Source: https://projustice.sk/ustavne-pravo/The-ombudsman-in-he-constitutional-system-of-the-Slovak-Republic
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:44:37+00:00

Document:
As each regime contains components that may resolve in the abuse of the power on the part of the state which may intervene with the fundamental rights of the people in our democratic system there arose a need in our society to establish such rules, that this state power would be controlled by an independent body to oversee the possible misuse of its powers at the expense of the citizens. It should be clearly stated that the post of the Ombudsman is democratically elected body that serves the citizens in bid to avoid and remove the deficiencies that were caused by the bureaucracy machinery.
It is an appropriate controlling institute "sui generis" in relation to public authorities which seeks to implement its duties in accordance not only with the legal system of the Slovak Republic, but also in accordance with ethical principles.
It is true that the institute of the Public protector of rights (hereinafter referred to as “the Public protector”) didn´t exist in the past and the Slovak Republic had to establish it as one of the main conditions for its entry into the European Union. Efforts to promote the formation of the Ombudsman office in the Slovak republic appeared already in the times of the Czechoslovakia existence. The first attempt to set up this institution of an ombudsman-type was a proposal for the establishment of the so-called public representative, whose role should have been mainly giving appeals against some decisions of the state bodies and proposing the initiation of proceedings, if it was in the public interest. Another attempt for creation was the Committee for the protection of the rights of citizens of ČSSR, which was to serve as a twelve – person agency of the Federal Assembly.
The first institutionalized ombudsman-type body, however, was the General Inspector of the Armed Forces by an adoption of the Federal Act No. 540/1990 Coll. on the General Inspector of the Armed Forces. According to the law, he was supposed to be elected by the Federal Assembly for a period of four years and its main task should have been the provision of supervision over parliament functioning in its activities with the armed forces and the implementation of military policy of the state. In addition, the General Inspector should have had the power to carry out inspections in the field of the protection and respect for human dignity and civil rights. The activity of the Inspector General, however, should have had merely an initiation character, which means that the inspector could not give instructions, for example, to the members of the armed forces, change and cancel orders and regulations.
On managing his duties he should report to the Federal Parliament, respectively to the National Representative Assembly.1 However, the real formation of the post of the General Inspector never came to realization.
Meanwhile, however, the adoption of a constitutional law No. 23/1991 Coll. took place, by which the Chart of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms was introduced, as one of the most fundamental constitutional documents of the joint Czechoslovak history. Around the same time period, the expert committee had been formed, which as the main task was set to prepare a working draft of the new Federal Constitution, where the question of the constitutional framework for the creation of the Ombudsman was opened.
The forthcoming draft of this act, however, only got to the stage of the comment procedure in the Parliament apparently due to the ongoing elections at the same time.
On the September the 1st 1992 the Constitution of the Slovak Republic was adopted, which despite initiatives of the non – government organization Slovak Helsinki Committee on the subject of establishing an Ombudsman's Office, did not establish any institute of this kind in the Slovak Republic.
In the 1993 the initiative towards the establishment of an Ombudsman into our legal system took the Slovak government. Resolution no. 882 from the 23rd November of 1993 imposed on then Minister of Justice to submit to the Government by the end of April 1994 a draft of the constitutional law focusing on the establishment of the Ombudsman.
The Government participation process in the preparation of creation of an Ombudsman-like body, probably under the influence of an early parliamentary elections, has in the autumn of 1994 failed.
