Croatia, Pučki pravobranitelj

Croatia, Pučki pravobranitelj

Activities of the Ombudsman in 1999

During 1999, the Ombudsman received 1.623 complaints or notices against violations of citizens' rights, in comparison to previous 1998, with 2.029 received cases, makes a decrease of 20%. However, although the number of complaints in 1999 was not numerous as it was the previous year it demanded more time and hard work to be investigated in regard of its complexity. That specially includes town planning, construction and protection of environment, which number of cases increased considerably in comparison with previous years.

The complaints of citizens submitted in previous years in which the process of investigation had not been completed are also processed in 1999. From previous years 348 complaints are transferred to 1999. So, the Office of the Ombudmsman worked on 1932 complaints during 1999. In regard of 348 complaints submitted in the previous year, 337 cases are completed in 1999 (96,84%). Decreased number of new cases put us in the position to solve a great deal of new complaints. In 1999, 1210 cases have been completed or 62,63% of the cases in process. However, regarding slowness of responding (after urgency of two or three times) or even absence of the co-operation of particular administration bodies, only 873 cases received during the year (53,79%) have been completed.

The complaints arrived from all over Croatia (310 places) and 65 complaints are received from abroad also. Out of the complaints received from abroad, 22 are sent from Western European countries, 12 from Bosnia and Herzegovina, 20 from Yugoslavia, 2 from Macedonia and 4 from Republic of Slovenia.

The largest number of complaints are sent from Zagreb (354), Karlovac (55), Rijeka (45) and town of Osijek (39). It is interesting to mention that the series of three first places regarding complaints is the same as it was last year, bearing in mind that Zagreb and Split are the largest towns in Croatia, it is also not surprising that the large number of complaints came from Rijeka nad Osijek. The fact that Karlovac takes high second place respectively third place for two years regarding the number of complaints is disturbing.

The above data show that most complaints are received of the inhabitants from the places with a large number of refugees and displaced persons, who have still not returned to their place of origin, and from the places which suffered badly during the Homeland War or those which were occupied during the war and the places of special state care. Therefore, the consequences of the war sufferings are still present contributed by state's inability to rehabilitate all consequences of war destruction within a short term. However, as the number of complaints respond to the same number of places with the highest number of complaints, considerable attention should be directed on the activities of local administration but also on the problems of the citizens who are not in position to settle their problems for many years, such as restitution of their property which was given for temporary use.

In 1999, 1530 citizens directly addressed the Ombudsman by coming to his Office, the Ombudsman or his deputies interviewed 917 persons altogether. In other words, since the Ombudsman is unable to interview a large number of citizens which interview helps determine whether an administrative body or body vested with public powers jeopardized or violated a civil right, the citizens who visit the Office, are informed about the powers of the Ombudsman as soon as they enter the Office, so that they can evaluate by themselves whether the Ombudsman can help them or not. In the reception hall of the Office one can find the brochure with a description of the powers and manner of the work of the Ombudsman, providing basic information to the citizens who visit the Office. By the above the Ombudsman succeeded in reducing the number of persons whose problems he is not authorised to evaluate and process (e.g. conflict of employees and employers, dissatisfaction with court decisions and other). However, a large number of citizens who personally visit the Office of the Ombudsman still complain against the work of the courts (cca 40%) or request legal counsel and legal assistance (cca 30%). Consequently, only about 30% of the complainants complain against the work of the administration bodies or bodies vested with public powers.

The total of 738 citizens requested legal assistance over the phone. Most requested assistance mainly related to legal issues involving judicial competence. Although the Ombudsman is not entitled to give legal advice, the citizens were provided necessary explanations and instructions how to act.

