In accordance with the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP), the Ombudsman does not deal with anonymous complaints, but if he finds that an issue needs attention and the anonymous matter could be dealt with by another competent authority, he transfers such complaints to it for consideration.

***

The Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) received an anonymous complaint from parents regarding alleged irregularities at one of the elementary schools in Slovenia. In the complaint, it was stated that it was sent anonymously, as the management of the said school has repeatedly demonstrated its vindictiveness against dissenters. The content of the complaint mainly related to alleged irregularities in the implementation of an excursion abroad, but also described other alleged irregularities that the school allegedly concealed.

Upon receipt of an anonymous complaint, the Ombudsman usually asks the complainant to complete it, as anonymous complaints are not considered based on Point 4 of Paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the ZVarCP. In the specific case, the Ombudsman could not ask the complainants to complete it due to complete anonymity, so he referred the specific case to the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Education (IRSŠ). In Paragraph 2 of Article 24, the Inspection Act stipulates that the inspector must also consider anonymous reports. From the statements in the complaints and accessible media publications, the Ombudsman did not perceive that the IRSŠ had already considered the matter, therefore the IRSŠ suggested that they consider the matter in accordance with their competences and inform us of their findings and possible measures.

The IRSŠ explained to the Ombudsman that they had already carried out an extraordinary inspection at the mentioned school, in which a violation of the students' right to personal dignity was found in connection with Article 2a of the Organisation and Financing of Education Act, which provides for a safe and stimulating learning environment in school. The IRSŠ proposed to the headmaster of the school the initiation of disciplinary action against the professional worker, which the headmaster accepted and issued a written warning to the professional worker before terminating the employment contract. During the inspection, the appropriateness of the implementation of the school excursion abroad and the internal acts by which the school determines the rights and duties of students and educational measures were also reviewed. In this part, the inspection procedure has not yet been completed. The IRSŠ also explained that regarding allegations of inappropriate pressure from a professional colleague and some other employees, it had referred the matter to the police for consideration.

On the basis of the explanations provided by the IRSŠ, the Ombudsman assessed that the specific case was adequately dealt with in the inspection procedure and therefore closed the case. 19.1-58/2023