A complainant claimed that he was serving a prison sentence, the execution of which had already been suspended due to the statute of limitations. The Ombudsman conducted inquiries with URSIKS and the competent court. He found that the execution of the sentence had indeed been suspended before its execution began, but the decision on this prison institution was not served on time. The court cited an organisational error in the dispatch of the shipment as the reason. As a result, the complainant was unlawfully deprived of liberty for 83 days. The Ombudsman assessed the complaint as well-founded, and the court introduced internal measures to improve the handling of cases of sentence execution.

* * *

The Ombudsman received a complaint in which the complainant pointed out that he was imprisoned in the Maribor Prison, Murska Sobota Department, from 27 April to 19 July 2024 due to a sentence, the execution of which had already been suspended by a court decision. As evidence, he attached a certificate from the prison and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) regarding the time spent serving the sentence and the decision of the District Court in Ljubljana, opr. no. I IKZ 11742/2019 of 18 March 2024 on the statute of limitations for the execution of the sentence, which had begun on 7 March 2024.

The Ombudsman conducted an inquiry into the matter with URSIKS, which confirmed that the complainant was summoned to serve his sentence on the basis of a summons from the District Court in Ljubljana[1], but subsequently the decision on its statute of limitations was not served on the institution in a timely manner. The institution only received this decision, together with the court order to cease the execution of the sentence, on 19 July 2024, and immediately released the complainant on the same day.

URSIKS stressed that at the time of the execution of the sentence, the institution did not have any information that the execution of this sentence had already been stopped. When the sentence began, the institution notified both the District Court in Ljubljana and the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for maintaining criminal records. Nevertheless, from the time the sentence began until 19 July 2024, it did not receive any notification from the aforementioned authorities that the execution of the sentence had become statute-barred. During the period of the execution of the sentence, the institution acted on the basis of the available information and in the belief that it was executing a lawful court decision. URSIKS explained that until receipt of the court's decision and order on 19 July 2024, no doubt arose among the employees of the institution about the admissibility of the execution of the sentence. If such a doubt had arisen, the institution would have notified the competent court.

Based on the information obtained, the Ombudsman also requested additional clarifications from the District Court in Ljubljana, which was competent for the enforcement of the sentence. In its response, the court confirmed that the decision on the established statute of limitations of the sentence had already been issued on 18 March 2024, and stated that the original of this decision had been ordered to be served on both the convict and the state prosecutor's office and the institution, the latter precisely with the aim of preventing the convict from being admitted to serve a prison sentence. However, the order regarding service was not executed in a timely manner.

According to the court, an error occurred during the processing of the court’s mail, which it described as "unpleasant" and due to which the court temporarily lost control of the court file. As a possible reason for the error, the court cited the dispersion of locations of employees participating in the procedures for the enforcement of criminal sanctions, which it attributed to the court's long-standing lack of space.

The court emphasised that it did not attribute the errors to a systemic deficiency in work processes, but to an increased probability of individual errors due to organisational fragmentation and spatial constraints. Due to the aforementioned case, the court introduced additional internal checks regarding the timely circulation of IKZ files (prison sentence enforcement cases) from the judge to the final dismissal, with the aim of preventing similar situations in the future.

The court emphasised that it did not attribute the errors to a systemic deficiency in work processes, but to an increased probability of individual errors due to organisational fragmentation and spatial constraints. Due to the aforementioned case, the court introduced additional internal checks regarding the timely circulation of IKZ files (prison sentence enforcement cases) from the judge to the final dismissal, with the aim of preventing similar situations in the future.

Based on the information obtained, the Ombudsman established the merits of the complaint. The irregularity occurred on the part of the court, which did not serve the decision on the statute of limitations of the sentence on the institution in a timely manner, which led to the unlawful deprivation of liberty of the complainant for a period of 83 days. The Ombudsman considered that the internal measures that the court additionally adopted in response to this case were appropriate and that they could help prevent similar complications in the future. Given the existing legal framework, the Ombudsman did not detect any potential systemic deficiencies that would require his additional intervention, as the applicable procedures already allow for appropriate action.[2]

The Ombudsman underlines that, in the enforcement of criminal sanctions, it is the responsibility of the court as a whole – both judges and other court personnel – to ensure that the orders recorded on the original court decisions are executed in a timely manner. The president of the court also plays an important role in this, who must ensure the conditions for smooth and efficient operations through appropriate organisation of work. The fact that the decision on the established limitation period, despite the order for service contained therein, was only forwarded to the institution after several months constitutes, in the Ombudsman's opinion, an unacceptable delay. Although the Ombudsman understands and takes into account the organisational problems pointed out by the court, he believes that these cannot fully justify the delay, especially considering the consequences it had for the individual.

The court also informed the Ombudsman that, following the Ombudsman's inquiry, it had informed the complainant of the established complication, expressed regret and apology for the error, and informed him of the possibility of pursuing a claim for compensation before the State Attorney's Office of the Republic of Slovenia.[3] On this basis, the Ombudsman also explained to the complainant in his response that in the event of any further complications in pursuing compensation, he could contact him again if he considered that his case still needed to be considered. The complainant did not express any additional expectations, but thanked the Ombudsman for his intervention and comprehensive consideration of his case.8.2-44/2024

[1] The District Court in Ljubljana issued a summons to serve the sentence in this case on 27 December 2023, and the institution received it on 29 December 2023. The complainant should have served the sentence on 31 January 2024, but he did not appear at the institution at that time. The actual commencement of the sentence did not occur until 27 April 2024, after he was brought to serve the second prison sentence on 18 March 2024, which he served in full by 27 April 2024. Thus, after serving the first sentence, the sentence actually commenced, the execution of which had in the meantime been suspended due to the statute of limitations.

[2] Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 28 of the Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions Act (ZIKS-1) stipulate that the competent court must, ex officio, ensure that the statute of limitations for the execution of the sentence has not expired. If it is determined that the sentence imposed may no longer be executed due to the statute of limitations, the judge presiding over the execution of the prison sentence shall issue a ruling establishing the statute of limitations for the execution of the sentence. The ruling must be served on the competent public prosecutor's office and the institution in which the convicted person should serve his prison sentence.[3] The Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP) devotes all of Chapter XXXII to the procedure for the restitution of damage, rehabilitation, and enforcement of other rights of persons who have been unjustly convicted or unjustly deprived of their liberty. The right to compensation belongs to the injured party even when the deprivation of liberty is unlawful, in this case regardless of the outcome of the procedure. The obligation to attempt a peaceful resolution of the dispute is stipulated by the ZKP, and the provisions of the State Attorney's Office Act (ZDOdv) on the preliminary procedure for the peaceful resolution of the dispute also apply when considering compensation claims.