Out of total number of submitted complaints and notices concerning violations of the citizens 372 (22,92%) cases did not relate to the administrative bodies or bodies vested with public powers, so the Ombudsman could not, respectively should not proceed. It should be stressed, that in spite of the decrease of total number of complaints received in 1999, the number of those complaints increased (from 271 or 13,4% in 1998. to 372 or 22,9% in 1999.). In all of the above cases complainants were informed weather verbally or in writing how to start procedure to gain legal protection or instructed how to solve the problem. As already mentioned, the Ombudsman intervened with the Ministry of Justice only in the cases of particularly long procedures or non-implementation of enforcement.

It is important to point out that those citizens whose rights were jeopardized or violated related to the slowness of the courts, or due to illegal proceedings of the employers or others, towards whom the Ombudsman has no authority to act, find it difficult to accept that fact, particularly the inability to intervene in the direction of courts. They are particularly dissatisfied when they are instructed to realize their rights starting court procedure because they cannot bear court expenses and that they actually, in view of the lengthiness of court proceedings, are not able to protect their right or legal interest. Not a negligible number of citizens whose complaints are related to the slowness of the courts, finding out that the Ombudsman has no authority towards the judicature, point out that they will be forced to help themselves.

During 1999, in spite of his efforts to inform the citizens that he is not authorized to act against courts, particularly against court decisions, the Ombudsman received 252 (15,53%) complaints against the work of courts, respectively only 3 (three) complaints less then 1998. Out of the total number of complaints that the Ombudsman is not authorized to act, complaints concerning court make even 67,74%. All complainants were informed that the Ombudsman does not have powers with respect to the courts. However, all complaints were studied and in 113 (44,84%) cases, was established that the rights of the complainants could be threatened or violated, particularly due to unjustified delay of the proceedings, but also for other reasons. Those complaints were forwarded to the Ministry of Justice, so that the Ministry could take actions through the presiding judge to accelerate the proceeding or to take other adequate measures. Ministry of Justice reacted and after having received the replies or explanations of presiding judge in 61 case (53,98%) could be concluded that the proceedings were quickened to some extent, so the complainants were protected to a certain degree.

When evaluating the long duration of court proceedings it is necessary to bear in mind that Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights under the Articles 2 to 4, Protocol 7 stipulate the right to fair trial, which is defined as standard of "reasonable term". Although the standard of "reasonable term" is not necessarily subjective by nature and may, that is and has to be different in civil and criminal cases, it may be concluded from the practice of European Court on Human Rights that civil proceedings not finally concluded at the national level for a period longer than seven years may be deemed not concluded within reasonable term. Naturally, one has to bear in mind that European Court when evaluating whether a procedure meets the standard of "reasonable term", takes into account the complexity of the case, the manner in which the courts handled the case, conduct of the applicant (whether by his conduct he contributed to the lengthiness of the procedure) and special circumstances which could justify the extension of the proceedings. In view of the number of court cases which have not been finally concluded for more than ten years, if the situation does not improve on national level, we may expect in the forthcoming years that a significant number of citizens of the Republic of Croatia will submit applications for compensation to the European Court on Human Rights, as a result of the fact that a court decision was not adopted within reasonable term.

Out of total number of complaints (1623) received in 1999, when we deduct the complaints related to the bodies or institutions towards the Ombudsman is not authorised to act and complaints against the work of the courts (372 cases), the Ombudsman actively worked on 1251 new complaints.

Apart from acting through the Ministry of Justice, in the cases regarding disturbing slowness of the courts (113), in 1999, the Ombudsman established in 1251 new case the occurrence of individual violation of the constitutional and legal civil rights, failures or other irregularities in the work of the administrative bodies and bodies vested with public powers, respectively gave to the complainant legal advice and instruction what to undertake to protect or defend any of its right.

The structure and numerical distribution of the complaints received during 1999 was similar to that of last year.

Further more, the largest number of complaints still refer to violation of constitutional and legal rights of the citizens related to violations of proprietary and housing rights. The protection and assistance of the Ombudsman requested 444 citizens (35,5% out of total number of complaints the Ombudsman was dealing with). With respect to 1997 an insignificant decrease has occurred regarding this group of complaints, specially the complaints concerning violation of ownership rights. However, complaints related to violation of proprietary rights are still the most numerous one and dominate in this group (share of 45,7%). In relation to previous year, the number of complaints concerning violations of housing rights increased, so those complaints make 42,3% in 1999.

