We have been drawing the attention to this issue for years; in the past few years the problems in this field have grown worse. The Minister of Infrastructure was personally informed about this issue at the meeting held with the Ombudsman at the end of 2014. We also informed the Minister of our opinion, i.e. that the Ministry of Infrastructure should take a more active supervisory role of measures taken by municipalities and prepare a strategy to resolve issues at the national level. The Minister has made a commitment to order municipalities in written form to actively approach the resolution of this issue and unconstitutionality issues and to study the possibilities of establishing control mechanisms. 2.6.6 Inspection procedures Several complaints referred to the work of inspection services. Insufficient staff frequently causes long procedures, thus limiting the execution of the rights of complainants. Similar complaints sent to the Ombudsman are considered as justified from the aspect of violating the principle of good management and decision making in a reasonable time. The Government should provide all inspection services with appropriate conditions for work and their staff should be increased by transferring other public employees. 2.6.7 Legal property matters We considered 38 complaints in this area in 2015. Many of them referred to land disputes with municipalities and involved civil disputes between municipalities and their residents. We found that municipalities often act in an authoritarian, domineering and patronising manner in these cases. They are not prepared to resolve problems and disputes or make possible settlements. Residents are often referred to the courts for dispute resolution, however, municipalities keep forgetting that they are ‘litigating’ at the taxpayers’ expense, while individuals have to cover their own judicial costs. 2.6.8 Aliens and citizenship Citizenship The number of complaints in this area in 2015 was somewhat higher than in 2014, but still relatively small (eight complaints). Complainants mostly asked how to acquire Slovenian citizenship for themselves or their family members, about individual conditions, which are the competent decision-making authorities etc. We also considered some complaints with regard to ‘erasure’. prohibition of removal, deadlines for making decisions, decision of the first level competent authority, withdrawal of the application, obviously unjustified application, the concept of a safe third country, the criteria for determining a safe third country, procedures in the event of repeated application, judicial protection and detention of applicants). The Ministry of the Interior sent us an answer in which they responded only to those of our comments which were not considered (interpreting and translating, counsellors for refugees, specification of the age of an unaccompanied minor, deadlines for making decisions, the concept of a safe third country, procedures in the event of repeated application, judicial protection and detention of applicants). According to information received by the Ombudsman from NGOs, the draft act was modified several times and the Ministry of the Interior no longer notified the Ombudsman on the matter. During the preparation of this Report, the proposed act was still in the legislative procedure. (0.1-10/2015) The Ombudsman did not submit a request to initiate a review of the constitutionality of the act on compensation for damage to erased persons The Ombudsman received a complaint or a petition of the Association of the Erased Persons in Slovenia – Society for Human Rights (DIPS) to submit a request to initiate a review of the constitutionality of the Act Regulating the Compensation for Damage Sustained as a Result of Erasure from the Register of Permanent Residents (ZPŠOIRSP) and, if possible, also of the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens of Former Yugoslavia Living in the Republic of Slovenia (ZUSDDD). The legal representative of the DIPS requested the Ombudsman to make a fast submission of at least the first request, since people have been waiting almost a year, and 23 years after the illegal erasure, for the decision of the Committee of the Ministers of the Council of Europe on whether the ZPŠOIRSP will be recognised under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as an appropriate response from Slovenia to the judgement of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights. Regarding this complaint, the Ombudsman sent a letter of support to the Peace Institute, i.e. asking the Institute to submit a request to initiate a review of the constitutionality of both acts that refer to erased persons (ZUSDDD and ZPŠOIRSP). The Peace Institute supports the DIPS opinion that both acts address the problem of legal statuses and indemnifications insufficiently and unconstitutionally, and therefore, the Ombudsman’s request would significantly contribute to harmonising the regulations with the constitution. In the letter, the Peace Institute did not take a position with regard to concrete solutions in acts that are supposedly unconstitutional. Regarding consideration of this complaint, the Ombudsman obtained additional material connected with the consideration of requests for a review of the constitutionality of the ZUSDDD and the ZPŠOIRSP with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. At our request, the Ministry of the Interior sent us the opinion of the Government of the Republic of Slovenia to the DIPS request for a review of the constitutionality of the ZUSDDD and the ZPŠOIRSP, both opinions as of 14 April 2014. We also received the opinion of the Legislative and Legal Service of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia to the request of the DIPS for a review of the constitutionality of the ZUSDDD of 7 May 2014 and the proposed amendments to the proposed ZPŠOIRSP (EPA 1345-VI), whereby individual solutions proposed by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia were explained. The Ombudsman invited the Peace Institute to attend a meeting, since the Institute wrote a letter of support for the submission of the request, and representatives of the Ministry of the Interior, who additionally explained individual solutions that were proposed in both acts, especially the ZPŠOIRSP, and who replied to the questions of all representatives who attended the meeting. The Ministry of the Interior sent the Ombudsman proposed new International Protection Act and requested an opinion and comments. The Ombudsman replied and focused mainly on the proposed solutions in the proposed new act, which we were able to estimate could greatly impact the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as legal security in the Republic of Slovenia (interpreting and translating, counsellors for refugees, principle of the higher interests of the child, specification of the age of an unaccompanied minor, At several meetings, the Ombudsman studied the available material in relation to the consideration of the complaint, including both decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia as of 8 January 2015 (U-I-22/14-17 and U-I-48/13-17), which were issued to deny or dismiss the request of the DIPS for a review of the constitutionality of the ZPŠOIRSP or the ZUSDDD and the ZUSDDD-B. With regard to the criticism of the complainant, who claimed that there was an unconstitutional legal gap with regard to the issue of how to ensure the recognition of unconstitutionality of erasure for those erased persons who did not remain in the Republic of Slovenia and do not have the wish or real chance to return, the court stated that “by adopting the ZUSDDD-B, the legislator responded constitutionally to an unconstitutional situation as established in the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia Decision no. U-I-246/02. Moral satisfaction as a special 92 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 Consideration of the proposal of the new International Protection Act ANNUAL REPORT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OMBUDSMAN OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA FOR 2015 93 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS 2.6 ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS The fourth set refers to the exercise of rights, or individuals affected by irregularities caused by municipalities with respect to road categorisation. Individual owners do not have an effective legal remedy against such measures of municipalities. The constitutional court also denies them legal protection, since such matters are usually outdated, or the limitation period for them has passed (the limitation period is one year from the date when the municipal regulation is enforced).