After the parliamentary elections of September 1998, the new government has adopted a commitment to arrange a format for an ombudsman-type institute and this commitment has also been incorporated into its program declaration. Requirements to create the ombudsman institution also increasingly resounded on the international conferences. Mentioned may be an international conference4 where in the conclusions of the working group composed of the government representatives, prosecutors, court officials and international experts the fundamental principles of the ombudsman institution were created. These were forwarded to the members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic with a recommendation to establish an office of so called “strong” Ombudsman. This was particularly due to the aim to anchor this institution directly in the amendment o the Constitution, to elect him by three-fifths majority of all members of Parliament, further provide him with the opportunity to submit the proposals to the Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of laws and constitutional complaints, create it access to the general courts if the individual or group is not entitled to bring up proceedings and the state has no interest in acting, to give it a supervisory role including a broad access to the information and also enact its power to recommend to a public authority legislative and other changes in procedures.5 Over the years of 1999-2000 there were also created several acts on the Ombudsman, but since they had merely operational character not one of them has been officially presented, and studies don´t pay them any significant attention.
Significant year in terms of the enactment of the Ombudsman institution in the Slovak Republic was the year 2001. By an adoption of the constitutional law no. 90/2001 Coll., which amended the Act No. 460/1992 Coll.- the Slovak Constitution, on the 23rd of February an extensive amendment to the Constitution was adopted, under which the institutionalization of the Ombudsman in Slovakia after many attempts was eventually finalized. In December of that year, the Parliament of the Slovak Republic also decided upon the implementing law itself, which was later published in the Collection of laws on the December 23rd 2001 under the number 564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights.
The chosen model of the Ombudsman, however, does not quite qualify as significantly "weaker", because the real power of the Ombudsman in the Slovak republic consists mainly in its Constitutional status. With the extension of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic by an Article 151a entitled “The Public protector of rights” and with the first ever election of the Ombudsman in Slovakia, the effort of several years of both the nongovernmental organizations and the political parties has been finally completed.
As already stated above the Public protector of rights is established by the Constitution of the Slovak Republic in the Article 151a as an independent body of the Slovak Republic which, within the scope and as laid down by law, protects basic rights and freedoms of natural and legal persons in proceedings before public administration bodies and other bodies of public authority, if their conduct, decision-making, or inaction, is in conflict with the the democracy and legal order. 8 In terms of the systematics of the Constitution the Public protector is included in a separate (second) section within the eighth chapter of the Constitution. The Public protector this way operates alongside the Prosecution of the Slovak Republic. The constitutional foundation for the establishment of the Public protector created the Constitutional Act. 90/2001 Coll., which amended and supplemented the Act No. 460/1992 Coll. – The Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The constitutional regulation is further stipulated by an Act No. 564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights9, which details on election and recalling of the public protector of rights, his competence, conditions of execution of his office, manner of legal protection and enforcement of the rights of natural persons and legal persons. Along with the Act on the Public protector the Office of the Public protector of rights was also established, which is based in Bratislava and whose task is to perform the responsibilities related to professional, organizational and technical support activities of the Public protector.
Legal Act No. 564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights was until this day amended fifteen times. The first two amendments Act No. 411/2002 Coll. and No. 551/2003 Coll. were focusig on the legislation in the field of human resources of the Office of the Public protector and the status of the employees of the Office. "
In 2004 there were adopted three further amendments to the Act on the Public protector. The first one concerned the legal authorization of the protector to acquiant itself with the content of classified information (Act no. 215/2004 Coll.), the other two affected the independent management of the Office of the Protector with the funds from the state budget, as the separate chapter of the state budget which previously funded the Office and initially was linked to the chapter of the state budget through The Office of the President of the Slovak Republic was cancelled.
The sixth amendment to the Act on the Public protector of rights is in the terms of the actual performance of the Public protector the most important and the most extensive. The amendment of 2006 changed the constitutional status of the Public protector of rights (Constitutional Act No. 92/2006 Coll.) and also the Act on the Ombudsman (Act no. 122/2006 Coll.).
• communicate its perspective if the measures taken by the superior governing body or the Government of the Slovak Republic is considered inadequate directly to the National Council of the Slovak Republic or its delegated authority.
The amendment to the Act on the Public protector of rights of 2009 (Act no. 400/2009 Coll.), changed this act in the part concerning payments of the Office of Public protector, as well as modified the law about the pay scale and the catalog of activities of the state employees and other staff in the Office of the Protector.
