A few years ago, we introduced a new classification in the chapter on equal opportunities to obtain more accurate data on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2015, we included six complaints in this field; most of the complaints were received at the end of 2015 after the amendments of the Marriage and Family Relations Act that would have re-defined marriage and equalise the rights of same-sex couples were rejected. These complaints have not been resolved, so they will be presented in the 2016 report. The statistics on the justification of complaints in this field were presented in the introduction to this chapter. Complaints where we observe discrimination due to sexual orientation and gender identity also involve those that were presented in the section “Ethics of public discourse” and refer to alleged unconstitutional incitements to inequality and intolerance or so-called hate speech. There were six such complaints in 2015. The number of complaints about hate speech directed at individuals due to their sexual orientation increased mainly during the December referendum campaign about the amendments to the Marriage and Family Relations Act. 2.2.7 Equal opportunities relating to physical or mental disability (invalidity) 2.2 DISCRIMINATION Twenty-two complaints were considered in this field, seven of them or 35 per cent being justified, which is also a high share of justified complaints. Many complaints referred to problems with parking for the disabled. One complainant contacted us in relation to ensuring parking for the disabled in front of the office of the advocate of patients’ rights. After several inquiries and proposals, we found that the complaint was not justified, since two car parks for the disabled are provided nearby and the lack of space prevents the arrangement of a car park in front of the office. Unequal treatment of applicants in a tender for scholarships for shortage occupations Several complainants contacted the Ombudsman with regard to a tender published by the Slovene Human Resources Development and Scholarship Fund (Fund) for allocating scholarships for shortage occupations in the 2015/2016 academic year. One of the complainants mentioned that on the first day of the tender, she was not able to access the form due to technical problems on the website and was not able to submit her application for the scholarship at the same time as applicants who live in Ljubljana, for instance. She believed that, due to technical problems, she was in an unequal position in comparison to applicants who received the form at the Fund’s head office. The tender for allocating scholarships for shortage occupations is an open deadline tender, meaning that scholarship recipients are selected in the order of complete applications received with regard to the date and time of the submission of an individual complete application until all funds are spent. According to point 7 of the tender document, the form should have been accessible on the website of the Fund on the first day of the deadline for the submission of applications (24 August 2015) which was not possible due to technical problems. Example: Notifying applicants for protection at the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption A complainant who had asked the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (CPC) to protect him as the reporter of corrupt conduct at a national authority where he was employed wrote to the Ombudsman. This is actually assistance which the CPC offers reporters based on Article 25 of the Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act (ZIntPK). Since the complainant did not receive a reply from the CPC within 20 days of submitting the application, he turned to the Ombudsman. The obligation of national authorities to respond to letters arises from principles of good administration. The Ombudsman interprets the content of this obligation in practice based on Article 18 of the Decree on administrative operations and other regulations, e.g. the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour. In our opinion, in accordance with these regulations, which are not directly binding on the CPC, the complainant should receive the first notification from the CPC within 15 days at the latest. The complainant should receive feedback in the first notification, i.e. that the CPC has received his letter, information about further actions and information on when to expect a substantive decision with regard to the his request. The Ombudsman therefore suggested that the CPC send such a notification to the complainant. The Ombudsman’s intervention was successful because the CPC considered the Ombudsman’s proposal. We also sent two systemic proposals to the CPC that could improve the operations of the CPC in relation to individuals. In the first proposal, the Ombudsman recommended the CPC send the first notification to applicants that request assistance and protection within 15 days and that they inform applicants on the final decision of the CPC in all matters (whether the CPC will provide protection or not). The second proposal referred to other reporters of corrupt conduct (those not requesting assistance and protection). The latter were notified on the measures and actions of the CPC in accordance with Article 23 of the ZIntPK only if they explicitly requested such notification. We proposed that the CPC, in accordance with good administration principles, send reporters a notification within 15 days, i.e. stating that the CPC has received the letter, including information about the time when the report would be considered, and that the CPC should inform the reporter that the CPC would notify them on their measures and conduct upon the reporter’s request. The CPC guaranteed that the first Ombudsman’s proposal would be considered. With regard to notifying other reporters of corrupt conduct, the CPC will strive to establish an automatic response system for reports sent to the website. The CPC will also inform reporters who contact the CPC in person or by telephone during office hours about the right to information with regard to CPC’s actions and conduct. Despite the Ombudsman’s proposal to introduce novelties in the CPC’s operations to ensure equal treatment to all reporters, the CPC will not be able to guarantee the first notification to reporters who send reports by ordinary post or by e-mail. 10.3-3/2015 In the Ombudsman’s view, technical problems when ensuring online access to the form constituted unequal treatment of applicants. Applicants who relied on the provision under point 7 of the tender and planned to print the application were in a worse situation than those who received the form at the Fund’s head office. The fact that applicants who live in Ljubljana were able to go immediately to the Fund’s head office when they saw that there was an Internet problem could also constitute additional unequal treatment, since those people who come from other places could not do this (in the same time frame). In a letter sent to the Fund and to the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, the Ombudsman provided the preliminary opinion that unequal treatment cannot be eliminated in another way than by annulling and repeating the public tender. The Ombudsman’s intervention was successful, and the Fund announced that the tender would be annulled and published again. 40 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 41 2.2 DISCRIMINATION 2.2.6. Equal opportunities relating to sexual orientation