The Ombudsman considered the complaint of an individual complaining about the lengthy processing of her application by the building inspectorate regarding, in her opinion, illegal, non-compliant, dangerous, and abandoned construction on adjacent land. She contacted the building inspectorate with the application in October 2023, and several further applications were also filed against the said construction. Since then, the inspection procedure has not been initiated. In the meantime, the complainant has also contacted the building inspectorate several times in writing with more specific questions.[1]

The Ombudsman, taking into account the procedural requirements under the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP) and the Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Poslovnik), contacted the IRSNVP with an inquiry, and at the outset recommended that, from the perspective of more consistent implementation of the principle of good administration and in the spirit of transparency towards the complainant's relatively specific issues, until the inspection procedure has been introduced or a decision has been made not to introduce it, it should try to define more specifically.^[2]

The IRNSVP was able to respond to the complainant's questions in reasonable detail, whereby in certain parts, in its own opinion, it limited its duty to respond,[3] and in certain parts, following the Ombudsman's inquiry, it perceived the possibility of providing additional, more in-depth explanations.[4] Despite this, the Ombudsman did not follow the complainant's proposal after the second response, as it assessed that it had responded to the complainant comprehensively.[5]

After examining the IRSNVP's response and the correspondence known up to that point, the Ombudsman considered its responses to be correct, but nevertheless insisted on its proposal to try to answer the complaint's questions more specifically and recommended that the IRSNVP reconsider its decision. However, the Ombudsman considered the complaint to be justified, given the evident length of time spent considering the application and from this perspective established a violation of good administration. From the complainant's application (9 October 2023) until the IRSNVP's last response to the Ombudsman (6 March 2025), the inspection procedure had not yet been initiated, nor had a decision not to initiate the inspection procedure been made. The Ombudsman recently addressed this long-standing broader issue in the Ombudsman's Annual Report for 2024, in which he recommended to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Spatial Planning to adopt and implement measures that will ensure the efficiency of the work of the building inspection and the elimination of backlogs, although the recently received response from the Government of the Republic of Slovenia does not provide optimism that any significant progress can be expected in the foreseeable future. The Ombudsman will continue to actively monitor the implementation of the recommendation and insist on it.17.1-2/2025

[1] In summary, the complainant wanted more detailed explanations regarding the right to participate in the procedure; regarding the timely notification of the applicant; regarding the competences of superiors and the performance of inspection tasks; regarding the independence of inspectors; regarding the resolution of backlogged cases and regarding the measurement of the efficiency of building inspectors and the possible reallocation of cases to less burdened units.

[2] Based on the Paragraph 2 of Article 45 of the ZVarCP, the Ombudsman may make proposals to state bodies, institutions, and organisations exercising public authority for improving their operations and customer relations.

[3] Regarding the complainant's question about the possible reassignment of the case to less burdened units, the IRSNVP, for example, assessed that these are organisational or systemic issues and that answering such questions, in its opinion, does not fall within the scope of answering letters under Article 17 of the Administrative Procedures Regulation (APR), which provides the basis for the authority to answer general questions from the authority's field of work and regarding procedures conducted by the authority.

[4] Partly addressing the scope and importance of inspectors' independence and in relation to the classification of reports.

[5] The IRSNVP considered that the rules or standards applicable in the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP) do not apply to responding to letters under Article 17 of the UUP, as this is not an administrative matter in which the explanation serves the function of the right to appeal or legal protection. In its own assessment, the IRSNVP suffices for the purpose of responding under Article 17 of the UUP by providing applicants with general information from the body's field of work, regarding the conduct of the inspection procedure and their rights in the procedure, and additionally answers the questions posed, which in its assessment are not empty answers.