Although in comparison to the previous two years one may see an absolute and relative decrease in 1999 of the complaints related to violation of proprietary rights, the fact that they still dominate the group by their numbers is worrying. What means, that there was not true willingness and that insufficient efforts were made in practice to remedy the formerly committed violations, as since 1998 the Ombudsman has not recorded a new case of violation of ownership rights. It is particularly disturbing that proprietary rights were denied to a number of citizens continuously for more than four years, without compensation and definite term for the establishment of their constitutional and legal rights.

The second place according to the number of complaints against the work of the administrative bodies and bodies vested with public powers, is still held by complaints for violations of the rights arising out of pension and disability insurance rights, health insurance and work of health care institutions, the field of labour and labour relations and social welfare. The number of such complaints in 1999, was 291 (23,3%) which in comparison to 1998 with 24.7% represents a mild relative decrease. As an insignificant decrease was also observed in 1998 in relation to 1997, we may possibly talk about a mild trend of decrease in the number of those complaints in a three-year period.

In comparison with 1998 the number of complaints submitted by Croatian defenders and casualties of the Homeland War decreased significantly. In 1999 the Ombudsman received 144 (15,6%) complaints pertaining to the field of protection of defenders and casualties of war, refugees, displaced and dislocated persons and reconstruction, while in 1997 there were 234 (15,6%). Therefore, significant progress is observed related to the solution of problems of war casualties, although this group still holds the third place in numbers, the same as last year.

The forth place, the same as last year, although in significantly less absolute and relative number belong to the complaints related to difficulties in the regulation of statutory states, particularly the status of Croatian citizens. During 1999, the Ombudsman received 83 (6,63%) complaints, regarding difficulties in the acquisition of Croatian citizenship, status of permanently settled foreigner or approval for extended stay for a foreigner. The number of such complaints in 1998 was 160 or 10.6%.

The number of complaints related with town planning, protection of environment and construction started to single out, from the group of various complaints. In 1999, 64 (5,11%) complainants addressed the Ombudsman on account of violation of their rights which were imperilled by doings of administrative bodies competent for town planning, construction and protection of environment. In a view of large number of received complaints, they were placed in a separate chapter.

Against the work of the police and personal safety there were 55 (4,4%) complaints. In 1999 the Ombudsman received 19 (1,5%) complaints concerning detained persons or those already sentenced.

The seventh group of complaints is heterogeneous and includes all complaints, pertaining to specific fields (construction and utility services, work of municipal service companies, damages caused by war or terrorism, privatisation and transformation of state-owned companies etc.) which were not numerous, therefore they do not need a special classification in this part of the Report. There were 151 or 12,07% of such complaints in 1999. In the preceding period the complaints related to town planning, construction and protection of environment and against the work of the police and personal insecurity were ranged under others, while complaints related to privatisation and transformation of state-owned companies were not in this group. The change in the number of complaints pertaining to particular field shows that the Ombudsman receives more and more different complaints, by the day, although the number of "peace-time" complaints observed last year is still noticeable, however, the complaints regarding numerousness and intensity of violation of individual right related to the consequences of the war still dominate.

With respect to 1251 complaints within the scope of activities of the Ombudsman, investigating procedure started in 1001 (80,02) cases, in 250 (19,8%) cases investigating procedure did not have to be initiated, as the complaints were well-documented to enable the evaluation whether the violation or threat to somebody's right took place or not, that is, the complainant could be assisted even without the Ombudsman's measures by being provided legal advice or instructions what to do to protect his rights or legal interests.