By the amendment to the Act No. 176 / 2015 Coll., among the subjects excluded from the scope of the Protector were added the Commissioner for Children and the Commissioner for the individuals with disabilities. The most recent amendment to the Act on the Public protector No. 340/2016 concerns the adjustments to payments of some constitutional officials of the Slovak Republic.
The scope of the Public protector of rights is designed to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural and legal persons against such acts, decisions, and inaction of public authorities, which is contrary to the law or the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
It is obvious, as stated above, that the slovak Public protector is constituted as an authority for protection of the individual rights and as an object of its main interest can only be considered a violation of the fundamental rights and freedoms. In this context, the Public protector of rights initiated multiple times a demand, that the Act on the Public protector should be in this section amended, respectively expanded in the field of authority of the Public protector to all the rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities not only fundamental.
This would bring the Slovak Republic closer to the prevention of a "maladministartion"12 (bad administration). The proposed extension of the scope for the Public protector however was not realized.
The personal scope of the protector is defined in the Act13 in a positive as well as negative calculation of different entities. The first group of entities falls under the protector’s competency and includes government bodies, territorial self - administration authorities and a legal entities as well as natural persons who, under a special law are entitled to decide on the rights and obligations of other natural and legal persons in the public administration.
The second group of entities to which the scope of the Public protector's mandate is not applicable consists of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, the President of the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Government, the Commissioner for Children, the Commissioner for disabled individuals, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic, intelligence services, investigators of the Police Corps, prosecution and courts, except for the state administration of the courts. Competency of the protector also does not apply to the matters of an operational or mobilization nature.
4. The appointment to the function and assumptions of its performance.
"The Public protector of rights is elected by the National Council of the Slovak Republic for a period of five years from the candidates proposed by at least 15 members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic."14 To win15 the election a simple majority vote of the members present is required.
Conditions for an eligibility exhaustively lists the Act. 564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights, under which a candidate for this position may be only a person who has the citizenship of the Slovak Republic to the date of the elections, has reached the age of 35 years, has the full legal capacity, integrity, and her or his education, skills, experience and moral qualities provide the guarantee that the function and purpose of this authority will be implemented properly.
At the same time the person who runs for the post of the Public protector of rights may not be a member of any political party or political movement and is required to have a permanent residence in the Slovak Republic. Fulfillment of these conditions verifies the National Council of the Slovak Republic before the vote on the candidate for the Public protector. In the recent years there were several proposals to make an amendment to the Act on the Public protector to anchore legal education as a condition for eligibility of the Public protector of rights, which, however, the National Council of the Slovak Republic did not adopt yet.
"Historically, the first Public protector of rights was JUDr. Pavel Kandráč, CSC., who was elected by the National Council of the Slovak Republic on the 19th of March 2002. He took up his office by taking an oath to the Speaker of the National Council of the Slovak Republic on the 27th of March 2002. On the 30th of January 2007, the National Council of the Slovak Republic by secret ballot elected JUDr. Kandráč to the office for the second term. (2007-2012).
Recently to the post of the Public protector was elected a new representative Prof. JUDr. Mária Patakyová, PhD. by 75 votes of the members of the National Council of the Slovak Republic. Mrs. Patakyová took over the post of the Public protector of rights on the 28th of March 2017, as the the previous Public protector JUDr. Jana Dubovcová’s second term in the office expired on that same day. The leaving Public protector JUDr. Jana Dubovcová together with the Office of the Public protector of rights stated that she is prepared to co-operate with the newly elected Mrs. Patakyová in taking over the functions of the protector as well as the Office of the Public protector. JUDr. Dubovcová also mentioned that even that she is not able to pass the Office in the good financial and material condition, she is happy that she is leaving the office on a high professional level regarding staff and employees.
