2.4.2 Realisation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations Only minor improvements were established regarding the realisation of recommendations in this field. In the 2014 report, we encouraged the adoption of a long-term judicial strategy as a fundamental framework for the operation of the courts (recommendation no. 36), and we asked the Ministry of Justice to further implement well-considered legislative measures to ensure the protection of the right to trial without undue delay in dialogue with the judicial authority and the expert public (recommendation no. 37). The Ombudsman encouraged further strengthening of the efficiency of supervisory authorities to ensure high quality in the work of the courts and of trials (recommendation no. 39) and recommended that the Ministry of Justice and courts study the existing mechanisms for supervising the work of judges, especially their efficiency, and on this basis, take possible additional measures to improve the work of the courts (recommendation no. 40). 2.4 JUSTICE With regard to the recommendations, the Ministry explained that it was striving to efficiently implement the right to trial without undue delay on the basis of the Protection of Right to Trial without Undue Delay Act (ZVPSBNO) and was also taking action as per its authority. It further stated that, as per the latest practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it would also examine the need to amend the current regulatory bases with respect to more effectively providing the right to trial without undue delay, and also the right to an effective remedy and the question of the timely award of just satisfaction. In the beginning of 2015, amendments to Courts Act (ZS) and the Judicial Service Act (ZSS) were passed which also affect the provision of qualitative judicial decision making. Detailed criteria for the selection and promotion of judges and the procedure for assessing judges’ work were introduced. The field of judicial ethics and integrity was also further regulated, since the latest amendments to the ZS (ZS-L) provided a basis for the adoption of the Code of Judicial Ethics and the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Committee, which will function under the auspices of the Judicial Council. With the latest changes to the organisation of judicial legislation, the Ministry of Justice further expanded judicial responsibility; the Ministry thus believes that an efficient, broad and proportional system for enforcing judicial responsibility was established, which will be integrated accordingly within the framework of the constitutional principle of the independence of judges and the judiciary. According to the Ministry, the fully compartmentalised system of enforcing judicial responsibility should also provide suitable legal or legislative foundations for high-quality judicial decision making, which is determined in more detail in the ZSS. The Ombudsman recommended that the competent stakeholders examine again the efficiency of measures taken in the past by labour and social courts to reduce court backlogs and ensure trials within a reasonable time (recommendation no. 38). In this regard, the Ministry of Justice expressed hope that the situation in the relevant field would improve. The courts are striving to shorten judicial proceedings concerning labour and social disputes. Thus the courts optimise the organisation of their work, re-assign judges for some of their working time to other courts in order to assist with the elimination of court backlogs, and introduce ‘triage’ to alleviate judges’ administrative tasks so that they can concentrate exclusively on trials, which results in more 62 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 cases being resolved. This field will also be monitored in the future, and if necessary, additional measures may be proposed according to the Ministry’s jurisdiction. This response is commendable; however, it is necessary to add that certain problems were still observed in this field in 2015, which are discussed below. The Ombudsman recommended that judges consistently act in accordance with the provision of paragraph one of Article 71 in relation to point 5 of Article 70 of the Civil Procedure Act (ZPP), and ensure respect for the right to impartial trial (recommendation no. 41). This was a general recommendation to which the Ministry of Justice provided no special response. The Ombudsman further recommended additional measures be taken in the regulatory field to limit the possibilities of the abuse of regulations permitting doctor’s notes and other justifications connected with ensuring the presence of parties in court proceedings. Courts should use the prescribed procedures to assess doctor’s notes (recommendation no. 42). In response to this recommendation, the Ministry of Justice gave an assurance that the relevant issue would be examined during the drafting of amendments to the ZKP-N, i.e. from the aspect of clearly referring to the ZZVZZ, and with regard to limiting the abuse of doctor’s notes when ensuring the presence of parties in criminal procedures; however, the amendments to the ZKP-N were not adopted in 2015. 2.4.3 Judicial proceedings From the complaints discussed and the Ombudsman’s recommendations regarding judicial proceedings in 2015, issues arose again which (still) referred both to the length of individual court proceedings, and to the quality of decision making. The complaints claimed (and frequently with good reason) and primarily addressed the following rights: the right to judicial protection, equal protection of rights, right to a legal remedy, legal guarantees in criminal proceedings etc. When considering complaints about judicial proceedings, the Ombudsman continued to turn to the presidents of courts and other competent bodies (e.g. heads of prosecution offices) by way of enquiries and other interventions, and when necessary, the Ministry of Justice, particularly concerning an issue of a systemic nature or regarding the regulatory framework governing the work of the judiciary, and to the Ministry of the Interior (concerning procedures carried out by the police as a minor offence authority). For the most part, the Ombudsman was satisfied with the responses from the competent bodies. The Ministry of Justice provided us with the draft Act on the Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents for us to examine and provide an opinion. In this regard, we emphasised that the implementation of a criminal law for adolescents, which was anticipated already by the KZ-1, or another suitable legislative solution for discussing juvenile delinquents, was urgent, since an act was being used which was no longer applicable. The Ministry of Justice also requested our opinion on the draft Act Amending the Criminal Code (KZ-1C). We examined the draft particularly in the light of the current discussion of complaints submitted to the Ombudsman relating to this field. As per the above, we made no substantive comments or proposals regarding the proposed act. We commended the amendment to the arrangement of the prosecution for the criminal offence of serious threat as per paragraph one of Article 135 of the KZ-1 thereby basing prosecution on a private action rather than on a complaint. We particularly pointed to the unsuitability of the current arrangement in the 2012 and 2013 annual reports and also proposed the re-examination of the legislation on the prosecution of threats. We commended the inclusion of the newly proposed criminal offence of stalking (excluding with respect to family relationships) (new Article 134a). The need to criminalise this criminal offence was already explicitly highlighted in the 2010 report. We also added that it should be explicitly communicated at the legal level that the security measures of a restraining order or the prohibition of communicating with the victim of a criminal offence take precedence over imprisonment, since different positions were noted in past practice in this regard. We also positively assessed all the amendments to the current legislative arrangements intended to enhance the protection of vulnerable persons and groups, eliminate certain deficiencies or strengthen the principle of legality, while being aware that the Criminal Code may only be amended with thoughtful and meticulous consideration, particularly in the light of the constitutional principle of the rule of law, legal certainty and the predictability of law (Article 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia). During the drafting of the Act, ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 63 2.4 JUSTICE issue (although to a minor extent) remains among complaints considered by the Ombudsman, which is also evident from the examples provided below. On the other hand, we may be worried by the multitude of other complaints, which indicate that the speed of judicial decision making must not be detrimental to its quality. When evaluating the share of justified complaints, it must be taken into consideration that this process is closely linked to our (limited) jurisdiction in regard to the judicial branch of power. The Human Rights Ombudsman Act stipulates explicitly that the Ombudsman may not examine cases which are subject to judicial or other legal proceedings unless undue delay in the proceedings or evident abuse of authority are established (Article 24 of ZVarCP). In the case of judicial proceedings, the latter would be e.g. an intentional act by means of which judicial proceedings could be abused for illicit or illegitimate objectives. With regard to the judicial branch of power, our operations may extend only to the point where they do not encroach on the independence of judges in their judicial work. The Ombudsman’s intervention does thus not extend to the field of decision making, but particularly to judicial administration or other circumstances which require our action. In one case, we informed the court in our role as an amicus curiae of an injured party’s concern that a defendant who persistently violated a restraining order could actually pose a threat to the life of herself and her son and we proposed that the court pay special attention to the complainant’s concern.