The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) found the conduct of the Intermunicipal Inspectorate and Constabulary of Zasavje to be in breach of the principle of good administration and that the Inspectorate had caused undue delay in proceedings. The Inspectorate conducted the inspection proceedings concerning allegations of illegal discharges of faecal wastewater into the environment for twelve and a half years until the Ombudsman intervened. The reasons for this currently still open proceedings could not be found justifiable by the Ombudsman in the course of reviewing the complaint. The Ombudsman was also dissatisfied with the response of the Municipality of Trbovlje (Municipality), which failed to comply with the Ombudsman’s request for additional information. It gave out information selectively and was unable to provide the required documentation or comment on the relevant questions posed by the Ombudsman, thereby breaching the principle of good administration. The Ombudsman recommended that the Inspectorate conduct and conclude any future inspection proceedings within a reasonable period of time and without undue delay. Furthermore, both the Inspectorate and the Municipality were instructed to respond to the Ombudsman’s inquiries in a comprehensive and transparent manner from the outset. Failure to do so may amount to obstruction of the Ombudsman’s work.

* * *

The Ombudsman has addressed a complaint concerning the alleged inaction of the competent authorities regarding the alleged problematic discharge of faecal wastewater across the sloped terrain of a property owned by the Municipality of Trbovlje, allegedly resulting in the spread of unpleasant odours. The complainant claims that the issue has persisted for several years, with the Inspectorate reportedly first taking action in 2012; however, the matter remains unsolved. Although the complainant was verbally reassured that the issue would be resolved in 2015 and 2016, no action was taken. The most recent action brought to our attention by the complainant is a letter from the Municipality dated October 2017.[1]

In its initial response to the Ombudsman’s inquiry, the Municipality primarily referred to the aforementioned letter sent to the complainant, adding that, despite multiple requests to the owner to regulate the discharge of faecal wastewater from the property, it had been unsuccessful in its efforts, which is why it decided to resolve the matter through legal action. The judgement issued in 2018 in connection with this dispute stated that the usage of existing sewage systems outside the agglomeration area was permissible until the first reconstruction of the property. The Ombudsman was not informed of this judgement, not even after issuing another request, as the Municipality simply repeated its prior reply.[2]

The Inspectorate provided somewhat more detailed responses, outlining the historical background of the issue and highlighting the absence of a public sewage system. The Inspectorate also provided a relatively adequate overview of the applicable legal framework, which allows continued use of the existing sewage system, and also explained why, in its opinion, the conditions for intervention have not been met.[3] At the time of its initial reply to the Ombudsman, the Inspectorate had not concluded the proceedings. According to the verbal explanations received, this can be attributed to the ongoing ownership dispute between the property owner and the Municipality. After twelve and a half years, the inspection proceedings were finally concluded last year.

Based on the provided factual description of the situation, the Ombudsman adopted the Inspectorate’s opinion. In this particular case, the Ombudsman was especially concerned by the sporadic and at times selective responses from the Municipality, which did not follow the Ombudsman’s request for additional information, failed to provide the required documentation, and did not comment on the relevant questions raised by the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was also not convinced by the reasons provided by the Inspectorate for the prolonged duration of the inspection proceedings.^[4] In conclusion, the Ombudsman recommended that the Inspectorate ensure that future inspection proceedings are conducted and concluded within a reasonable period of time and without undue delay. Furthermore, both the Inspectorate and the Municipality are expected to respond to the Ombudsman’s inquiries in a comprehensive and transparent manner from the outset. Failure to do so may amount to obstruction of the Ombudsman’s work. The Ombudsman considers this complaint justified. The Ombudsman communicated and forwarded an opinion to both the Municipality and the Inspectorate and noted that the latter failed to provide any clarifications or objections within the prescribed deadline. 17.0-2/2023

[1] From this letter, we can infer that the Municipality had previously taken action to remove the problematic sewage system from which the faecal wastewater was discharging. These explanations reveal a more complex legal situation regarding the problematic properties that are or were at one point connected to this sewage system. One of these properties was deemed uninhabitable and demolished in 2014, while the Municipality became involved in a legal dispute with the owner of another one of the problematic properties.

[2] Due to the Municipality’s incomplete replies, the Ombudsman remains unaware of the final outcome of the said proceedings and their likely impact on the resolution of the issue.

[3] According to the Inspectorate, the disputed property was completed in 1930 and had not been reconstructed during the proceedings. The sewage drain, from which the communal wastewater had been discharging, is located 40 meters below the site of another demolished building, and according to the Inspectorate’s assessment, the drain is incapable of causing significant unpleasant odours. According to the Inspectorate, the odours were most likely caused by an open sewage drain at the demolished building, which was removed during the demolition in 2014.

[4] According to the verbal explanations provided by the responsible inspector, the final decision was postponed while awaiting the outcome of the dispute between the Municipality and the party in question; however, no legal basis for such a suspension of proceedings could be established.