<base href="http://t3urednik.sigov.si/varuh-rs/typo3/" />

The People's Advocate, Romania

The office

The 1991 Romanian Constitution has introduced a new institution, the People&#8217;s Advocate, formally inspired by the Ombudsman tradition in other countries.

Its creation as such has so far undergone three stages.

• The first, as already mentioned, began with the adoption of the constitutional text on December 8th, 1991.
  
  
• A second stage began with the enactment of the statutory basis, the Law on the Organisation and Functioning of the People’s Advocate Institution (The Ombudsman Act), in March 1997. Two months later, the first Romanian incumbent - Mr Paul Mitroi, formerly a Justice in the Supreme Court - was elected by the Senate.
  
  
• The third stage emerged in December 1997, once the Ombudsman appointed his two deputies and published the Standing Rules of the People’s Advocate Institution. However, it took more than a year to find suitable premises and therefore to put in place a fully operational structure, staffed with competent but also enthusiastic people. In January 1999, the Ombudsman Office moved to its new and permanent location, in Bucharest, Bd. Iancu de Hunedoara nr. 3-5, Sector 1, Code 71.204 (for AVOCATUL POPORULUI).

The total staff now amounts to 70, out of which 40 are case-handlers. 

The work

Over the past 20 months, the People&#8217;s Advocate has received about 5500 complaints, that is 1168 in 1997, 2985 in 1998, and 1342 till April 1st, 1999, out of which the following were admitted as within jurisdiction: 86 in 1997, 425 in 1998, 186 in the first quarter of 1999. The total of complaints rejected for lack of jurisdiction was as high as 90.8% in 1997, dropped to a 78.1% in 1998, and seems to slightly rise up again in 1999 (although figures have not yet been statistically evaluated).

The Office e-mail address is: avp(at)fx.ro and the newly created web site is www.avp.ro.

Apart from the absolute novelty of the Ombudsman institution in Romania and the extremely little knowledge of his powers, another reason for this high percentage of complaints discarded on first examination is the misleading name chosen to designate the office.

Most petitioners feel that a People&#8217;s Advocate must give some kind of pro-bono assistance in court or is empowered to nullify court decisions.

Statistically, the figures (for 1997 and 1998) indicating the main reason for rejection will also highlight an almost general misperception on the Romanian Ombudsman, such complaints dealing with the following:

 

Unlike other national ombudsmen, the People&#8217;s Advocate may not look into any action of the judicial authority (courts of law or prosecutor&#8217;s offices, not even where complaints are directed against undue length of proceedings). Nor could he substitute himself for a judge or prosecutor and seek into how a case has been handled with.

Another important aspect must be pinpointed in giving the general outline of matters falling under the Ombudsman jurisdiction. Romania is still a country undergoing the transition to a free-market economy. In that regard, two basic pieces of legislation have been enacted in recent years on the return of nationalised or confiscated property or the alternative award of compensation. Former owners must first apply to the competent administrative authority, subsequently they case take such cases to the court, where they have failed to obtain satisfaction. That is why the Ombudsman must reject complaints of this kind. However, he has also taken up a significant number of complaints in that subject area, where the petitioner has obtained a final court decision, but the administrative organ in question (which is a specialised commission headed by the mayor and attached to the Local Council) does not comply or tends to postpone enforcement of a judgement. In figures, out of a total of 86 files opened in 1997, 33 were about land restitution, while in 1998, 147 out of 425 files.

The other cases taken up in 1997, 1998 and early 1999 as falling within jurisdiction mainly cover the following areas:

• pensions and social benefits;
• rights of former political prisoners and victims of the totalitarian rule;
• special protection of disabled persons;
• protection of former employees dismissed as a result of collective firing from
• reorganised state-owned companies;
• protection of children in need;
• social housing;
• consumer rights violated by state-owned companies;
• police activity;
• detention of prisoners;
• rights of asylum-seekers and refugees.

As a conclusion, the Ombudsman must react over complaints which are specific for the Romanian society, although they may not be the &#8220;classical&#8221; caseload of a Western ombudsman. On the other hand, there is also a growing number of cases taken on his own initiative in order to catch up with some of the typical ombudsman activities.

The presentation of the Ombudsman first Report to Parliament is very much likely to contribute to increasing public awareness about his role in reforming the public service. 

International contacts

Foreign visitors received at the Office were:

• 12-13 November 1998, Mr Edward BC Osmotherly CB, Local Government Ombudsman, Chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England; 
  
  
• 19 April 1999, Sir Nigel Rodley, Special UN Rapporteur for Torture Cases;
  
  
• 21-22 April 1999, Mr Claes Eklundh, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman of Sweden;
  
  
• 23 April 1999, a delegation from the Norwegian Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, headed by Mr Jorgen Kosmo, Chairman;
  
  
• 27 May 1999, a delegation of the Legislative Council from the Czech Republic, headed by Mr Pavel Rychetsky, Vice-Premier of the Czech Government, President of the Legislative Council.

Visits abroad were:

• 19-22 October 1998, Poland, Mr Paul Mitroi, the Ombudsman, and Mr Mircea Moldovan, Deputy Ombudsman made a visit to the Office of the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, Prof. Adam Zielinski;
  
  
• 9-10 December 1998, Moscow, the Russian Federation, Mr Mircea Moldovan, Deputy Ombudsman, participated in the International Conference “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Education of the 21st Century Generation”, organised by the Modern University for Humanitarian Studies”;
  
  
• 10-21 May 1999, London, UK, Ms Ruxandra Sabareanu, Deputy Ombudsman participated in a study programme on the Role of the Ombudsman in Improving Public Services. The programme was organised by the Public Administration International and the University

The People's Advocate, Romania

The office

The 1991 Romanian Constitution has introduced a new institution, the People’s Advocate, formally inspired by the Ombudsman tradition in other countries.

