OSCE/ODIHR Opinion on the Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the Seimas Ombudsmen 41. Generally, the mandate of an Ombudsman should only be terminated in cases where he/she is permanently incapacitated. It is appropriate to have permanent incapacity determined by an independent medical council, to ensure a neutral and nonpoliticized process. Based on the findings of such a medical council, the Seimas should then terminate the Ombudsman’s mandate by qualified majority vote. 42. Under Article 9 par 1 (6), the term of office of an Ombudsman also ends in case of a no-confidence vote by over half of the members of the Seimas. Presumably, the noconfidence vote pertains to the Ombudsman’s alleged inability or failure to perform his/her functions properly. In order to ensure that this no-confidence vote is supported by a clear majority in the Seimas, it is recommended to have this decided by a qualified majority, ideally a two-thirds majority, same as the appointment/election of the Ombudsman (see par 37 supra). In such instances, the qualified majority is even more essential, to prevent abuse and undue political influence. The Ombudsman should also have the right to defend him/herself before the Seimas prior to a decision on removal from office. 43. Article 9 par 2 states that in case of resignation of an Ombudsman, or when he/she is temporarily incapacitated, the decision concerning the end of his/her mandate shall be taken by the Seimas upon recommendation of the Speaker of the Seimas. Also in case an Ombudsman is no longer able to exercise his/her mandate due to a criminal conviction, or due to a no-confidence vote, the formal end of his/her term of office should be decided by decision of the Seimas. As stated above, this decision should be taken by a qualified, ideally a two-thirds majority. 44. In cases where the Ombudsman’s term of office ends, or where he/she has resigned, the Ombudsman shall continue in office until a new Ombudsman is appointed (Article 9 par 4). While this is reasonable in cases where the mandate expires after five years, an Ombudsman who has resigned cannot always, depending on the reasons for his/her resignation, be expected to stay in office until the Seimas has appointed a successor. At the same time, this provision does not indicate what will happen in other cases, namely where an Ombudsman dies, is declared permanently incapacitated, convicted of a crime, or removed by a no-confidence vote. In such cases, and in cases of resignation of an Ombudsman, the other Ombudsman should ideally take the place of the absent Ombudsman, as laid down in Article 25 par 2. In case of structural changes to the Ombudsmen and their Office (see par 18 supra), the Ombudsman’s tasks should be taken over by an appointed deputy. This should be stated expressly in Article 9. 45. Generally, in order to ensure a smooth transition from one Ombudsman to the next, it would be advisable to include in the Law a provision obliging the Seimas to initiate the process of recruiting a new Ombudsman six months prior to the end of the incumbent Ombudsman’s term of office20. 46. Article 10 describes which activities are incompatible with the duties of an Ombudsman. While these activities include other elective or appointive office in state and municipal institutions and agencies, as well as employment in private entities, 20 A similar principle can be found in Article 13 of the Bulgarian Law on the Ombudsman (promulgated by State Gazette No. 48/23.05.2003, effective 1 January 2004, as amended in 2006), based on which the election of a new Ombudsman shall take place at least two months before the expiry of the term of office of the incumbent Ombudsman. See also Article 5 par 4 of the Ombudsman Law of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (No. 07-4502/1, adopted by Parliament on 10 September 2003), according to which election procedures shall begin three months before the expiry of tenure. 14