Incompatibility of the Public protector of rights with the performance of some, by the law exhaustively defined list of public functions, ensures the impartial and objective approach of the authority of the Public protector in the exercise of its competence. Therefore the Public protector may not simultaneously hold the office of President of the Slovak Republic, be a member of the National Council of the Slovak Republic, member of the Government of the Slovak Republic, the head or chairman of a government agency of the Slovak Republic, the President or Vice-President of the Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic, judge of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, the judge, the prosecutor, be a member of the Slovak information service, the Police Force and other armed forces. In addition to these functions incompatible with the duties of the Public protector, the law also states generally intended incompatibility with the function in the public authorities.
The Public protector is also prohibited in the addition to the performance of its duties to exercise any other paid function, profession or other enterpreneural activity.
This prohibition however does not apply to administration of its personal property or the property of its minor children, scientific, pedagogical, literary and artistic activities, provided that such action does not interfere with the proper performance of its functions and dignity or jeopardize confidence in the impartiality and independence of the authority of this institution.
The circumstances stated above, with the exception of the point e) is the Public protector obliged to report to the Speaker of the National Council of the Slovak Republic.
The law also imposes notification obligations of the Court to the Speaker of the National Council, in case the court decision by which the Public protector of rights was sentenced for a deliberate crime or was sentenced for a crime becomes effective, and the court did not decide the case on a conditional suspended execution of the imprisonment, and similarly in the case of an effective sentence of the court, by which the Public protector has been deprived of legal capacity or his legal capacity has been limited.
The function of the Public protector in the case of resignation expires at the end of the calendar month following the month in which the written notice of resignation was sent to the President of the National Council of the Slovak republic. The Public protector is however required to perform any act which can not be postponed, so that the promoter of the initiative is not harmed on its rights.
In addition to the facts listed above causing the termination of the protector´s function, the Act in accordance with Art. 151a of the Constitution states that the National Council of the Slovak Republic may dismiss the Public protector, if his state of health prevents him over the long term, for a period of at least three months, to properly discharge his duties. The Public protector is dismissed from the office on the day following the day on which he was served with the decision of the National Council of the Slovak Republic on his dismissal.
According to § 23 of Act No. 564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights: "The Public protector shall submit to the National Council of Slovak Republic each year in the first quarter an activity report outlining its findings on respecting the basic rights and freedoms of natural and legal persons by public authorities and its suggestions and recommendations for reparation of the identified violation and also to identify any possible deficiencies in the action of an administration bodies." The special report on its activities is also submitted by the Office of the Protector and for the purpose of this article we will use data stated in the reports from the years of 2015 and 2016, so that the reader can picture some information as to what kind of agenda the Public protector usually handles in one year.
As the chief of the Office is appointed and dismissed by the Public protector the Head officer. The Head officer is a statutory authority of the office and has the rights and duties of the chief of a legal entity. For his activities he is accountable to the Public protector.
The Head officer represents the Public protector in his absence and while doing so, he follows his instructions and recommendations. Currently, that function is being occupied by PhDr. Marián Török, PhD.
In the 201519 the Office worked with a total of 2928 submissions. In written form submissions to the Office approached 1,544 cases. Lawyers of the Office, of a total of 17, have settled 2,657 submissions, including 469 written guidances and 712 submissions administered at a children's ombudsman. Out of the 935 complaints in the scope of the Protector, 664 were settled and out of those the public protector of rights found over 144 violations of fundamental rights and freedoms, which constitutes a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms in about every fifth complaint. To the following year of 2016 it was transferred from the previous year around 271 submissions. Lawyers of The Office in 2015 made 9 thematic surveys, in which they examined the activities of 220 institutions. Employees of the Office have written up around 312 protocols based on the incentives given orally.
