The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (Ombudsman) identified elements of a violation of the principle of good governance in the conduct of the Ministry of Infrastructure (MZI). The MZI, or its organisational unit, the Directorate for Roads and Road Traffic (Directorate), only responded to the complainant's letters after more than eight months, and only after the intervention of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman welcomes the fact that, after receiving the complaint's letters, the Directorate tried to clarify his dilemma further, and the fact that it also apologised to him for the delay. However, he suggested that the MZI should take appropriate internal organisational measures, which would ensure an appropriate response to letters received even in the event of longer sick leave and staff shortages.

* * *

The Ombudsman dealt with a complaint with an allegation of the MZI's unresponsiveness to a complainant's letters, in which he asked the MZI asked for an explanation of his dilemma regarding the procedure for renewing a driver's licence for drivers over 80 years old. The complaint particularly problematised the fact that driver's licences should be extended from the date of issue of the medical certificate, and not from the date of expiry of the previous licence, as a result of which the validity of his previously still valid licence was shortened twice.[1] At the same time, he compared the arrangement in question to the procedure for renewing a vehicle registration permit, and he was asked why there is a difference between them. He first contacted the MZI on 1 April 2023, because he had not received a reply, and then again on 4 June 2023. The MZI did not respond to either of these two letters from the complainant. In view of the described complaints of the complainant, the Ombudsman contacted the MZI or its Directorate for Roads and Road Traffic, with an inquiry.

In response to his information inquiry, the Ombudsman received three replies from the Directorate addressed to the complainant. In terms of content, according to the Ombudsman's assessment, the Directorate comprehensively answered the complainant's questions,[2] the Ombudsman also assessed as positive the fact that the Directorate apologised to the complainant for the late response, which was said to be the result of the long-term sick leave of a professional colleague and understaffing in the field of drivers. However, it could not be overlooked that the Directorate responded to the complainant's letters only after more than eight months, and only after the intervention of the Ombudsman. He therefore considered the complaint in question to be justified and found a violation of the principle of good management in the operation of the Directorate. He proposed to the directorate to adopt appropriate internal organisational measures, which would ensure adequate response to the letters received even in the event of longer sick leave and staff shortages. The Ombudsman hopes that the Directorate will follow the Ombudsman's proposal.18.4-2/2023

[1] As a precaution, the complainant had completed the medical examination before the driver's licence expired.

[2] In its answers, the directorate outlined the relevant regulations in force in the Drivers Act (ZVoz-1), the General Administrative Procedure Act (ZUP) and the Motor Vehicles Act (ZMV-1), and also provided a meaningful explanation of the differences between the regulations in these laws with examples. The Directorate responded with two additional e-mails to the complainant's messages received during their correspondence, and tried to provide additional answers to his questions.