The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (the Ombudsman) identified a violation of the principle of good governance in the conduct of the Directorate of Infrastructure of the Republic of Slovenia (DRSI), as it did not respond to the complainant's letters dated 5 October 2021, 21 April 2022, and 23 June 2022 until the Ombudsman intervened. In the assessment procedure, the Ombudsman asked additional questions, which he addressed in further consideration in several inquiries both with the DRSI as well as with the Municipality of Celje (MOC), the Infrastructure Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (IRSI), and the Ministry of Infrastructure (MZI). He could not be completely satisfied with the explanations received, especially from the DRSI and MZI, as they did not comprehensively explain the highlighted dilemmas, but nevertheless it could not be overlooked that the IRSI, based on the letter received by the DRSI, introduced four inspection procedures, within the framework of which the irregularities found on the state road were eliminated, and the speedometer and digital speed display in the form of a traffic sign with the inscription "VI VOZITE" were also re-installed. The Ombudsman did not identify a need for further intervention, at least based on the above, but based on the findings of this complaint, he will pay extra attention to the behaviour of the competent authorities in the future.

***

The Ombudsman dealt with the complaint of a resident of Škofja vas, a settlement in the MOC, regarding endangered road traffic safety due to frequent speed limit violations and threats to the environment and the health of local residents due to increased emissions and noise on the state road that passes through the settlements of Škofja vas and Arclin. The complainant informed the Ombudsman that, given the fact that it is a national road, he contacted the competent the DRSI with several letters, but it did not respond to his messages, and nothing was done in the time that had passed in the interim which would indicate that the situation had been resolved.

Regarding the complainant's allegations, the Ombudsman initially contacted the DRSI with an inquiry, and in response he received a letter addressed to the complainant and a letter addressed to the MOC. From the documentation received, if we summarise it, it was possible to understand the DRSI's attempts to get the MOC to deal with the traffic problem on the mentioned state road from the point of view of arranging the vegetation, and "replacing" the meter and the digital speed display in the form of a traffic sign with the inscription "VI VOZITE"; other issues related to this issue were also raised. After examining all the documentation received, the Ombudsman first concluded that the letter, which the DRSI addressed to the complainant only after the Ombudsman's intervention, was also its only response to the complainant's messages, therefore he considered his complaint to be justified in the part of the accusation of the DRSI's unresponsiveness and found the DRSI to have violated the principle of good management. He expressed the expectation that the DRSI will in the future ensure adequate response to all letters received.

In the subsequent assessment procedure, the Ombudsman asked additional questions, which he addressed in additional inquiries addressed to the aforementioned authorities. In particular, the direct legal basis that was supposed to dictate the MOC's authority to install a meter and a digital speed display in the form of a traffic sign with the inscription "VI VOZITE" on national roads was questionable. According to Article 85 of the Roads Act (ZCes-2), the traffic regulation or a change to it on the national road or on part of it is ordered by an internal act by the operator of the national road, i.e. the DRSI. Furthermore, the question of why, in accordance with Paragraph 1 of Article 80 of ZCes-2, if a road connection to a main or regional road no longer meets the required traffic and safety conditions due to an increased volume of traffic or a changed type of traffic on this connection, or if it is not sufficiently maintained, the directorate independently, or at the proposal of the competent road inspection authority, orders its traffic-technical adaptation to the changed conditions by decision. The costs of the reconstruction of the road connection are covered by the owner or the holder of the right to use the road connection, or by its legal successor, or if it is a connection between a municipal road and a state road by the municipality, and given that it had already carried out a certain part of the ascertainment procedure (survey of the terrain) itself, it did not also order the traffic-technical adaptation of the disputed connections by a decision. The Ombudsman assessed that the demarcation of jurisdiction between the IRSI and the DRSI is not entirely unequivocally clear in view of the relevant legal provisions. Furthermore, other issues related to the entire process of determining the need to regulate traffic safety on national roads also proved to be unresolved.

The Ombudsman could not be completely satisfied with the explanations received, especially from the DRSI and MZI, as they did not comprehensively explain the dilemmas exposed, but nevertheless it could not be overlooked that the IRSI, based on the letter received by the DRSI, introduced four inspection procedures, within the framework of which the irregularities found on the state road were eliminated, and the speedometer and digital speed display in the form of a traffic sign with the inscription "VI VOZITE” were also re-installed. Given the fact that the competent authorities have finally responded to the issue in question, the Ombudsman has assessed that there is no longer a need for further intervention, but he will also pay special attention to related issues that are still open, which could prove to be problematic elsewhere in the future. 18.4-3/2022