Administrative bodies and bodies vested with public powers against the work of which an evaluative procedure had been initiated, forwarded their statements, requested data or acts to the Ombudsman, however, they responded to the request of the Ombudsman in 506 (50,55%) cases, and in 495 (49,45%) cases they did not comply with the requests of the Ombudsman.

Municipal and regional Housing Commission turn a deaf ear to the request of the Ombudsman most stubbornly, particularly in Dalamatinska Zagora and Banovina region, so that it is almost a rule that the Housing Commission in Knin does not respond to the requests of the Ombudsman and, according to the available information from the complaints of citizens, it is the one that most frequently conducts its activities illegally. Furthermore, we should point out that the Commission for the Implementation and Monitoring of the Programme of Return is also known to have turned a deaf ear, so in view of the requests of the Ombudsman, we may conclude that the Commission, which had to coordinate the work of local Housing Commissions, failed to adopt necessary standpoints about certain controversial and insufficiently clearly defined issues (e.g. who has the right to the provision of alternative accommodation). The Central Service of the Croatian Fund for Pension and Disability Insurance did not react at Ombudsman's request, mostly in cases when the Ombudsman requests internal, unpublished deeds (instructions and other), pursuant to which apart and beside the law, somebody's right is decided on. The ministries, particularly the Ministry of Finance, sometimes the Ministry of Croatian Defenders from the Homeland War, the Ministry of Defence, and even the Government of the Republic of Croatia, are also known to have turned a deaf ear.

The investigating procedure was completed to the full in 1210 (62,63) cases which were under consideration in 1999, 873 (55,11%) of those cases were received in 1999. It is important to stress, that of 348 cases received in previous years, 337 cases were concluded. Although, only 11 unfinished cases older than one year remain unsolved, it should be mentioned that those cases concerned pensioner's and disability insurance, showing that if the right is violated for several months or even several years very often caused an existential insecurity of the complainant. It is important to mention that the investigating procedure very often cannot be considered fully concluded neither the Ombudsman can intervene successfully, because the administrative bodies do not forward their reports.

After concluding investigating procedure related to 264 (30,2%) cases it was established that they were unjustified. Comparing this data with previous year, it could be noticed that the number of unjustified complaints has increased significantly, absolutely (from 117 in 1998) and relatively (from 14,1%). Still if compared the situation with developed democratic countries, in which the percentage of ungrounded complaints exceeds 60%, we may conclude that the citizens of the Republic of Croatia, in comparison to average European citizen complained without grounds on a less frequent bases. This may indicate that the complainant expects less from the state bodies or that he is more aware of his rights and obligations. In 68 (7,8%) cases the Ombudsman established that the complaints were premature, because an individual right had still not been violated or jeopardised, but it could be in view of the ignorance of the complainant. However, in 541 case (62%) the complaints were evaluated grounded.

The Ombudsman determined in 376 (39,7%) cases that the complainant's right had been jeopardized or violated, however the Ombudsman didn't have to intervene, because, during investigating procedure, after the administrative body or body vested with public powers received the request of the Ombudsman, that particular body corrected error by itself. In most cases people complained because of lengthy procedures (rulings not adopted), so the query about reasons leading to the stalling was sufficient to conclude the case. The Ombudsman intervened by giving legal advice in 526 (60,3%) cases, and in 15 cases he gave concrete instructions, despite the fact that giving legal advice is not within the scope of activities of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman acted in this way, because those cases included ignorant or very often pure complainants without an opportunity to protect their right or interest differently, and their right had been or could be violated.

In 1999, the Ombudsman directed 120 (13,7%) recommendations, 32 (3,7%) warnings, and in 5 (0,7%) cases he submitted the request for the annulment or revocation of the ruling pursuant to the right of supervision.

Unfortunately, exact data about success of the Ombudsman's measures cannot be presented, because the Ombudsman does not have direct feedback about the outcome of his cases as the administrative bodies, and frequently also the complainants, do not feel it necessary to inform the Ombudsman about the result. The outcome may be guessed in many cases only indirectly, because the practice is that in the case of positive outcome the complainant no longer contacts the Ombudsman.

