The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) identified a violation of the principle of good governance in the complaint under review, both at the Ministry for a Solidarity-Based Future (MSP) and at the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Housing (IRSS). Specifically, the MSP responded to the complainant's letter only after more than four months, while IRSS did not failed to respond to three subsequent letters from the complainant, even after the Ombudsman's had issued an explicit recommendation to do. The IRSS eventually only responded to the complainant's letter after an additional prompt from the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman communicated to both authorities the expectation that they respond to complaints and any subsequently correspondence within a reasonable period in the future. Acknowledging the known staffing shortages at IRSS, the Ombudsman specifically recommended that the MSP to pay greater attention to this issue in the future and, in its capacity as supervisory authority, take appropriate measures within a reasonable timeframe to ensure the conditions for the effective functioning of IRSS.

***

A complainant contacted the Ombudsman to report the unresponsiveness of the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Housing (IRSS) and the Ministry for a Solidarity-Based Future (MSP) to her letters and complaints concerning the allegedly illegal actions of the manager of a multi-apartment building. She first contacted IRSS with a complaint on 13 June 2023, and received an initial response from IRSS on 26 June 2023. As she was not subsequently informed about the possible initiation of an inspection procedure, she contacted the IRSS again on 3 October 2023, 19 February 2024, and 30 July 2024, but did not receive any response from IRSS to any of these letters. In view of this, she contacted the MSP on 4 March 2024, but the ministry did not respond until 18 July 2024.

Following an investigation, the complainant's allegations were largely confirmed, while the explanations provided by the MSP and IRSS did not justify the lack of response.

After receiving the complainant's letter, the MSP should first have sought information from the IRSS and only then respond to her (more than four months after receiving the letter).[1] The Ministry of Public Administration attributed the delay in responding to the recent reorganisation of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. The resulting backlogs were expected to be addressed and resolved through staffing reinforcement. While the Ombudsman understands the problems that may arise in operations following a government reorganisation, it would have been reasonable to expect that such inconveniences would have been addressed by the time the response to the complainant was prepared. The Act amending the State Administration Act (ZDU-1O) came into force on 14 February 2023.

In its response, the IRSS initially confirmed the timeline of receiving the complainant's first submission and the corresponding response, as summarised above, but did not comment on the subsequently received letters. From the IRSS's response to the Ombudsman, it could be inferred that the inspectorate was likely not competent to resolve the issue raised by the complainant; however, since it failed to address the complainant's subsequent letters, it cannot be concluded that this was ever communicated to the her. The IRSS also did not do so after receiving the Ombudsman's inquiry, in which the Ombudsman had suggested that it should respond to the complainant's letters if it had not already done so. In view of the above, the Information Commissioner explained that although there is no direct, legally based procedural obligation for the IRS to respond to additional letters from applicants, it is nonetheless expected, consistent with the principle of good administration, that the authority respond to such correspondence, at least by providing a brief explanation, for example, that the complaint has not yet been scheduled for processing in accordance with established criteria. Given the IRSS's opinion that it was most likely not competent to handle the allegations raised, it would be reasonable to expect that the applicant be informed of this within a reasonable period and is directed to an appropriate avenue for resolving the matter. Ultimately, the IRSS complied with the Commissioner's recommendation and responded to the complainant.

Based on the above, we considered the complaint to be justified, and the above expectation and recommendation were communicated to both relevant authorities. The Ombudsman will continue to monitor the issue and will raise it again if similar concerns are observed in the future. 20.0-6/2024

[1] The Ministry of Public Administration asserted that it had responded to the complainant in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (UUP), which is clearly not the case. Article 17 of the UUP establishes a 15-day deadline for responding to received correspondence. In more complex matters, the authority is required to provide the sender, within this period, at least a notice of further proceedings and an expected timeframe for preparing a response. The Ministry failed to do so and, in the Ombudsman's assessment, the complainant’s letter was not of a sufficiently complex nature to justify such a significant delay.