The Ombudsman sent an inquiry to the administrative unit to establish the reasons for the delay in the procedure. In their reply, the administrative unit explained the chronology of the procedure and stated that they were not delaying it. They believed that they had done everything necessary to end the procedure quickly. Some parts of the procedure had taken longer because the complainant lived abroad and because the administrative unit allowed her to submit additional evidence and comment on the authority’s findings during individual stages of the procedure. Based on a review of chronology, the Ombudsman assessed that the procedure had not been delayed in this case. Since the complainant’s application was denied three times at Maribor Administrative Unit and the Ministry of the Interior accepted her complaint three times and submitted the application for repeated procedure, we sent a new inquiry to Maribor Administrative Unit requesting them to inform us about the decision taken in the last repeated procedure. On 17 August 2015, Maribor Administrative Unit sent us the decision of 7 August 2015, in which the complainant’s application was denied for the fourth time. The complainant sent us an e-mail and informed us that she had complained on a timely basis about the latest decision of Maribor Administrative Unit, so we sent a new inquiry to the Ministry of the Interior. In this inquiry, we informed them about the complainants’ claims and asked them to comment on them. We also proposed that, if the complaint was to be accepted, they should consider the provision of Article 251 of the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP) and in accordance with the principle of efficiency and protection of clients’ rights and decide on the matter themselves. The Ministry of the Interior replied that on 30 October 2915 they had issued a decision within the scope of the complaint procedure accepting the complaint. The Ministry of the Interior overruled the decision of Maribor Administrative Unit and granted the request for a permanent residence permit based on the ZUSDDD by issuing a permanent residence permit to the complainant. Together with the permanent residence permit, the Ministry of the Interior also issued a special decision ex officio in accordance with paragraph two of Article 1 of the ZUSDDD. After reviewing the decision of the Ministry of the Interior accepting the complaint and at the same time granting the request of the complainant for a permanent residence permit based on the ZUSDDD-1, the Ombudsman established that the complaint had been justified and that there had been a delay in the procedure. This violated the principle of efficiency and the principle of protection of clients’ rights. The explanation of the decision of the Ministry of the Interior indicates that: Maribor Administrative Unit erroneously assessed the evidence, i.e. the oral statements of witnesses and the statement of the complainant provided as a client in the procedure; that a false conclusion concerning the current situation was inferred from the established facts, and that substantive law, i.e. the ZUSDDD, was wrongfully applied. Therefore, based on Article 252 of the ZUP, the Ministry of the Interior overturned the decision of Maribor Administrative Unit and resolved the matter directly. The explanation of the decision also states that the first instance authority in its previous rejections and in the contested decision did not take a position on the statements of the proposed witnesses, as recorded by the first instance authority, since this authority stated that the complainant had not left the Republic of Slovenia for justified reasons, as per Article 1č of the ZUSDDD. Therefore, Maribor Administrative Unit did not establish or assess the complainant’s attempts to return and continue to live in the Republic of Slovenia, so they did not take a position on the complainant’s statements or the statements in the process of hearing witnesses. of clients’ rights. The Ombudsman assesses that the Ministry of the Interior also violated the principle of efficiency, since, with regard to the fact that Maribor Administrative Unit did not consider the instructions in the procedure, the Ministry could have considered the provision of the ZUP before the final decision and decided on the matter directly, thereby ensuring that the complainant’s application was granted sooner. 5.2-31/2015 2.6.9 The Ombudsman’s response to the so-called migrant crisis We assessed that the so-called migrant crisis raises broader issues which are relevant for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and at our own initiative became intensively involved in monitoring the position of these aliens (the term ‘alien’ is used in this sub-chapter in this context only). Whereby we functioned on the basis of the ZVarCP and the MOPPM (National Preventive Mechanism). At the outset of the so-called migrant crisis (September 2015), the Ombudsman also organised a meeting with representatives of non-governmental or humanitarian organisations working in the field of aliens, because they are valuable sources of information. It must be emphasised that the unresolved issue of accommodating unaccompanied minors and families with minor aliens in centres which limit freedom of movement was highlighted again at this point as a significant problem (the Ombudsman had already addressed this aspect before the crisis began, and this issue remains open; see Chapter 2.3.7 on the current discussion of the issue). In September, the Ombudsman first visited the Aliens Centre in Postojna and the accommodation centre in Celje, where no significant irregularities were found. We visited a similar centre in Šentilj in October, and then the reception facilities in Brežice and Rigonce (twice). On the basis of media reporting, we also examined the situation in the Municipality of Cirkulane. In November, we visited Šentilj and the Livarna centre in Dobova (where we witnessed the course of the then newly introduced procedure of transporting aliens by train) and Gornja Radgona (where it was established that the number of police officers had been substantially reduced and so dogs were being used for escorting aliens on their way to Austria, which was particularly frightening for children; the reduced number of police officers also resulted in fewer police vehicles available to transport vulnerable groups to the Austrian border etc.). When discussing this issue, the Ombudsman submitted several inquiries to the Ministry of the Interior (MNZ) and the Government of the Republic of Slovenia. The Ombudsman also requested an urgent meeting with the Prime Minister on the basis of Article 46 of the ZVarCP. We also held a press conference at which we presented our main current activities and findings. Based on all the documentation, the Ombudsman assessed that Maribor Administrative Unit did not entirely follow the instructions of the Ministry of the Interior with regard to clarification of the current situation. In three explanations of decisions which were issued to acknowledge the complaint, the Ministry of the Interior provided clear instructions to Maribor Administrative Unit on how to clarify the current situation, but Maribor Administrative Unit did not consider these instructions and insisted on their own findings. Based on this, we can assume that, during the entire procedure, Maribor Administrative Unit had planned to reject the application. Thus, Maribor Administrative Unit violated the principle of efficiency and the principle of the protection We informed the Government of the problems we had found, i.e. cases of separated families, difficulties in communicating with aliens (the lack of translators or interpreters, particularly in police procedures) and insufficient provision of information; the lack of a definition whereby refugees were accommodated in various centres, the problem of charging for accommodation in Postojna Aliens Centre; problematic coordination of volunteers, non-governmental and humanitarian organisations; questionable transportation of children with buses at night, alleged discrimination based on nationality upon reception and registration; the lack of water and food and unhygienic conditions at border crossings, and the issuing of payment orders for illegal border crossing and similar. On the basis of the findings established during the monitoring of accommodation and reception centres, we also proposed that the Government ensure the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms at entry points at border crossings by accelerating the reception and registration of aliens, and provide translators or interpreters in accommodation centres and at border entry points who would be able to inform aliens of the reasons for their accommodation at centres, the procedures that they would undergo and when they would be able to continue their journeys (the Ombudsman assessed that riots and dissatisfaction among aliens would thus be prevented and the work of personnel in the field would be facilitated significantly). Communication with neighbouring countries, especially the Republic of Croatia, concerning the crossing of the aliens should also be improved. The Government should also consider and, after deliberation, propose to neighbouring countries the establishment of a humanitarian corridor through the Republic of Slovenia, and provide brochures, flyers, signs, etc. in the languages spoken by aliens informing them of the procedures they would undergo and of the possibility of protection. A sufficient number of staff should also be provided in the field, which the Ombudsman estimated would prevent the exhaustion of those currently 102 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 103 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS the Ministry of the Interior and the application submitted for a repeated procedure. The complainant contacted the Ombudsman when the administrative unit in Maribor was deciding on her application for the fourth time.