3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK 3.1.3 Election and position of the Ombudsman and her Deputies On 1 February 2013, Vlasta Nussdorfer was elected the Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia with a majority of 82 votes in the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia; she took up her 6-year term on 23 February 2013. As the holder of this position, the Ombudsman draws her strength from the reputation and position of this institution in society. The Ombudsman is elected for a term of six years by the National Assembly at the proposal of the President of the Republic with a two-thirds majority vote of all deputies. At the end of this term, the Ombudsman may be re-elected for another. This exceptionally demanding method of election contributes to the greater authority of, and broader political support for, the Ombudsman. Only a citizen of the Republic of Slovenia may be elected Ombudsman. During the candidacy, the provisions of the Constitutional Court Act which govern candidacies of constitutional court judges apply by analogy. The function of the Ombudsman is incompatible with functions in state and local authorities, bodies of political parties and trade unions or other functions and activities which, according to the law, are not compatible with implementation of a public function. A function which is not compatible with the function of the Ombudsman ceases when the Ombudsman takes office or is suspended if so determined by the law. If the Ombudsman fails to suspend a gainful activity which is incompatible with the Ombudsman’s function by law, the latter function is terminated within 30 days from the day the relevant committee of the National Assembly establishes incompatibility. The Ombudsman cannot be held liable for opinions or proposals stated during the implementation of his or her function, and also cannot be detained during a criminal procedure initiated against him or her regarding the implementation of his or her function without the consent of the National Assembly. Early dismissal of the Ombudsman is subject to the Ombudsman’s own request, or if the Ombudsman is convicted of a criminal offence subject to a custodial sentence with imprisonment or due to the permanent loss of the capacity to perform his or her function. The procedure for dismissing the Ombudsman commences at the proposal of one third of deputies. The National Assembly dismisses the Ombudsman if two thirds of the attending deputies vote for his or her dismissal. The Ombudsman has a minimum of two and a maximum of four deputies. At the proposal of the Ombudsman, deputies are appointed by the National Assembly. In the case of absence, death, termination of the term, permanent or temporary loss of capacity to perform his or her function, the Ombudsman is replaced by his or her deputies, i.e. according to the order of replacement determined by the Ombudsman. In 2015, the Deputy Ombudsmen were: Jernej Rovšek (responsible for constitutional rights, discrimination and intolerance, personal data protection, citizenship, aliens, remedy of injustices, international cooperation), Tone Dolčič (responsible for protection of children’s rights, social security, social activities, Advocate – A Child’s Voice Project), Ivan Šelih (responsible for limitations of personal freedom, judicial proceedings, National Preventive Mechanism) and mag. Kornelija Marzel (responsible for labour law matters, administrative matters, the environment and spatial planning, public utility services and housing issues). After working at the Ombudsman’s office for 21 years, Deputy Jernej Rovšek retired on 1 March 2016. Since he decided to retire before the termination of the 6-year term, the Ombudsman began to look for a new deputy. She decided not to look for new candidates, because she assessed that a suitable candidate for this function was among the present staff, i.e. Miha Horvat. The Ombudsman’s proposal for his appointment was submitted to the National Assembly at the time of writing this report. 168 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 3.1.4 Legal bases for the Ombudsman’s work The fundamental legal acts for the Ombudsman’s work are the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Article 159) and the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP). Another legal basis for the Ombudsman’s work is the Act Ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Optional Protocol) that entered into force on 1 January 2007. The Act stipulates that the Ombudsman shall also carry out the tasks of the National Preventive Mechanism against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (NPM). The Ombudsman carries out these tasks in cooperation with non-governmental organisations selected on the basis of a tender. In 2015, the Ombudsman implemented the NPM tasks in cooperation with the following non-governmental organisations: SKUP – Community of Private Institutes, Humanitarno društvo Pravo za vse, Novi paradoks, the Association for Developing Voluntary Work Novo mesto, the Peace Institute, the Slovenian Federation of Pensioners’ Associations, Caritas Slovenia, and Legal-Informational Centre for NGOs – PIC. Since selected NGOs cannot provide certain other suitable experts and because the Ombudsman does not dispose of an expert in the field of medical care, certain outside experts had to be engaged. In its role as the NPM, the Ombudsman also engages certain external experts who have the broadest range of recommended special knowledge and skills. The legal framework for the Ombudsman’s work is also provided by other acts, e.g. the Constitutional Court Act. The Ombudsman as defined in the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia and the ZVarCP has no direct powers in relation to the courts. The Ombudsman may examine only cases regarding unduly delays in proceedings or abuses of power. The only exceptions are the Ombudsman’s competences in relation to the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, which are stipulated by the Constitutional Court Act (ZUstS), not the ZVarCP. Article 23a of the ZUstS also includes the Human Rights Ombudsman among proposers who may initiate a procedure for the review of the constitutionality or legality of regulations or general acts issued for the exercise of public authority if it is deemed that a regulation or general act issued for the exercise of public authority unacceptably interferes with human rights or fundamental freedoms. Prior to the introduction of amendments to the ZUstS, which entered into force on 15 July 2007, the Ombudsman was able to file a request for a review of the constitutionality or legality of regulations only with regard to the individual case it was discussing. In practice, the Constitutional Court occasionally insisted that a case examined by the Ombudsman had to be directly related to the challenged regulation. Therefore, such a regulation constituted in practice a restriction of access to a constitutional review of regulations. This obligation was abolished with the introduction of amendments to the ZUstS in 2007. The Ombudsman may initiate a procedure with a request if it is believed that a regulation or general act unacceptably interferes with human rights or fundamental freedoms. This greatly expanded the Ombudsman’s ability to file requests, especially by taking into account the provisions of the ZVarCP that enable the Ombudsman to consider cases at its own initiative and wider issues relevant to the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and legal security of citizens. The amendment is also relevant in view of amendments to the whole of ZUstS, which significantly restricted access to the Constitutional Court for complainants. Limiting public interest in filing requests for a review of the constitutionality of regulations particularly limited options for individuals. On the basis of Article 23a, three requests were filed in 2015, i.e.: • a request for a review of the constitutionality of paragraph five of Article 10, point 4 of paragraph one of Article 12 and paragraph one of Article 14 of the Exercise of Rights from Public Funds Act and the constitutionality and legality of paragraph two of Article 7 of the Rules determining savings amounts and property values and on the value of the provision for basic needs with reference to procedures to exercise rights to public funds with a proposal for suspension filed on 20 May 2015; • a request for a review of the constitutionality of paragraph four of Article 27, paragraphs one and two of Article 38 and paragraphs one and two of Article 391 of the Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, [Uradni list RS], No. 96/2012 of 14 December 2012 and No. 39/2013 of 6 May 2013; hereinafter: ZPIZ-2) filed on 20 May 2015, and • a request for the review of constitutionality of Article 25 of the Act Regulating Measures Aimed at Fiscal Balance of Municipalities in connection with Article 8 of the Exercise of Rights to Public Funds Act with a proposal for the suspension of execution of the challenged legal provision and a proposal for absolute priority discussion. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 169 3 INFORMATION ABOUT THE OMBUDSMAN’S WORK and fundamental freedoms stated in the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, but may also act in cases of violations of any human right by power holders. In its work, the Ombudsman complies with the provisions of the Constitution and international legal acts on human rights and fundamental freedoms. When intervening, the Ombudsman must invoke the principles of fairness and good administration. Thus the Ombudsman also supervises good administration.