In the specific case of the complainant, the Ministry of Justice exceeded the statutory deadline from Article 222 of the ZUP for issuing a decision in a renewed procedure and thereby violated the principle of legal security and the principle of good management and the principle of economy from Article 14 of the ZUP, which stipulates that the procedure must be conducted quickly, with the lowest possible costs and the lowest possible delay for clients and other participants in the procedure.
* * *
The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) considered a complaint regarding an allegation of lengthy decision-making by the Ministry of Justice (MP) in a renewed procedure for dismissing a court interpreter.
On the basis of Articles 6 and 28 of the Human Rights Ombudsman Act (ZVarCP) in connection with Paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the same law, the Ombudsman contacted the MP with a written inquiry and, based on the response received, concluded that the MP took more than nine months to issue a decision in the renewed the procedure after the decision to allow the renewal of the procedure was issued.
Based on the above, the Ombudsman assessed that the renewed procedure in the complainant's specific case took too long and considered the complaint to be well-founded. In relation to the lengthy process of consideration of the subject matter, the MP explained that the lengthy consideration of the matter occurred due to the complexity of the subject matter, during the consideration of which it was necessary to carefully examine demanding legal issues before making a final decision in the subject matter. The MP also explained that the length of the procedure for dealing with the case in question was also influenced by the increased scope of the authority's work in the field of court experts, court appraisers, and court interpreters due to the regular verification of their expertise (1,400 persons) and the performance of administrative and other work for the Expert Council for Judicial Expertise, Judicial Valuation and Judicial Interpretation as the highest professional coordinating body in the field of judicial expertise, judicial valuation, and judicial interpretation, whereby the transfer of tasks to other civil servants was not possible due to understaffing.
The Ombudsman cannot accept the stated position of the MP. Due to systemic reasons (the authority emphasised the increased volume of the its work and the lack of staff), the procedures may take longer for a while, but they can no longer be referred to when the time required for organisational and/or personnel adaptation of the authority has passed.
The Ombudsman also noted that he did not receive a response or an explanation from the MP regarding the reason why the decision was not issued within the statutory deadline, nor was it defined. On the basis of the collected data, the Ombudsman assessed that the MP did not respond to the complainant's repeated request, nor did it, in accordance with the provisions of Article 22 of the Regulation on Administrative Operations[1], provide him with an explanation of why the decision
was not issued within the statutory deadline, which the Ombudsman considers as a violation of the principle of good governance.
In light of the above, the Ombudsman further called on the MP to respect the provisions of Article 22 of the Decree on Administrative Operations and the basic principles of the ZUP and the deadlines for decision-making prescribed therein.
In relation to the mentioned systemic reasons for the long duration of the procedure, the Ombudsman suggested that the MP consider the possibilities of additional organizational and/or personnel reinforcement.
The MP responded to the Ombudsman's proposal and explained that within the framework of the Ministry's competent services, activities are already underway in the direction of additional personnel reinforcements at the Directorate for Legislation on Organisation and for Justice Administration, with which the MP will consistently perform its administrative tasks in accordance with the principles of economy and good management, to which it is bound according to the ZUP, and in this context also ensured consistent compliance with statutory deadlines in all matters in which the MP decides on the rights, obligations, or legal benefits of the parties, which the Ombudsman welcomes.
At the same time, the MP also explained that, in this light, certain organisational measures were already adopted in 2023, with which the work process was already optimised (the organisational structure of the directorate was changed, which enabled a more appropriate distribution of work tasks and thus greater work efficiency), and systemic changes to the legislation in the field of the work of court experts, court appraisers, and court interpreters are also being prepared, which will mean both the simplification of certain procedures and the administrative relief of the Ministry, which will significantly contribute to the more efficient work of the body, which the Ombudsman also welcomes.14.5-9/2023
[1] Article 22 of the Decree on Administrative Operations stipulates that the authority must inform the client of the reason for the delay no later than three working days after receiving the request. In his complaint, the complainant explicitly referred to the aforementioned provision of the Decree on Administrative Operations and requested that the MP inform him of the reason why the decision was not issued within the statutory deadline.
