The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) believes that the approach of the Municipality of Medvode (the Municipality) in resolving the issue of traffic safety on the road section leading through the settlement of Seničica was not in line with the principle of good governance. Namely, the Municipality needed almost eight years to at least partially address the problem for now. The Ombudsman recommended that the Municipality carry out all necessary activities to ensure safety on the road section. However, since only the construction of a sidewalk has proven to be a long-term solution given the actual situation, the Ombudsman recommended that the Municipality take a leading and proactive role and, in the event of unsuccessful negotiations with property owners, also consider adopting a decision on the determination of public benefit and the initiation of the envisaged procedures under the relevant provisions of the Spatial Planning Act (ZUrep-3). The Municipality accepted the Ombudsman's opinion and recommendation, but only partially implemented it. So far, it has only managed to install one speed barrier, and announced that it would install a stationary radar within two months. The issue of constructing the pavement still depends on the continued cooperation of the relevant property owners required for its construction, and the Municipality's activities in the event of the commencement of expropriation procedures, if necessary.

***

The Ombudsman was contacted by the residents of the village of Seničica regarding a dangerous section of the municipal road that runs through the village. According to the complainants, the road is busy and dangerous, and the Municipality has reportedly ignored their long-standing requests. Several children and elderly persons also live on the road, and a school route also runs along a section. According to their own statements, the residents avoid the section due to constant exceeding of the maximum permitted speed of 40 km/h. The complainants did achieve the installation of a speedometer years ago, with the measurement results being worrying. According to the complainants, the Municipality has been aware of the situation for many years, but in their opinion has not taken any action to ensure adequate traffic safety on the disputed section. The Ombudsman was informed of the extensive documentation.

The Ombudsman contacted both the Municipality and the Public Agency of the Republic of Slovenia for Traffic Safety (AVP) for additional explanations. The latter had already called on the Municipality to take action in 2020. Throughout the proceedings, the Ombudsman also monitored the relatively active correspondence between the locals and the Municipality.

The responses received from the AVP and the Municipality largely confirmed the complaints of the locals. The Municipality admitted that it had been aware of the problem since 2017. In the meantime, several meetings with the locals were held. For example, the Municipality hired a licensed road safety assessor after the AVP's first call in 2020, with the project only being prepared in December 2022. After the meeting with the locals, it was agreed at the beginning of 2023 that a working group established by the local community should try to obtain the consent of the owners of the affected land, which was unsuccessful. As a result, a proposal was made to build two speed bumps, for which the Municipality ordered an assessment. Judging by the results of the assessment, due to the configuration of the roadway, only one bump could be installed outside the immediate vicinity of residential buildings. A proposal for the installation of a stationary radar was subsequently submitted at the end of 2023, but the purchase was not carried out due to the high cost. However, activities in this regard began last year, but according to the latest information available to the Ombudsman, the radar has still not been installed, and there has been no significant progress in the construction of the pavement.

After examining all the documentation received, the Ombudsman assessed that the Municipality did not approach the issue of the danger of the disputed road section in an effective manner. It has known about the issue for eight years, and until recently there had been no real progress on the ground. An insightful demonstration of its indecision could be found, for example, in its response from 2021 to the AVP's clear call for action from December 2020. The Municipality interpreted the AVP's findings in a very strange way, with which it unequivocally pointed out the danger of the road section in question and communicated the expectation that the issue would be addressed. Contrary to reasonable expectations, the Municipality even relativised the fact of whether the road section was dangerous at all. Otherwise, it a priori rejected the possible impression that it did not want to take action, and subsequently tried to shift the focus of responsibility primarily to road users, which should be understood as an attempt to deflect from its own responsibilities.

The Ombudsman, however, could not accept the reasons given by the Municipality, which allegedly caused its inability to build the pavement so far. In any case, the approach that the affected residents first try to gather the consent of the owners of the properties on which the construction is planned, seems convenient at first glance. However, in the event of an unsuccessful attempt, the Municipality, as the manager of the local road, is expected to take the lead and, in the event of an unambiguously established public interest in building the sidewalk, to gradually, but within a reasonable time, intensify its activities. Since it did not do this, its approach could not be qualified as consistent with the principle of good administration, which also called into question the right of the residents of Seničica to safety, despite the primary duty of the Municipality to provide for it within the framework of its own competences.

The Ombudsman therefore addressed its opinion and recommendation to the Municipality on the basis of Article 7 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP), which the Municipality accepted but only partially implemented. Namely, the Municipality managed to install only one speed bump in the meantime, and announced the installation of a radar within two months. Regarding the construction of the pavement, it reportedly encountered poorer responsiveness from the (co)owners of the relevant real estate needed for the construction, but announced that if further efforts in this direction were unsuccessful, it would follow the Ombudsman's recommendation also in the part of adopting a decision on the determination of public benefit and initiating procedures under the ZURep-3. The Ombudsman considers its intervention to be successful for now, and the complaint to be justified. It concludes by emphasising, as was also communicated to the Municipality, that the Municipality's claimed priority approach in establishing adequate traffic safety must be visible in the implementation of solutions within a reasonable time. Guiding one's own actions according to the majority opinion is not in itself controversial, but in the conflict between the rights to co-decision on local matters and the right to safety, especially in the case where a dangerous situation has been objectively demonstrated for many years, it is completely evident and common sense which aspect should be given priority in weighing both aspects, i.e. the safety of the locals. This certainly does not mean that an individual local community can completely ignore the democratic mechanisms for expressing opinions on the envisaged solutions, but rather that it is expected to provide appropriate solutions in cooperation with the residents, and above all within a reasonable time, that will ensure a satisfactory level of safety for all traffic participants and at the same time will not excessively interfere with the rights of other residents who may disagree with the envisaged solutions. The Municipality's task is to find consensus among all stakeholders, and therefore it must invest the majority of its efforts in achieving it in order to prevent lengthy expropriation procedures with an uncertain outcome. The latter could, regardless of the justification, simply postpone the construction of the sidewalk into the indefinite future. 18.4-4/2023, 18.4-13/2024