Natisni vsebino

Method of closing cases

Annual Report 1996 - Statistics

Method of closing cases

Table 3.3.5 contains data on the number of cases closed, by method of closing. Methods of closing cases include:

1. Explanation

It is clear from the content of the complaint received that the complaint does not fall within the competence of the Ombudsman, or that other conditions for processing were not fulfilled.

2. Accelerated procedure

We carried out the processing of the complaint as envisaged by law. We conducted the necessary inquiries, discussions, examinations of documentation, etc. On the basis of this we made a judgement about the content of the complaint and acted in one of the following ways
 
2.1 Explanation

This solution was used in cases where the complaint contained all the circumstances of the problem and the necessary documentation was enclosed, from which it was unambiguously clear what the problem was. In some cases we found that no violation of rights was involved and explained to the plaintiff the statutory basis of the problem. In other cases we found after conducting enquiries at the competent bodies that no irregularities had occurred. This also includes those cases where it has not been possible to intervene because of the length of procedures involved and the waiting list.

2.2 Intervention

We intervened at the competent bodies in order to solve the problem that the plaintiff had brought to the ombudsman. The most frequent occasions that this method was used were cases where a plaintiff had come to us to have a procedure speeded up.

2.3. Opinion

After detailed study of a received complaint we gave the competent body our opinion with regard to the method of dealing with and solving the problem.

2.4. Proposal

After detailed study of a received complaint we proposed the necessary procedures for dealing with and solving the problem to the competent body.

3. Settlement

After the intervention of the ombudsman the competent body accepted a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem, so that further intervention by the ombudsman was unnecessary.

4. Investigation

In cases where even after inquiries in relation to an individual problem had been made open questions remained and the views of the ombudsman and the official body concerned differed as to the solution to the problem, an investigation was carried out.

5. Suspension

The decision to suspend treatment of a complaint is taken because of lack of interest from the plaintiff in cooperation on processing or further processing of the complaint because of the removal of the original causes for complaint, etc.

Figure 3.3.5 shows the proportion of individual methods of resolving complaints in 1996.

Table 3.3.5

 

METHOD OF RESOLVING COMPLAINT

 

1995

1996

Index

(1996/95)

 
Number

 
Percent.

 
Number

 
Percent.

1. EXPLANATION

753

40,1%

1.183

36,0%

157,1

2. ACCELERATED PROCEDURE

1.057

56,4%

1.920

58,5%

181,6

2.1 accelerated procedure - explanation

739

39,5%

1.272

38,8%

172,1 

2.2 accelerated procedure - intervention for solution

248

13,2%

550

16,8%

221,8 

2.3 accelerated procedure - opinion

38

2,0%

63

1,9%

165,8 

2.4 accelerated procedure - proposal

32

1,7%

35

1,1%

109,4 

3. SETTLEMENT

5

0,3%

4  

0,1% 

80,0

4. INVESTIGATION

0

0%

2  

0,1% 

/

5. SUSPENSION

60

3,2%

173  

5,3% 

288,3

TOTAL COMPLAINTS RESOLVED

1.875

100,0%

3.282

100,0%

175,0


Letno poročilo 1996 - 3.3. Statistika

Način zaključitve zadev

Tabela 3.3.7. vsebuje podatke o številu zaključenih zadev po posameznih načinih zaključitve, med katerimi so:

1. Pojasnilo: 
       
Že iz same vsebine prejete pobude je bilo razvidno, da pobuda ne spada v pristojnost varuha oziroma da niso bili izpolnjeni drugi pogoji za obravnavo. Sem smo vključili predvsem očitno neutemeljene pobude za obravnavo pri varuhu. V nekaterih primerih smo pobudniku posredovali informacije, pojasnila oziroma navodila, kaj naj stori oziroma kam naj se obrne v zvezi z rešitvijo njegovega problema.
  
2. Skrajšani postopek:
     
Izvedli smo postopek obravnave pobude, ki ga predvideva zakon. Opravili smo potrebne poizvedbe, pogovore, pregled dokumentacije ipd. Na tej podlagi smo presodili o vsebini pobude in ravnali na enega od naslednjih načinov:
 
2.1. Pojasnilo:
        
Ta način rešitve smo uporabili v primerih, ko so bile v pobudi navedene vse okoliščine problema ter priložena potrebna dokumentacija, iz katere je bilo nedvoumno razvidno, kakšna je problematika, v zvezi s katero se je pobudnik obrnil na varuha. V nekaterih zadevah smo ugotovili, da ne gre za kršitev pravic, in pobudniku pojasnili zakonsko podlago obravnavanega problema. V drugih primerih smo po opravljenih poizvedbah pri pristojnih organih ugotovili, da ne gre za storjeno nepravilnost. V ta del spadajo tudi tisti primeri, kjer glede na dolgotrajnost postopkov ob upoštevanju vrstnega reda obravnavanja ni bilo mogoče posredovati.

2.2. Intervencija za rešitev:
        
Pri pristojnih organih smo posredovali v smislu rešitve problema, s katerim se je pobudnik obrnil na varuha. Največkrat smo tako ravnali tedaj, ko se je pobudnik obrnil na nas zaradi pospešitve postopka.

2.3. Mnenje:
       
Pristojnemu organu smo po podrobni proučitvi prejete pobude posredovali svoje mnenje glede načina obravnavanja in rešitve problema.

2.4. Predlog:
       
Pristojnemu organu smo po podrobni proučitvi pobude predlagali potrebne postopke v zvezi z rešitvijo problema.
    
3. Poravnava:
      
Po posredovanju varuha je pristojni organ sprejel sporazumno rešitev v zvezi s problemom, tako da nadaljnje posredovanje varuha v zadevi ni bilo potrebno.
 
4. Preiskava:
      
V primerih, ko so ostala v zvezi s posameznim problemom tudi po opravljeni poizvedbi še vedno odprta oziroma nerešena vprašanja ter nasprotna stališča med varuhom in pristojnimi organi v zvezi z rešitvijo problema, smo izvedli preiskavo.
 
5. Ustavitev:
        
Do ustavitve postopka obravnavanja pobude pri varuhu je prišlo zaradi nezainteresiranosti pobudnika za sodelovanje v obravnavi oziroma za nadaljevanje obravnave pobude, zaradi odprave vzrokov, ki so privedli do vložitve pobude pri varuhu ipd.

Slika 3.3.8. prikazuje deleže posameznih načinov zaključitev pobud v letu 1996.

Tabela 3.3.7.

NAčIN ZAKLJUčITVE

 

LETO 1995

LETO 1996

Indeks

(96/95)

 

Število

 

Delež

 

Število

 

Delež

1. POJASNILO

753

40,1%

1.183

36,0%

157,1

2. SKRAJŠANI POSTOPEK

1.057

56,4%

1.920

58,5%

181,6

2.1 skrajšani postopek - pojasnilo

739

39,5%

1.272

38,8%

172,1 

2.2 skrajšani postopek - intervencija za rešitev

248

13,2%

550

16,8%

221,8 

2.3 skrajšani postopek - mnenje

38

2,0%

63

1,9%

165,8 

2.4 skrajšani postopek - predlog

32

1,7%

35

1,1%

109,4 

3. PORAVNAVA

5

0,3%

4  

0,1% 

80,0

4. PREISKAVA

0

0%

2  

0,1% 

/

5. USTAVITEV

60

3,2%

173  

5,3% 

288,3

SKUPAJ ZAKLJUČENE POBUDE

1.875

100,0%

3.282

100,0%

175,0


Slika 3.3.8.

 

Legal information   |   Privacy   |   Contact Made by: Nova Vizija d.d.