With respect to the groups of data one could notice, that upon the work of the administrative, central and local bodies and bodies vested with public powers the citizens who complained, mainly had similar reasons, as previous years. Distribution and the structure of received complaints showed that sufficient efforts were not made, to remove the reasons which violated or threatened particular rights of the citizens, although the Ombudsman for three years was pointing to the most significant problems suggesting their solution.

Having insight into complaints on the work of the administrative bodies that he received in 1999, the Ombudsman in his regular annual work report drew attention to the House of Representatives of the Croatian National Parliament upon existing problems and suggested the mode of their solution.

As violations of ownership rights have been dominating the violations of human rights in the Republic of Croatia for years, in 1999 the Ombudsman paid special attention to these violations. Therefore, with respect to complaints from owners of property which was taken under temporary administration of the Republic of Croatia after 5 August 1995, the Ombudsman monitors the procedures of restitution of property to owners, both the procedures of the formerly competent municipal and civil commissions for temporary take-over and use of property and procedures conducted by the Housing Commission of Towns and Municipalities, formed after 26 June 1998 pursuant to the Programme of Return and Care of Displaced Persons, Refugees and Dislocated Persons.

The owners rights, respectively right to fair compensation on account of damaged or destroyed property, of the certain number of persons were violated also, due to Law on modification of the Law on General Administrative Procedure ("Narodne novine" no.7/96) which suspended the Article 180. which determined the responsibility of the state concerning damages originated in terrorist actions, suspending all judicial procedures regarding compensation of the damages along with obligation to bring separate regulation which would determine this materia and the Law on Amendment of the Law on General Administrative Procedure ("Narodne novine" no.112/99) which defines suspension of all judicial procedures for compensation of damages caused by members of Croatian military forces in the period of 17. August 1990 until 30 June 1996, along with particular regulation on responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for damages originated during Homeland War, which the Government was obligated to bring not later than 6 April 2000. By means of cited supplementation of the Law on General Administrative Procedure, owners rights were violated, respectively their right to fair compensation, but also the right on fair trial at reasonable term, which right is guaranteed under the Article 6. of European Convention on Human rights, and Articles 2 to 4 Protocol 7.

It is also important to mention that the right to a peaceful enjoyment of ownership is guaranteed by Article 1 of the Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and enjoys the protection of the European Court for Human Rights. As the property granted for temporary use is not returned to the legal owners and as they do not receive any remuneration, the owners being prevented to avail themselves of the protection of the court for that right, their right to a fair and public trial thus being violated (Art. 13 of the European Convention), within a certain period of time we may expect to see a large number of procedures against the Republic of Croatia before the European Court on Human Rights. When evaluating this possibility, we should bear in mind that the compensation awarded by the European Court on Human Rights to persons whose rights, guaranteed by the European Convention, have been violated, is not negligible.

Violations of the rights arising from pension and disability insurance, health insurance and the work of health institutions, the field of labour and labour relations and social welfare represent the second largest group for three years in a row, although, as already mentioned, the number of complaints has been mildly decreasing. In 1999, the Ombudsman received the total of 291 (23.3%) complaints for violations or threats to the above rights.

Having insight into complaints on the work of the Croatian Pensioner's Fund and their regional services and deciding on their justification, the Ombudsman noticed:

- that the slowness to decide on pensioners' requests (recognition of the right to the pension or to establish that right again) of the insured persons from the area liberated in the military-police actions "Flash" and "Storm" especially insured persons from Croatian Podunavlje region are inadmissible;

- that is legally untenable and on account of that inadmissible practice, to deny pension's rights to the insured persons who have their whole or partial pension's right realized in the Republic of Croatia, who retired in Croatia, and who now live out of the Republic of Croatia, and those who authorized other persons, Croatian citizens residing in Croatia, to collect their pension;