In the 201620, the number of submissions increased slightly and the Office had to work with a total of 3,045 submissions. By written submissions 1,399 participants contacted the Office, from which 719 were within the competence of the protector, i.e. 51.4% total. The lawyers of the office, a total of 17, have dealt with 2,678 submissions, including 651 written guidances, 724 submissions administered at a children's ombudsman and administerd 271 filings carried over from the previous year of 2015. Out of the 892 so called "in the scope" complaints, 591 were settled and the Public protector of rights detected a total of 97 violations of fundamental rights and freedoms. From the previous year of 2016 over 301 complaints and 66 submissions were transferred to the year 2017. Lawyers of the Office made 9 thematic surveys, in which they examined the activities of 150 institutions. Employees of the Office prepared up to 312 protocols based on the incentives given orally.
Citizens are often turning to the Office of the protector to seek help with their problems, which do not fall within the scope of the Public protector of rights. Most of these problems are from the field of civil law, such as. execution, neighborhood conflicts or disputes with the bank. As apart of these problems, citizens often ask for the legal advice. Lawyers of the office then try to guide and advise them on how the problem can be solved and they refer them to the competent authority or institution that can provide the professional assistance. In the 2015, 469 individuals were granted with such guidelines, while in the 2016 it was 651, which is an increase of 38%, as well as providing countless telephone counselling.
The office in the 2016 also searched for an unformal and understandable way to inform children about their rights and guide them on how to resolve their problems through an internet site www.detskyombudsman.sk. Exercise of rights is for children and young people harder than adults, the site therefore allows children to anonymously send their question or post their problem using an electronic form that is published on this site. The office received in the 2016, 724 submissions through this website.
Regarding the human resources of the Office in both 2015 and 2016 the agenda of this Office was provided by only 34 employees - 22 employees in the civil service (including 18 lawyers) and 12 employees working in the public interest.
The total difference therefore is 23 employees, this including only 17 lawyers, which is just 50% of the number of lawyers approved of!
Civil service employees of the Office are subject to the regime provided in the Act No. 400/2009 Coll. on the Civil service. The rights and obligations of employees performing work in the public interest are governed by the Act. No. 552/2003 Coll. on the Performance of work in the public interest and their salary requirements are regulated by Act No. 553/2003 Coll. on remuneration of certain employees performing work in the public interest.
With the effect from the 17th of August of 2010 at the Office of the Public protector operates an officer for the media policy and communication strategy of the Office, who performs mostly creative activity, i.e. forms and helps to enforce media policy and communication strategy, provides technical assistance in communicating with the public and prepares presentations on the professional activities. For its duties he is accountable to the Head of the competent department of the Office.
Departments of the office are required in dealing while its agenda to cooperate among themselves and to provide the necessary information and documents. In case of the conflict of a competence between different departments, the Head officer decides which organizational unit will be responsible for the task.
The human resources status that was identified and approved by the Public protector of rights is due to the lack of funds unfulfilled. The Public protector of rights, as probably the sole one of the constitutional bodies of the Slovak Republic, can not fully perform its duties because the Office, which is supposed to exercise them, was not given sufficient conditions.
Up until this day it was not possible to ensure the reception of the submissions and motions in regions of The Slovak Republic, where were supposed to operate eight permanent professional employees and four administrative persons. Office this way can not fulfill the organizational regulations issued by the Public protector of rights. It is questionable, whether such an approach of the competent authorities can not be seen as an attempt to influence the independence of the constitutional institution of the Public protector of rights, as the inquiry of the Public protector to increase the budget and the number of employees of the Office has the Slovak government considered as unimportant.
The aim of this thesis is to portray and analyze historical background of ombudsman’s origin, his status and role in the Slovak Republic democratic system. It examines his importance and fundamentals in terms of theoretical and legal conception.
Ombudsman institute is embedded in almost every democratic country. Ways of its inclusion in the law, however, may be different in different countries. Although before the introduction of the ombudsman institute into the legal systems there existed some ways of how to obtain the protection and conservation of human rights (in particular through the courts, through the prosecutor's office), the establishment of an ombudsman institute helped to improve and minimize the possibility of violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens in many countries. Even though some of them have ombudsmen of narrower or wider range of powers and competencies, their objective is considered uniform.
