Skip to content

A simple question, a complex (non)response

Summary

The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) identified a violation of the principle of good governance in the conduct of the Municipality of Maribor (MOM), specifically the office of the mayor of MOM and the MOM municipal administration. It took six inquiries and urgent requests from the Ombudsman before the Mayor's Office responded to the initiator's letter, and the explanations provided regarding the content of the initiator's questions were largely unclear and incoherent. The Ombudsman's proposal that they pay the utmost attention to this in the future was ultimately accepted by both with understanding, but only time will tell whether similar inconveniences, such as those we witnessed in the proceedings in question, will no longer occur in the future.

Details

The Ombudsman was approached by a resident of Shakespearova Street in Maribor, who informed us about the poor condition of this street and the residents' long-standing efforts to have it repaired. This had already been promised in 2022, but it did not happen, although the Municipality of Maribor announced that it would draw up a plan for the renovation of municipal roads, a so-called "master plan," for the following year. The petitioner's street was initially included in the plan, but was later removed. In addition to the local city district, the initiator also contacted the mayor herself on January 25, 2024, with a letter, but did not receive a response.

The Ombudsman first contacted the MOM City Administration with an inquiry, and later also the mayor's office. Due to inconsistencies[1] in the content and delays in responses, the Ombudsman made several inquiries, but the mayor's office did not respond to the petitioner's letter from January 2024 until June 11, 2025. The Ombudsman therefore found a violation of the principle of good administration in the proceedings in question and considered the initiative to be justified. We hope that similar inconveniences will not occur in the future. 17.2-4/2024


[1] For example, MOM did not respond comprehensively to the Ombudsman's questions; it did not provide a convincing explanation as to why it did not respond to the initiator's letter; It provided the Ombudsman with incorrect documentation; it did not follow up on the announcements of the implementation of ancillary procedures necessary prior to the renovation of this street, and in its responses it referred to a person who was not the Ombudsman's initiator.


Back Back
Accessibility Statement Sitemap Privacy Video surveillance Cookie settings www: ORG. TEND