A journalist wanted to know if the legislator justifiably or excessively encroached upon individual privacy with Articles 12 and 17 of the Fiscal Verification of Invoices Act, which refers to verification of consumers. We explained that the Ombudsman had not yet considered a complaint in which an individual would claim the unconstitutionality of the relevant statutory provisions, since the Act had not yet been in force. We referred the journalist to the Information Commissioner of the Republic of Slovenia for further information, since the question also related to personal data protection, not only to the protection of individuals’ privacy. We stated that the question about possible excessive encroachment on individual privacy touches on many fields in a person’s life and it is thus impossible to provide a clear uniform answer. For example, it refers to the provision of services in the most intimate field of a person’s life (medically assisted reproduction, other health service, attorney services etc.) and also to everyday purchases and payments. 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK When assessing whether a concrete case involves an excessive invasion of privacy, it is necessary to strike a balance between the right to privacy (Article 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia) and the protection of personal data (Article 38 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia) on the one hand and public interest in the provision of effectively collecting mandatory taxes on the other. When discussing the relevant case, it may be determined if a certain action or an act by the authorities is compliant with the principle of proportionality. In accordance with this principle, the encroachment on human rights is permitted only if the intervention is necessary (the objective cannot be attained with a less intrusive intervention: the provision of effective collection of mandatory duties, in this case); if this intervention is suitable (the intervention enables the attainment of the objective), and if the intervention is proportionate in a narrower sense (striking a balance between the importance of the affected right and the significance of the objective being pursued). Telephone tapping two parties involved in the arbitration process A journalist asked whether the case of eavesdropping on employees of the judiciary or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs constituted a violation of their rights, particularly the right to privacy. Since the Ombudsman was informed about the case only from the media, a general reply was given. The right to communication privacy, which derives from the right to respect for private and family life, is determined in Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia protects the right to privacy in Article 35, and the privacy of correspondence and other means of communication in Article 37. According to this constitutional provision, communication privacy may be encroached on only on the basis of an act which may determine that the privacy of communication and other means of communication and the inviolability of a person’s privacy may be suspended for a certain period if this is needed for implementation or the course of criminal proceedings or state security. On this basis, it is clear that interventions in communication privacy contrary to this constitutional provision are violations of human rights. In Article 137, the Criminal Code defines unlawful eavesdropping and sound recording as a criminal offence. The law enforcement authorities must discover who was responsible for the relevant acts and whether their actions are contrary to law. How to communicate? With regard to public discourse, in addition to the aforementioned hostility to homosexuals, members of religious communities and refugees, we also received a question on methods of communicating and restrictions with respect to civil society activism and in judicial proceedings. In the first case, we gave a comprehensive reply to questions about the boundary between freedom of speech and insulting a public figure; the extent and limitation of someone’s right to reveal personal data; the recommended method and wording when 190 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 alleged criminal offences have been committed by public officials, and the manner in which public figures communicate. In the latter case, we stressed the clarity and unambiguity of communications in all procedures, and in a manner which does not allow several interpretations and does not convey falsehoods. We also received a question relating to supposed hate speech in the satirical and informative television show, ‘This week with Jure Godler’. The question was discussed as a complaint, since we assessed that it required further analysis. This complaint is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.1.4 Ethics of public discourse. At this point, we give part of the reply submitted to the journalist. We assessed that in order to determine when a statement is understood as hate speech, it is necessary to observe who made the statement, in what context was it expressed, what the format of the contribution and the media were, and what the consequences of the statement may be for certain individuals or groups. From the question itself, it was evident that the statement was made in a satirical broadcast and by a comedian. A satirical format of media communications has certain features which allow it broader freedom of expression than is acceptable in a so-called ‘serious’ media context. Humour frequently exploits certain established stereotypes which are recognised by listeners and viewers even if not stated explicitly. The case to which the journalist draw our attention was considered as such. Debt write-off, termination of subsidies to tenants of market dwellings and homelessness The issue of writing off debt was topical at the beginning of the year, the example being set by neighbouring Croatia. Before the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities took action based on the Croatian example, a journalist was interested in knowing if the Ombudsman had received complaints about debt write-offs, if a similar solution was also proposed in Slovenia, and if such a proposal was sensible at all. We were not familiar with the solutions applied in Croatia, but we explained to the journalist in detail the already existing possibilities in Slovenia. Although our proposal was not submitted to the authorities, we expressed our commitment to insisting on the efficient implementation of applicable systemic solutions and the qualitative work of social work centres when assisting people in social distress. We received no written questions relating to the proposal of the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities. The journalists merely inquired about our opinion on various occasions. A reporter from the national radio informed us that the Government was planning to terminate subsidies to tenants in market dwellings. We expressed our concern and undertook to study the case in detail. Later, we filed a request for a review of constitutionality in this regard. More about this can be found in Chapter 2.9.4 Subsidising rents. Social issues are closely related to housing issues. We received questions on homeless persons, the arrangement of permanent residence or evictions. More on the Ombudsman’s positions may be read in Chapters 2.9 Housing matters and 2.15 Social matters. The Ombudsman also held a press conference on homelessness in October 2015. Questions on labour rights In the field of employment relationships, we informed a journalist about the extensive activities of the Ombudsman relating to public works in 2014, and another journalist on the Ombudsman’s opinion about precarious work. We stated that we were not satisfied with the state’s activities in this field. We assessed the chaining of companies, which to a certain extent is permitted by the Employment Relationship Act (ZDR-1) and the Companies Act (ZGD), as impermissible, and also denotes an open form of precarious work (for example, an employer may establish several companies which have no ownership links). We determined that the Companies Act (ZGD-1) should be amended in order to prevent the establishment of companies by employers who had already been convicted with a final decision for certain violations. A consideration about the amount ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 191 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK Certified cash registers and the invasion of privacy