The basic features of a modern concept of an ombudsman institute are in particular political independence and impartiality, informal way of proceedings and the possibility of starting proceedings on its own initiative, lack of possibilities to cancel or alter the contested decisions of public authorities (i.e. has no discretion). That means that the ombudsman, unlike the courts, can not annul or alter the contested decision of authorities of the general government. If we pause over this thought, we could find in it both positive and negative.
Currently, there are proponents who the institute of an ombudsman do not consider as important. I tried to refute this claim because we can say that the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individuals and legal entities is never strong enough. This is because there may be situations when there is a gap in the law. It may happen that the authorities intended to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms will not have the jurisdiction to act or they will fail to perform. Here we can mention the cases where the action of authorities in some cases is in accordance with the law, yet there are issues that are unacceptable. These cases may for example be impolite or arrogant officials, or other sensitive matters and circumstances in handling affairs of individuals or legal entities.
Školiteľ: prof. doc. JUDr. Marek Šmid, PhD.
1)	PIROŠÍK, V. : The Slovak road to ombudsman. In The establishment of the ombudsman and its function in the Slovak legal system : The collection of submissions and and speeches from the Častá-Papiernička Conference, Imprint Bratislava Pezinok 2002, 1st edition, ISBN 808900508X.
2)	SLÁDEČEK, V.: Ombudsman in Czechoslovakia and czech republic. In: The administrative law, Praha: ASPI, 2009, p.73. ISBN 80-7357-060-2.
3)	The constitutional law no. 460/1992 Coll., The Constitution of the Slovak republic.
6)	The Report on activities of The Office of the Public protector of rights in 2015.
7)	The Report on activities of The Office of the Public protector of rights in 2016.
2 SLÁDEČEK, V.: Ombudsman in Czechoslovakia and Czech republic. In: The administrative law, Praha: ASPI, 2009, p.73. ISBN 80-7357-060-2.
3 PIROŠÍK, V. : The Slovak road to ombudsman. In: The establishment of the ombudsman and its function in the Slovak legal system : The collection of submissions and and speeches from the Častá-Papiernička Conference, Imprint Bratislava Pezinok 2002, 1st edition, p. 11, ISBN 808900508X.
4 The international conference - Ethics in the public administration held in Bratislava on the 27.– 28. march 2000.
5 PIROŠÍK, V. : The Slovak road to ombudsman. In: The establishment of the ombudsman and its function in the Slovak legal system : The collection of submissions and and speeches from the Častá-Papiernička Conference, , Imprint Bratislava Pezinok 2002, 1st edition, p. 12, ISBN 808900508X.
6 The seminar was held on the 28. – 29.th May of 2001 in Častá-Papiernička.
7 PIROŠÍK, V. : The Slovak road to ombudsman. In: The establishment of the ombudsman and its function in the Slovak legal system : The collection of submissions and and speeches from the Častá-Papiernička Conference, Imprint Bratislava Pezinok 2002, 1st edition, p.12, ISBN 808900508X.
8 par. 1 article 151a of the constitutional law no. 460/1992 Coll., The Constitution of the Slovak republic.
9 With the efficacy from the 1st of January 2002.
12 Maladministration occurs in cases where a public authority fails to respect the principles of a good governance and its principles in its actions, decisions or inactions.
13 the Act no. 564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights.
14 The first sentence of par. 3 article 151a of the constitutional law no. 460/1992 Coll., The Constitution of the Slovak republic.
15 The first Public protector of rights was elected on the 19th. of March 2002.
16 The first Public protector in history of Slovak Republic took an oath on the 27th of march 2002.
17 § 6 sect. 1 of the Act no.564/2001 Coll. on the Public protector of rights.
19 From the Report on activities of The Office of the Public protector of rights in 2015.
20 From the Report on activities of The Office of the Public protector of rights in 2016.
21 From the Report on activities of The Office of the Public protector of rights in 2016.

References: sui generis
 Art. 151
 § 23
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 § 6