I. Description of the complaint

The ombudsman examined a complaint submitted by two individuals concerning the prolonged consideration of their proposal to change the designated use of land from agricultural to residential. The original initiatives were submitted in 2009 and 2010, and in 2021 the complainants submitted a revised proposal. Despite the considerable time that has elapsed, they have still not received a final answer as to whether the proposed change will be incorporated into the Municipal Spatial Plan (hereinafter referred to as the 'OPN') of the Municipality of Slovenska Bistrica. At the time of the Ombudsman's review, the preparation of the municipality's first OPN had not even reached the public display stage. The complaint's main issues were the lack of a substantive conclusion to the consideration of the initiative, the excessive length of the OPN preparation process, and the inadequate communication with the complainants. As the OPN had not yet been adopted, the complainants also had no access to effective legal protection against the decision regarding the land's designated use, as the relevant spatial planning act had not yet been enacted.

II. The Ombudsman’s Actions and the Authorities’ Positions

During the investigation, the Ombudsman contacted the Municipality of Slovenska Bistrica to ask whether the initiative had been assessed for compliance with spatial development objectives, and if the complainants had been formally informed of the outcome.

The Municipality responded that the original initiative had been included in the draft OPN submitted to the spatial planning authorities in 2011. However, the Ministry responsible for agriculture had taken a negative position on the proposed development. The complainants received the most recent written information on the status of the original initiative in 2016. The revised 2021 initiative was due to undergo a new expert assessment and had been included among the additional initiatives for which the municipality was seeking supplementary guidelines from the relevant spatial planning authorities. The municipality took the position that, during the preparation of the OPN, spatial planning legislation does not require each initiator to be informed individually about the acceptability of an initiative and its status at every stage of the procedure. In its view, the public display of the amended draft OPN is intended to provide the public with comprehensive information.

The Municipality acknowledged that preparing the OPN was taking an unreasonably long time. It cited the municipality's size, the numerous protection regimes in place, the uncoordinated requirements imposed by the national spatial planning authorities, the preparation of the hydrological, geological and other expert studies, and the lengthy process of obtaining opinions as reasons for this delay. The Municipality particularly highlighted requirements relating to flood and landslide risks, emphasising that the first OPN could not be adopted in separate parts and that solutions for the entire municipal area had to be coordinated before the public display. In its second reply to the Ombudsman’s findings, the Municipality explained that it had been working more intensively on the OPN in recent years and was drawing on the Ministry’s assistance in coordinating with spatial planning authorities. It also stated that the procedure had been further prolonged by new technical requirements adopted or amended while the OPN was being prepared. Following the 2023 floods, it stated that the experts preparing the supporting studies were overburdened, and that the Municipality did not have its own flood and landslide safety specialists. The Municipality also pointed out that the requirements imposed on municipalities preparing their OPNs since 2009 continue to change, whereas those that adopted their OPNs earlier were not required to meet the same additional requirements. In February 2026, the municipality held a meeting with representatives of the ministry responsible for spatial planning and the Slovenian Water Agency. It was concluded that the OPN could only be adopted within the statutory deadline if the remainder of the coordination process proceeded without difficulty. The Municipality also announced that it would consider providing the municipal council and the public with more detailed information even before the public display of the amended draft OPN.

III. The Ombudsman’s Arguments and Positions

When assessing the matter, the Ombudsman considered that a proposal to change the intended use of land is not a matter that a municipality decides on individually. A landowner cannot require a municipality to designate their land as building land, nor can they invoke the legal remedies for administrative silence that apply in administrative proceedings during the preparation of an OPN. Municipalities enjoy broad professional and political discretion in spatial planning and, as a rule, are not bound by time limits for completing each individual stage. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman found that the absence of an expressly prescribed procedural time limit does not authorise a municipality to conduct the procedure indefinitely.

The Ombudsman accepted the municipality’s position that, when dealing with several thousand initiatives, it is unreasonable to expect individual notification at every procedural step. However, after almost two decades of preparing the OPN, the Ombudsman found that the duty to inform the public must be interpreted more broadly. The municipality should publish transparent and consistent information on the stages completed, the main reasons for delays, unresolved issues with spatial planning authorities, and changes in the consideration of individual groups of initiatives. This approach would place a smaller burden on the municipality than responding to numerous individual enquiries, and would be consistent with the principle of good administration.

