Court experts Certain complaints discussed in this field again referred to dissatisfaction with the work of court experts. There were fewer complaints about the exceeded time limit for drafting expert opinions and more about the content of opinions. Although in these cases dissatisfaction (may) be mainly connected with an unfavourable ruling in judicial proceedings, and thus claims about the unprofessionalism and even corruptibility of the expert, we still believed in the 2014 report that a review of the efficiency of procedures would have to be made which ensures the highest possible degree of professionalism of experts and also prompt and effective discussion of individuals’ complaints about the (un)professionalism of experts. We also recommended the adoption of additional measures to establish and ensure the professionalism of experts, and to improve the situation in this field (recommendation no. 46). In 2015, we discussed again (also with representatives of the Ministry of Justice) the issue of the discussion of children by court experts. In one of the cases discussed, we contacted the court, since the assessment of professionalism and conduct of the court expert in a specific court procedure also depended on the judge. We emphasise that experts are obliged to treat children correctly in their work and must ensure in particular that children are not additionally exposed to repeated victimisation, or to traumatisation if this is not necessary. Requiring minor victims of sexual abuse to repeat their statements in the presence of perpetrators for the needs of drafting expert opinions is a questionable practice in our view. We also believe that so-called safe rooms would have to be used more frequently in practice for the needs of experts, which would have to be regulated by law. Furthermore, guidelines on discussing children in cases of sexual abuse, including suitable education of experts and supervision of their work, would also have to be defined. 2.4 JUSTICE Information from the Ministry of Justice that the latest amendments to the ZS (ZS-L), which determine a lesser scope of cases in which the Ministry is obliged to assess conscientious work of experts, will enable a more thorough and in-depth examination of the relevant cases discussed. Enforcement proceedings Two recommendations in the 2014 report also referred to enforcement proceedings. The Ombudsman thus recommended that the Ministry of Justice adopt the required measures to solve the problem of the enforcement of income due for previous months which were transferred in the current month (recommendation no. 43). We are pleased to note that this recommendation was realised with amendments to the ZIZ-K, i.e. by amending Article 137 of the ZIZ. As per the recommendation for a more detailed definition of the calculation of costs for the direct performance of enforcement or insurance by payment service providers (recommendation no. 45), the amendments to the ZIZ did not bring about direct progress, but they regulated the compensation settlement of an enforcement agent in the new Article 102, which we believe to be a significant contribution to regulating this issue. Complaints referring to enforcement proceedings in 2015 included the complaints of both creditors (e.g. ineffective or lengthy enforcements) and debtors (e.g. disagreement with the claim; inability to settle a claim; debtors’ distress if their home is the subject of enforcement; conduct of enforcement agents, etc.). 70 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 We find that many enforcement cases are still subject to lengthy (judicial) proceedings. Recovery of maintenance from a debtor in Switzerland We do not encounter creditors’ complaints claiming that they are unable to recover maintenance only occasionally. When discussing one such complaint, we learned of the problems of a creditor who, for some time, had been attempting to recover maintenance from her father, who had moved to Switzerland. Regarding the alleged complications, we contacted the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities (MDDSZ) also to obtain information on whether this was the only case on their records involving such problems regarding the relevant authority in Switzerland when recovering maintenance claims on the basis of the Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance. After reviewing all cases of maintenance recovery from Switzerland, the MDDSZ replied “that procedures vary, but the response times of Swiss authorities are very lengthy in all cases”. In connection with the case in question, we proposed that the MDDSZ verify if further action relating to the circumstances was necessary. The Republic of Slovenia could use Article 16 of the Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance, whereby, in the case of a dispute arising between Contracting States with regard to the interpretation or application of this Convention, and if the dispute cannot be resolved in any other way, the dispute is to be submitted to an international court. It was understood from the MDDSZ’s recent reply that it had failed to act on our proposal, which, nevertheless, affected the resolution of the matter, since the Ministry also ensured that it would “again contact the creditor and continue the recovery process on the basis of the Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance and in accordance with information from the Swiss intermediary body about which documents are required to reactivate the recovery of maintenance”. At the end of the year, we asked the complainant to inform us on possible further developments; however, we have not heard from her again. Free legal aid In the 2014 report, the Ombudsman promoted all measures that enhance the efficiency of free legal aid and contribute to improving the accessibility of such aid (recommendation no. 45). Nevertheless, no special progress was detected in this field regarding the content of the complaints discussed. We have also not noticed (yet) the effects of the extensive amendments to the Legal Aid Act (ZBPP-C), which entered into force in 2015. We find that free legal aid fulfils many needs, whereas the accessibility and awareness of complainants of the possibility provided by the state to persons in social distress to enforce their right to judicial protection are still (too) low. It is encouraging to see that these gaps are still being filled by various non-governmental and humanitarian organisations, municipalities and attorneys. When considering individual complaints, the Ombudsman continued to observe that individuals are frequently not familiar with the rights to which they are entitled or with all the legally important circumstances which may affect the purpose and objective of a certain procedure or which may even nullify it. In its 2011 annual report (p. 122), the Ombudsman highlighted that this function by the state and competent institutions, perhaps also of non-governmental organisations, is needed in order to raise awareness of individuals (on the possible consequences of failing to meet their obligations, and also help and advise in concrete cases when people are in trouble, but do not know how to start solving their problems) on their rights, and how they may be asserted and protected, including their duties (e.g. when assuming certain liabilities). Free legal aid is organised and available at the national level under conditions determined by the ZBPP. Locally (as mentioned above), aid is also provided by certain Slovenian municipalities on their own accord and initiative. Practice reveals that such aid is usually applied when individuals are (already) dealing with a concrete (administrative, judicial) procedure instigated against them, and not sooner, or when they assume certain liabilities or wish to enforce rights to which they are entitled regarding certain regulations. ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 71 2.4 JUSTICE Since the complainant and his attorney had already drafted an appeal in which they also stressed that the court of first instance had overlooked the Ombudsman’s opinion (the attorney also attached the opinion to the appeal), we assessed that there was no need for the Ombudsman to also contact Ljubljana Higher Court and repeat what was already known to the court. We were pleased to discover that the appellate court finally (decision ref. no. I Kp 4371/2015 of 13 April 2015) granted the appeals of the complainant and his attorney, set aside the contested decision and returned the case to the court of first instance for reconsideration, whereby it stated in the grounds of the decision inter alia that the complainant and his attorney had claimed with justification that the court of first instance had failed to provide its position with regard to the documentation provided in the Ombudsman’s letter, and had practically observed all our observations pertaining thereto (relating to the preamble of the Framework Decision, queries on the basis of paragraph three of Article 23 of the ZSKZDČEU-1 etc.).