Its creation as such has so far undergone three stages.

• The first, as already mentioned, began with the adoption of the constitutional text on December 8th, 1991.
  
  
• A second stage began with the enactment of the statutory basis, the Law on the Organisation and Functioning of the People’s Advocate Institution (The Ombudsman Act), in March 1997. Two months later, the first Romanian incumbent - Mr Paul Mitroi, formerly a Justice in the Supreme Court - was elected by the Senate.
  
  
• The third stage emerged in December 1997, once the Ombudsman appointed his two deputies and published the Standing Rules of the People’s Advocate Institution. However, it took more than a year to find suitable premises and therefore to put in place a fully operational structure, staffed with competent but also enthusiastic people. In January 1999, the Ombudsman Office moved to its new and permanent location, in Bucharest, Bd. Iancu de Hunedoara nr. 3-5, Sector 1, Code 71.204 (for AVOCATUL POPORULUI).

The total staff now amounts to 70, out of which 40 are case-handlers. 

The work

Over the past 20 months, the People’s Advocate has received about 5500 complaints, that is 1168 in 1997, 2985 in 1998, and 1342 till April 1st, 1999, out of which the following were admitted as within jurisdiction: 86 in 1997, 425 in 1998, 186 in the first quarter of 1999. The total of complaints rejected for lack of jurisdiction was as high as 90.8% in 1997, dropped to a 78.1% in 1998, and seems to slightly rise up again in 1999 (although figures have not yet been statistically evaluated).

The Office e-mail address is: avp(at)fx.ro and the newly created web site is www.avp.ro.

Apart from the absolute novelty of the Ombudsman institution in Romania and the extremely little knowledge of his powers, another reason for this high percentage of complaints discarded on first examination is the misleading name chosen to designate the office.

Most petitioners feel that a People’s Advocate must give some kind of pro-bono assistance in court or is empowered to nullify court decisions.

Statistically, the figures (for 1997 and 1998) indicating the main reason for rejection will also highlight an almost general misperception on the Romanian Ombudsman, such complaints dealing with the following:

 

Unlike other national ombudsmen, the People’s Advocate may not look into any action of the judicial authority (courts of law or prosecutor’s offices, not even where complaints are directed against undue length of proceedings). Nor could he substitute himself for a judge or prosecutor and seek into how a case has been handled with.

Another important aspect must be pinpointed in giving the general outline of matters falling under the Ombudsman jurisdiction. Romania is still a country undergoing the transition to a free-market economy. In that regard, two basic pieces of legislation have been enacted in recent years on the return of nationalised or confiscated property or the alternative award of compensation. Former owners must first apply to the competent administrative authority, subsequently they case take such cases to the court, where they have failed to obtain satisfaction. That is why the Ombudsman must reject complaints of this kind. However, he has also taken up a significant number of complaints in that subject area, where the petitioner has obtained a final court decision, but the administrative organ in question (which is a specialised commission headed by the mayor and attached to the Local Council) does not comply or tends to postpone enforcement of a judgement. In figures, out of a total of 86 files opened in 1997, 33 were about land restitution, while in 1998, 147 out of 425 files.

The other cases taken up in 1997, 1998 and early 1999 as falling within jurisdiction mainly cover the following areas:

• pensions and social benefits;
• rights of former political prisoners and victims of the totalitarian rule;
• special protection of disabled persons;
• protection of former employees dismissed as a result of collective firing from
• reorganised state-owned companies;
• protection of children in need;
• social housing;
• consumer rights violated by state-owned companies;
• police activity;
• detention of prisoners;
• rights of asylum-seekers and refugees.

As a conclusion, the Ombudsman must react over complaints which are specific for the Romanian society, although they may not be the “classical” caseload of a Western ombudsman. On the other hand, there is also a growing number of cases taken on his own initiative in order to catch up with some of the typical ombudsman activities.

The presentation of the Ombudsman first Report to Parliament is very much likely to contribute to increasing public awareness about his role in reforming the public service. 

International contacts

Foreign visitors received at the Office were:

• 12-13 November 1998, Mr Edward BC Osmotherly CB, Local Government Ombudsman, Chairman of the Commission for Local Administration in England; 
  
  
• 19 April 1999, Sir Nigel Rodley, Special UN Rapporteur for Torture Cases;
  
  
• 21-22 April 1999, Mr Claes Eklundh, Chief Parliamentary Ombudsman of Sweden;
  
  
• 23 April 1999, a delegation from the Norwegian Standing Committee on Scrutiny and Constitutional Affairs, headed by Mr Jorgen Kosmo, Chairman;
  
  
• 27 May 1999, a delegation of the Legislative Council from the Czech Republic, headed by Mr Pavel Rychetsky, Vice-Premier of the Czech Government, President of the Legislative Council.

Visits abroad were:

• 19-22 October 1998, Poland, Mr Paul Mitroi, the Ombudsman, and Mr Mircea Moldovan, Deputy Ombudsman made a visit to the Office of the Polish Commissioner for Human Rights, Prof. Adam Zielinski;
  
  
• 9-10 December 1998, Moscow, the Russian Federation, Mr Mircea Moldovan, Deputy Ombudsman, participated in the International Conference “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Education of the 21st Century Generation”, organised by the Modern University for Humanitarian Studies”;
  
  
• 10-21 May 1999, London, UK, Ms Ruxandra Sabareanu, Deputy Ombudsman participated in a study programme on the Role of the Ombudsman in Improving Public Services. The programme was organised by the Public Administration International and the University of Reading.