The matter was also assessed from the perspective of the right to equal protection of rights under Article 22 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, in conjunction with the principle of equality before the law under the second paragraph of Article 14 of the Constitution. The excessive length of the procedure affects not only the timing of the spatial planning decision, but also access to legal protection. Subject to the conditions laid down by law, residents of municipalities that have adopted an OPN may seek a judicial review of its legality. In Decision No. U-I-474/22, the Constitutional Court found part of Article 61 of the Spatial Planning Act (ZUreP-3) to be unconstitutional. However, to ensure effective judicial protection, it ruled that, until the unconstitutionality is remedied, spatial implementing acts may continue to be challenged before the Administrative Court in administrative disputes. Residents of municipalities that have not yet adopted an OPN cannot avail themselves of such protection because there is no spatial planning act to challenge. Their initiatives are neither accepted nor rejected, and they generally have no effective influence over how quickly the spatial planning act is prepared. The Ombudsman found that such pronounced differences in the rights of residents of different municipalities cannot be justified solely by municipal autonomy and the complexity of spatial planning. In this case, the complainants have been denied the legal protection available to residents of municipalities with an adopted OPN for almost two decades, solely because of the location of their land.

IV. The Ombudsman’s findings on the alleged violations

The Ombudsman found a violation of the right to equal protection under Article 22 of the Constitution. The Ombudsman recommended that the Municipality of Slovenska Bistrica either adopt the OPN or direct all available efforts towards its adoption by 30 October 2026 at the latest. The Ombudsman considered that any further delay would not merely prolong the existing unequal treatment, but deepen it. The timely adoption of the OPN is also important for over one thousand other land use change initiatives, which have also been delayed by the same procedure.

Ultimately, the Ombudsman took into account the Municipality of Slovenska Bistrica's response, which indicated acceptance of the recommendation and recognition of the urgency of adopting the OPN as soon as possible. The municipality stated that it had recently intensified its activities to prepare and adopt the OPN, and that it regularly cooperates with the relevant ministry and other spatial planning authorities. The Municipality also announced that it would consider informing the municipal council about progress in preparing the OPN and providing residents with regular updates on the municipal website, even before the public display of the amended draft. The Ombudsman regarded these activities as a positive response to the findings, particularly as regular and transparent communication with the public can mitigate the consequences of a protracted procedure to some extent and reduce the uncertainty experienced by many initiators. The Ombudsman recognises that spatial planning is one of the most challenging aspects of local governance. Spatial planning decisions require the coordination of development needs, the protection of agricultural land, water, nature and cultural heritage, and the consideration of flood and landslide safety, transport and other infrastructure, as well as numerous conflicting interests. The constitutionally guaranteed autonomy of municipalities is also of crucial importance, as municipalities independently regulate and assume responsibility for local matters within the framework of the Constitution and the law. However, this autonomy must not result in the level of legal certainty and legal protection that residents enjoy depending substantially on the municipality in which they live. A comparable level of legal protection must be ensured across municipalities, particularly when the preparation of a spatial planning act is prolonged, preventing individuals from accessing potential judicial protection for an indefinite period.

Despite the municipality's efforts, the further postponement of the statutory deadline announced does not provide sufficient confidence that the procedures in the Municipality of Slovenska Bistrica and other municipalities without an adopted OPN will be concluded within a reasonable timeframe. At a correspondence session in July 2026, the government determined the text of a draft amendment to the Spatial Planning Act (ZUreP-3). Under this amendment, the period during which old municipal spatial planning acts may continue to be used would be extended from 30 October 2026 to 31 December 2027. The 2026 legislative programme of the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning also includes an extension of the deadlines for municipalities. While a further extension may prevent a legal vacuum and a situation in which building permits cannot be issued, it does not remedy the consequences of years or even decades of delay. Therefore, the statutory postponement of the deadline does not affect the Ombudsman’s finding of a violation, nor does it relieve municipalities and national spatial planning authorities of their duty to conduct the procedure in a coordinated, transparent and active manner without further unnecessary delay.