The Human Rights Ombudsman (Ombudsman) reviewed a complaint regarding the conduct of police officers from the Celje Police Station in their handling of a hit-and-run traffic accident. The petitioner claimed that the police had requested video surveillance footage from a company to identify the perpetrator, but the footage was not subsequently used because the police failed to retrieve it in a timely manner. According to the petitioner, this also affected her ability to seek compensation for the damages incurred.

The Ombudsman made an inquiry with the Ministry of the Interior (MNZ) regarding the police’s conduct in obtaining and retrieving the footage, the use of a system for transferring large files, and the police’s internal procedures when access to transmitted electronic data is time-limited. He was particularly interested in whether the police had taken appropriate measures to ensure the timely receipt of the recordings and whether they had exercised due diligence in verifying that the recordings had actually been sent.

The explanations received indicated that the file-transfer system is designed to notify only the recipient of the received content, and that the file and password are permanently deleted after ten days. The Ministry also provided the Ombudsman with an expert explanation stating that, in this case, a message containing a link to the video was sent via the system to the police officer’s private email address, followed ten days later by a notification of deletion. This method of email exchange was deemed improper.[1] Given the absence of more detailed log records, it was not possible to unequivocally determine all the technical circumstances of the transmission; however, the Ombudsman considered that it could be concluded with a high degree of probability that the video recording was secured and forwarded, but the police did not retrieve it in a timely manner.

The Ombudsman emphasized that the system’s limited traceability cannot diminish an authority’s responsibility in handling evidence. On the contrary: when a system is designed such that access to the material is time-limited, work must be organized so that the evidence is received in a timely manner, properly recorded, and secured. The technical characteristics of the system, the absence of internal controls, or the use of an inappropriate communication channel must not result in the loss of evidence, the consequences of which would be borne by the affected person.

In the Ombudsman’s assessment, the case at hand did not involve merely a technical or organizational shortcoming, but rather conduct by a state authority that had harmful consequences for the petitioner. When handling evidence, the police must act professionally, diligently, in a timely manner, and in a way that contributes to clarifying the incident. The Ombudsman therefore determined that the complaint was well-founded and found that the police had not exercised due diligence in the collection and handling of the evidence.

The Ombudsman determined that, in this case, the police acted in violation of the requirements arising from the principle of the rule of law under Article 2 of the Constitution[2] and the principle of good governance under Article 3 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP). In this regard, he emphasized that he could not determine what the outcome of the proceedings would have been had the video recordings been obtained and used in a timely manner. However, he found that the police’s untimely and inappropriate conduct had diminished the petitioner’s chances of effectively protecting her property interests.

The Ombudsman also informed the Ministry of the Interior of his response and recommended that, in addition to the announced overhaul of the file transfer system, other appropriate measures be taken as necessary to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. He also expected the Ministry of the Interior and the Police to conduct a further investigation into the circumstances of this case, including the issue of responsibility for the use of an inappropriate communication channel and for the untimely receipt of the sent materials.

The Ministry of the Interior subsequently informed the Ombudsman that, upon re-examination, the Police had identified additional irregularities in the use of the file-sharing system as well as deficiencies in its operation. The police officer who handled the case was specifically warned about the identified irregularities; similar warnings were also issued to other officers at the Celje Police Station, and an additional presentation on the proper use of the system was conducted. The police have also begun overhauling the system, which will, among other things, prevent the sending of notifications to private email addresses and improve the traceability of file-sharing procedures. The Ministry of the Interior stated that the implementation of the overhauled solution is expected by fall 2026, and that the organizational measures adopted and the planned system improvements are expected to significantly reduce the risk of similar irregularities recurring, as well as contribute to safer, more transparent, and better-controlled handling of materials relevant to police and other procedures. 16.1-40/2025

[1] In this regard, the Ministry of the Interior (MNZ) explained that, in accordance with the Guidelines for the Management of Documentary Materials at the MNZ, public servants also receive electronic mail in their personal work email inboxes. Nevertheless, the Ministry’s official email addresses are designated as the primary channel for official communication with clients. Sending emails to a personal work email address is therefore permitted, but is generally an exception (e.g., due to operational circumstances). In such cases, the public servant must handle the received email in accordance with Article 11 of the Guidelines, i.e., promptly and appropriately log it.

[2] Although Article 2 of the Constitution does not directly regulate individual human rights, the principle of the rule of law gives rise to requirements for the careful, organized, predictable, and non-arbitrary operation of state authorities. In the Ombudsman’s view, these requirements are particularly important in cases where an authority has information regarding the existence of evidence whose availability is time-limited and upon which the clarification of an incident and the effective protection of the rights or legal interests of the affected person may depend.