the main issues included in the Public Defender’s annual parliamentary report relating to ethnic minorities and the activities carried out by the Office to advocate for the challenges beyond the report.

During the discussion held within the framework of the meeting, the participants spoke about the challenges relating to the protection of rights and integration of ethnic minorities, as well as the issues to be reviewed in the Public Defender’s 2024 parliamentary report.