100 10. Dialogue on the measures taken by the NPM The Court of First Instance rejected the claim. In the explanatory part of the ruling, the Court pointed out that the NPM’s report is not subject to appeal. Should the party concerned disagree with its contents, they may explain their position in a form provided for by the Ombudsman Act. In the Court’s opinion, “the fact that the NPM’s proceedings have led to conclusions unfavourable for the petitioner, does not entitle the petitioner to demand a new report favourable for him or to ask the Court to establish the unlawfulness of the unfavourable conclusions”.197 The children’s home lodged an appeal against the first instance decision. In its ruling, the second instance court pointed out that the children’s home basically filed its claim on the basis of the press releases on the NPM’s report. In the opinion of the National Judicial Council, the NPM holds no responsibility for any communication appearing in the press, which is not accurate enough and is not fully aware of the NPM’s responsibilities. The second instance court approved the ruling of the court of first instance, which rejected the claim of the children’s home by stating that personality rights “can be enforced against anyone due to their absolute structure, even if they were violated in the framework of a procedure that otherwise excludes legal remedy”. “The provisions ensuring the independence and impartiality of the proceedings conducted by the NPM do not create an obstacle to his obligation to do his best in the case of the violation of personality rights.” 198 10.2. Inter-professional working group for overviewing the systemic problems of compulsory treatment The FPMI, i.e. the Forensic Psychiatric and Mental Institution is a specific healthcare institution combining, in a unique way, classical psychiatric care with the tasks of the penitentiary system. The experience of the visit to FPMI between February 16 and 18, 2016199 shows that the conditions necessary for terminating compulsory treatment, i.e., a protective environment, are guaranteed to an ever-decreasing extent. Due to the small number of social care institutions, and in the absence of receiving families, both the issue of adaptive leaves for patients under compulsory treatment and the release of those who did not need such treatment any more became unsolved. I requested the Minister of Justice to consider, 197 198 199 Ruling No 71.P.22.475/2017/17 of the Metropolitan Court of Budapest, dated March 6, 2018, was put on file in my Office under No AJB-2354-17/2019. Ruling No 32.Pf.20.505/2018/7-II of the Budapest Court of Appeal, dated June 13, 2018, was put on file in my Office under No AJB-2354-22/2019. Report No AJB-766/2017.