The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) identified a number of inconsistencies in the conduct of several bodies involved in the handling of applications and letters received from a complainant, which justified the appearance of general unresponsiveness on her part. The Ombudsman also found in some places that decisions on her complaints took an unacceptably long time. He found multiple violations of the principle of good governance, and consequently addressed his recommendations to the bodies with the aim of preventing similar inconveniences in further procedures. All bodies accepted the Ombudsman's recommendations and committed to following them in the future.

***

A complainant contacted the Ombudsman alleging the failure of numerous authorities to respond to her complaints and letters regarding a previously issued inspection decision by the former Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for the Environment and Spatial Planning (IRSOP), now under the relevant part of the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Natural Resources and Spatial Planning (IRSNVP). According to the aforementioned decision of the IRSOP, the complainant was an inspection (co)obligated party, which she opposed.

After conducting a more extensive declaratory procedure, the Ombudsman was able to largely confirm the complainant's allegations.

In part of the complainant's complaints against the Surveying and Mapping Authority of the Republic of Slovenia (GURS), the Ombudsman found that the latter had not registered her complaint at all, with GURS seeing the reason for this in the probable fact that the competent regional unit directly referred it to the competent authority without registering it. GURS warned the competent regional unit that in future, in all cases, the received postal item must be consistently recorded and then, if they determine in terms of substance that they are not competent to resolve it, it must be documented and referred to the competent authority for resolution. In this part, the Ombudsman was able to welcome the constructive approach adopted by GURS.

The Ljubljana Administrative Unit (UE LJ) forwarded the complainant's complaint to the competent authority only after the Ombudsman's intervention, without informing the complaint of the resignation and its own lack of competence to handle it. In the Ombudsman's opinion, the described conduct was not in line with the principle of good administration. The Ombudsman recommended that in all cases where it receives complaints/letters for which it is not competent and must refer them to another authority, UE LJ act consistently in the spirit of the provisions of Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Article 65 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP), i.e. that it informs the applicants of its own receipt and possible resignation, even in cases where it is perceived that the competent authority has already received the complaint. UE LJ accepted the Ombudsman's recommendation and undertook to act in the proposed manner in the future.

The Ombudsman was also able to confirm the complainant's complaints about the lengthy decision-making process of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning (MNVP) in relation to her complaint. The MNVP took more than 13 months to make a decision, which also violated the principle of good administration. The Ombudsman monitors the issue of the lengthy procedures within the competence of the MNVP as a broader issue, and given the latest information he received on the matter, he welcomes and expects that such delays will no longer occur in the future. The MNVP's specific recommendation was therefore not addressed to him.

The IRSNVP did not inform the complainant of the resignation of her complaint, doing so only almost eight months later, and did not respond at all to her application, in which she pointed out the continuation of construction despite the issued by IRSOP. The Ombudsman also recognised a violation of the principle of good administration in the described omission.

The IRSNVP initially did not accept the Ombudsman's opinion, as it assessed that the relevant legislation does not explicitly prescribe the obligation to inform applicants about the resignation of complaints, and justified its failure to respond to the subsequently received application to continue construction despite the issued inspection decision by assessing that the applicant did not exercise any of her rights or legal benefits with this application, and therefore the inspector was not obliged to respond to it, nor was she obliged to comment on the decisions, as, in the opinion of the IRSNVP, these were always reasoned.[1] At the same time, the IRSNVP also gave a very unique interpretation of the principle of good governance.

The Ombudsman was not convinced by the response of the IRSNVP, as this type of notification is a completely minor act that cannot significantly negatively affect the efficiency of work. Even if this obligation under the ZUP may not be strictly legally enforced, it is completely expected from the perspective of implementing the principle of good governance. The Ombudsman was particularly surprised by the reported interpretation of the principle of good governance, as understood by the IRSNVP. In the Ombudsman's assessment, the IRSNVP confused this principle with the principle of good management, which is why he provided it with more detailed explanations about the scope and reach of the principle of good governance as a fundamental systemic principle, which represents the basic guideline of the legal order and establishes the essence of the relationship of the entire legal system in the part of the relationship between all authorities and individuals. He suggested that it pay more attention to the identified deficit in its own operations.

After receiving additional explanations, the IRSNVP agreed with the Ombudsman's opinion and adopted it. It announced that it would pay due attention to appropriate responsiveness in this and other proceedings, especially with regard to informing parties about relevant procedural activities. 14.5-5/2023  

[1] The Ombudsman found this argument of the IRSNVP particularly difficult to follow, as in this particular case the second-instance decision issued overturned the first-instance decision of the same inspectorate precisely because of insufficient reasoning.