Summary

In 2025, the Human Rights Ombudsman once again addressed the long-standing unresolved issue concerning the residents of Delavska Street regarding the protection of their right to a healthy living environment, which has been called into question due to the operations of a nearby company. The Ombudsman again contacted the City Municipality of Celje (CMC). From its responses it could be inferred that the CMC continued to reject the Ombudsman’s previous recommendation from 2021 regarding the possibility of purchasing the apartments concerned. Nevertheless, a certain, albeit for now only minimal, progress could be observed in efforts to ensure appropriate living conditions for the residents of Delavska Street. The company concerned, with which the CMC had previously failed to reach an agreement on establishing a green belt that would help reduce (at least) noise emissions, went bankrupt. The bankruptcy administrator is reportedly willing to consider such a solution under certain conditions. Proposals have also been made for land exchanges between the residents and the company, although the CMC has not yet managed to reach consensus among the parties involved. The future of the living environment of the residents of Delavska Street therefore remains uncertain, and a final solution depends on the willingness of all parties involved to seek compromise solutions.

Details

The issue concerning Delavska Street, which relates to the problematic proximity of residential and industrial buildings from the perspective of ensuring a healthy living environment, has existed for many years.

Following a broader examination of the matter, the Ombudsman already in 2018 addressed a proposal to the City Municipality of Celje (CMC) as well as to the then Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning (MESP), requesting that each of them, within the scope of their respective competences, ensure that the residents of Delavska Street in Celje are guaranteed the right to a healthy living environment, as defined in Article 72 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, as well as the right to respect for private and family life, as defined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The situation at the time indicated the possibility of a compromise solution and, from that perspective, the Ombudsman did not pursue the matter further. However, in 2021 the Ombudsman again received a complaint from an affected resident indicating that the resolution of the matter was not progressing satisfactorily. The Ombudsman therefore addressed an inquiry to the CMC.

Following an extensive investigation, the Ombudsman recommended that the CMC reconsider its further approach, intensify its own activities, become more actively involved in resolving the issue, and not rule out in advance the possibility of purchasing individual apartments or the building as a whole under conditions that would be acceptable to the owners and realistically feasible within a reasonable period of time.

Taking into account the unacceptably long tolerance of the existing situation, the Ombudsman considered that, from the perspective of consistently ensuring the right of the owners and residents to a healthy living environment, their right to respect for private and family life, and also from the perspective of preventing further conflicts between the various stakeholders affected by spatial planning decisions, a reconsideration, review and, if necessary, modification of the CMC’s approach would certainly be appropriate.

The CMC did not accept the Ombudsman’s recommendation. The main obstacle it identified was the provision of the second paragraph of Article 44 of the Act on Tangible Property of the State and Self-Governing Local Communities (ZSPDSLS-1), according to which real estate may not be acquired for the purpose of stockpiling.

As the Ombudsman, despite providing more detailed arguments, was unable to persuade the CMC to change its position, the Ombudsman turned to the Court of Audit of the Republic of Slovenia (Court of Audit) for an informal opinion, which largely supported the Ombudsman’s view.

Both the Ombudsman and the Court of Audit emphasised that the prohibition on acquiring real estate “for stockpiling” under Article 44 of the ZSPDSLS-1 does not constitute an absolute prohibition, but merely a restriction on acquisitions that are not related to the tasks of the municipality.

The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the purchase of the apartments in the case at issue could be consistent with the legislation, as it would enable the CMC to address spatial and environmental inconsistencies, improve the quality of living conditions and at the same time enable economic development, which falls within its statutory responsibilities.

The situation goes beyond a typical private-law relationship, as it involves issues of spatial planning and long-term strategic development, which the CMC already pursues in its policy documents.

The Court of Audit also agreed that such a purchase would be permissible if it is directly connected with the performance of municipal tasks. At the same time, it pointed to the obligation to clearly define the purpose of the project, analyse all possible solutions and prepare a comprehensive financial assessment in accordance with public finance legislation and investment documentation requirements. It also suggested obtaining the opinion of the competent ministry regarding the municipality’s competences.

The common position of both the Ombudsman and the Court of Audit is therefore that the purchase of real estate is not excluded if it can be demonstrated that it forms part of municipal responsibilities and is strategically justified, while also requiring transparency and comprehensive project preparation.

Despite the positions outlined above, the CMC continued to reject the Ombudsman’s recommendation without providing further specific justification. However, it reported that some minimal progress had nevertheless been achieved, most likely due to the bankruptcy of the company concerned.

This progress was achieved in discussions with the company’s bankruptcy administrator, who expressed willingness to consider the purchase of part of the land for the establishment of a green belt, as well as the possibility of land exchanges between the company and the residents.

Unfortunately, at the time of the CMC’s latest response to the Ombudsman, it had not yet managed to reach agreement with the residents regarding the proposed solution.

The Ombudsman could in principle agree with the CMC that constructive cooperation between all parties involved is indeed a necessary precondition for the final resolution of this long-standing issue.

Judging from its latest responses, the CMC has chosen a different approach from the one originally envisaged. Based on the information currently available, this approach appears reasonable for the time being. Should it prove unsuccessful, however, the Ombudsman suggested that the CMC re-examine the feasibility of the Ombudsman’s recommendation, while also taking into account the explanations and guidance provided by the Court of Audit.

The Ombudsman therefore continues to maintain the recommendation. However, given that the issues currently remaining open are of a purely private-law nature, the Ombudsman no longer considers further intervention necessary.

The Ombudsman nevertheless recommended that the CMC should not abandon its efforts to seek compromise solutions, and made the same recommendation to the complainants. 17.1-6/2025