- that on the bases of the regulation that the Government of the Republic of Croatia introduced in 1992, and the Law on Pension Insurance to the users, who realized their pension in the Republics of former Yugoslavia, at the beginning related to 4.996 pensioners to whom the payment started in July 1992, enlarged to cca 25.000 pensioners (at the end of 1997 there were 23.571 users). In spite of all efforts from Croatian side, Pensioner's Fund of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not accept the principle of reciprocity. Thus, considerable material obligations are made in the Republic Pension and Disability Insurance Fund, on account of insured persons who have been paying pension insurance contributions during their own working life into Croatian Fund for Pension Insurance, and now their rights are violated;

- furthermore, that in spite of previous warnings of the Ombudsman, Republic Pension and Disability Insurance Fund, applying their internal documents, limited or even suspended determined pensioners rights and that those internal documents, stubbornly, were not submitted to the Ombudsman on his request;

- that the agreement, respectively, intergovernmental treaty with Bosnia and Herzegovina concerning social (pension) insurance is not yet attained, on that account the request to recognize the right on the pension of Croatian citizens who has realized their pensioner's right in Bosnia and Herzegovina are refused, and those (the most often Bosniac ethnic origin) to whom that rights were recognized earlier, further payment ceased without any explanation or exposition;

- the suggestions of the Ombudsman are not accepted, regarding particular cases when the conditions to realize the pension are acquired, to act according to the Article 261 on the Law of the General Administrative Procedure. In other words, in the work of the Ombudsman the reasonable chance for the complainant was noticed, and the Ombudsman established the opinion how considerably shorten the duration of the procedure. In connection with particular complaints to the Central service it was suggested that, before the termination of the administrative process - which in some cases lasted few years - former decision should be cancelled or modified;

- that in the procedures, after administrative process is over, bringing decision in favour of the complainant, Pension and Disability Insurance Fund in repeated procedures where the competent services of pension insurance do not comply with judgements of the Administrative Court, irrespective of their obligation to comply with legal instructions of that Court.

The Ombudsman's experience to date regarding violations of the rights of patients unfortunately shows a complete absence of acceptable instruments for an efficient protection of these rights. The Law on Health Care, although adopted prior to the adoption of the European Declaration on the Improvement of the Rights of Patients (from March 1994) already expressly stipulates the rights promoted by that Declaration. Unfortunately, nothing has been done in practice and it is virtually impossible to penetrate the medical guild.

The European Declaration on Improvement of the rights of Patients in its last provisions points out: "The patient has to have access to information and advice that will enable him to take advantage of the rights expressed in this document. Apart from the possibility of court settlement, independent mechanisms at the official and other levels, should also be established which would facilitate procedure for submitting the appeals, mediating and adopting decisions. The above mechanisms, beside others, ensure that the information about the procedure on complaint should be available to the patient and that an independent person should be available to give patient advice on further relevant steps. The mechanisms, furthermore, should ensure that the patient, if necessary, has an opportunity to avail himself of the support of legal counsel. The patient is entitled to an evaluation and processing of complaints in the manner which is through fair, efficient and fast and on information about the results of the complaint."

Although the number of complaints related to the inability of acquiring Croatian citizenship is considerably reduced, there is still quite a number of cases regarding inability to resolve the status of admittance to the Croatian citizenship, without appropriate reason. In the most cases the complainants instituted administrative suits against negative decisions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, that Administrative Court has suspended. Furthermore, the practice of Ministry of Internal Affairs to reject requests regarding admittance to the Croatian citizenship without explanation and evidence that the complainant does not respect the legal order of the Republic of Croatia, in spite the fact that the person in question has ever been punished, is still evident. There were even cases of persistent repeatedly cancelled decisions in spite of ruling of the Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia.

