62 and ask Parliament to inquire into the matter. If the impropriety is of flagrant gravity or affects a larger group of natural persons, I may propose that Parliament debate the matter before the annual report is put on its agenda. Parliament shall decide on whether to put the matter on the agenda. The inspected authorities and/or their supervisory organs responded on the substance of the recommendations made in my reports prepared in 2017, and the NPM’s visits did not find any violation of the law that would have prompted me to turn to the Parliament. The authorities’ response to the major measures by the NPM189 9.1. Visit to the Cseppkő Children’s Home My colleagues authorized to perform tasks related to the NPM made preventive visits to the Cseppkő Children’s Home (hereinafter the “children’s home”) on March 1-2 and April 26, 2016. I sent out the report on the visits, containing 17 recommendations, to the director of the children’s home and all those concerned on October 6, 2016.190 My Office put on file the director’s letter responding to the report’s conclusions and describing the implementation of the measures recommended by me on November 15, 2016.191 In my letter dated December 13, 2016, I acknowledged the report on the measures taken by the director; however, I reiterated a number of my earlier recommendations, e.g., on preventing unjustified absence from school, on the participation of the children’s home’s psychologists in preparing individual plans for education and care, as well as on involving the guardians and, if feasible, the parents of as many children as possible in the planning process.192 In his letter dated January 5, 2017, the director claimed that the report’s conclusions indicated by him are damaging to the children’s home’s reputation, and asked me to remove them from the report. 193 On January 30, 2017, I informed the director that it was not in my power to remove any conclusions from the report.194 In my response, I tried to elaborate on some conclusion clearly misinterpreted by him and called his attention to the fact that the visits by the NPM were not aimed at destroying the reputation of the children’s home. The recommendations made in my report served the protection of the best interest of children living in the fireworks of the child protection services, including those in the children’s home. In his letter dated November 30, 2017, the director requested me to make available to him all documents (notes, minutes of the interviews, etc.) generated during the visits to the children’s home. With a view to the prohibition of sanctions, stipulated in Article 21 of the OPCAT, I refused to comply with his request.195 Upon receiving my refusal, the director of the children’s home brought a lawsuit claiming that certain conclusions of the report on the visits to the children’s home were defaming. In his statement of claim, he requested the Court to establish that the NPM, “in its report published on November 14, 2016, claiming that children lived in overcrowded conditions in the children’s home operated by the petitioner, where incidents of drug use, child prostitution, child abuse by the educators happen, and physical, psychological, and sexual abuse is rampant, had violated the petitioner’s right to reputation.” He also requested the Court to order my Office, in addition to removing the contested conclusions, to pay three million Forints in tort damages and 1.3 million Forints for material damage, as well as their incidentals, and to publicly apologize. Responses put on file between January 1 and December 31, 2017. Report № AJB-1603/2016 191 File № AJB-1603-59/2016 192 File № AJB-1603-66/2016 193 File № AJB-662-1/2017 194 File № AJB-662-2/2017 195 See also Section 27(3) of the Ombudsman Act 189 190