The problems of Croatian defenders who have become invalids due to distresses caused by the war, specially of post-trauma stress syndrome (PTSD), those who cannot realize their rights, because the illness developed or was diagnosed after expiration of the term under the Article 75. of the Law on the Protection of Military and Civil Disabled Persons ("Narodne novine" no. 86/92, 27/93, 58/93, 2/94, 76/94, 108/95, 108/96), in relation to illness which can appear even ten years after being affected by stress, the Ombudsman suggested, according to the scientific facts, that the Law on the Protection of Military and Civil Disabled Persons should be improved ("Narodne novine" no. 86/92, 27/93, 58/93, 2/94, 108/95, 108/96) and the Law on the Rights of Croatian Defenders and their Family Members ("Narodne novine" no. 108/96) should be modified in a way to enable affected of PTSD to establish status of the war invalid in due time, and in regard of family members to achieve the rights of the defenders who were killed or in the case when an defender being ill of PTS commit suicide.

Investigating complaints submitted by the persons who due to war circumstances had to leave their homes and the places of living - displaced persons, refugees, dislocated persons and returnees - the Ombudsman established that there are no complaints related to Croatian citizens who left Republic of Croatia during military-police actions "Flash" and "Storm", and who now want to return, but they are being prevented, on the account of legal obstacles (not having document to prove Croatian citizenship), although at the same time they meet real material obstacles (accommodation problems, because other persons occupy their homes) in regard of their return.

The Ombudsman noticed considerable increase of the complaints dealing with administrative authorities in the area of urban planning, architecture and environmental protection. Most complaints refer to inaction of relevant authorities towards illegal building that endangers the owners of neighbouring houses or flats and complaints on issuing administrative documentation to the constructor without involving a neighbour into administrative litigation. Particularly serious are those complaints about the handling of the responsible authorities in cases in which the building licence is issued without involving neighbour into administrative litigation and against the professional regulations. In such cases, the building constructors were wealthy and influential citizens which made the protection of rights of endangered neighbours even more difficult, and therefore believing that through regular channels they cannot obtain a fair legal decision they contacted the ombudsman. Very often, the suspicions of the complainants that illegal constructor who in illegal way obtained the requested documentation is under protection of certain state structures were founded, since the Ombudsman even after further interventions did not manage to obtain either administrative documentation or report from the relevant Ministry.

The Ombudsman establish the incorrect and illegal handling of the responsible administrative authorities in the area of endangerment of the rights of neighbour to healthy existence and peaceful enjoyment of the property, which are the rights protected by international regulations that the Republic of Croatia has adopted.

Since the police and police officials is very important for the security of citizens and their property, therefore complaints about police work or individual policeman and complaints of endangering of personal security are handled with particular attention. All complaints have been carefully investigated, and the Office of Internal Affairs at the Ministry of Interiors was asked for report. The Office of the Internal Affairs submitted to the Ombudsman all requested information promptly and punctually, therefore the level of cooperation with this Office can be assessed as very good, although sometimes there was impression that there had been efforts made to cover some police errors and not enough attention was given to fighting some inappropriate matters.

The citizens complained about the police because they believed the police did not take necessary measures required on the bases of the complaints. In most cases it was proved that the police undertook all necessary actions, that the criminal complaint had been submitted, but there was no the engagement of the responsible Attorney-General Office, or information about it.

Complaints on personal security were submitted mostly by returnees to the area under special state care/protection. Returnees of Serbian nationality were harassed or even threatened by inhabitants and the police did not engage more actively in fighting this kind of violent behaviour. It should be pointed out here that compared to 1996 and 1997 there were no serious endangering of someone's life or physical safety (such as booby traps, throwing of explosive devices on to the returnees' houses, attacks) and there were mostly verbal attacks in the domain of misdemeanour law. Given the reduced number of complaints and especially their subject matter, the conclusion can be drawn that security situation has improved and that the situation in the areas under special state care is not different from the situation in other parts of Croatia. However, attention should be drawn to the fact that in 1999 a new kind of complaints on personal security has been registered. More persons, among them some well-known journalists, complained of illegal wiretapping, spying and recording. Regarding very flexible law governing this area, the Ombudsman could not evaluate whether wiretappings of phone calls had been carried out illegally and whether the rights of complainant were violated.

After investigating regulations and looking into situation of two psychiatric institutions, the Ombudsman established that even the renewed Law on the Protection of Persons with Mental Disturbances ("Narodne novine" no. 111/97 and 128/98), do not achieve necessary balance among physicians, judges and patients, what enabled violation under Article 5. para 1. e) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The cases regarding careless actions of the judges, concerning their decisions related to submitted complaints as a rule due to indifference of the lawyers performing their official duty nobody controls. Moreover, the practice of the court in competence is also unacceptable, all forensic patients who need forensic opinion under the jurisdiction of Županija court (second degree court) are sent to Pschyatric Hospital Vrapče-Zagreb, which does not fulfil criteria for receipt of all categories of the patients who need forensic opinion, specially those aggressive, who should be put in the department having maximum security. The practice in Zagreb, concerning organization and implementation of expert opinion to prolong forced accommodation and therapeutic findings are accomplished under insufficiently professional experts, represent a special ethic and legal problem. Conducting at the same time legal procedure according to the principles of "assembly line", as a habit, the summons exclusively take place in the court without presence of the patient or his therapists, what degrades the patient at depersonalized object specially if the lawyer performing his official duty does not take care, mainly coming to an agreement along with the decision of the judge.

According to Ombudsman's findings there was a serious question regarding existence of founded suspicion about careless actions of particular judges of Županija Court in Zagreb, who without conducting procedure and without presence of the patient and adequate expert opinion brought decisions related to forced hospitalization.

In the cases of individual violations of human rights the Ombudsman intervened along by sending over recommendations, giving warnings, and submitting the claim to suspend or cancel decisions upon the right of supervision of the Government of the Republic of Croatia.

In 1999 the Ombudsman directed to the Government of the Republic of Croatia only five requests for suspension or cancellation of the decisions upon right of supervision, what shows restrictive use of this instrument. In 1998 in relation to the request of the Ombudsman to suspend or cancel decision upon the right of supervision (the Ombudsman submitted 6 requests), three cases were related to Ministry, (concrete: Ministry of Internal Affairs) which upon official duty suspended controversial decision after the request was submitted, that was the reason why Government of the Republic of Croatia rejected the request of the Ombudsman. Upon three other cases the Government did not reacted, in regard of the expiration of the term, one year passed since the decision become definite. As distinguished from 1998, in 1999 the Government of the Republic of Croatia did not react at all in regard of four requests that the Ombudsman submitted. Only in one case related to drastically violated rights of a state official, the Government of the Republic of Croatia cancelled illegal decision of the Ministry of Finance. As the Government did not react related to four requests of the Ombudsman, it is rightly to presume that the aim was to miss the term and to prevent the Ombudsman to take steps.

As the years before, the Ombudsman had in the year 1999 an intensive cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights with many non-government organizations - associations for the protection of human rights. Thanks to these already well established levels of cooperation, and the dedicated work of volunteers from any non-government organizations, the Ombudsman learned about many indications of threats to human rights. The presentations and information of those associations enabled the Ombudsman to recognize certain aspects and trends in individual administrative fields and to give more comprehensive evaluation of the situation in certain Croatian regions from the point of view of the respect for the rights of the individual. Without this cooperation, given the small number of employees at the Ombudsman's Office, along with the insufficient funds and an antiquated working technology, the Ombudmsan would not have been able to deal with so many individual cases as he had looked into in 1999. Namely, because of the lack of employees and inadequate funds, the Ombudsman and his associates could gain insight into the situation on the spot, except in a few rare cases. This very important part in this field was carried out by the associations which thus enabled the Ombudsman to get a better view than he would otherwise have obtained by a mere inquiry into the individual presentations.

Newsletter No. 22