Page 179 - kdk-sempozyum-3

something to do with the decisions concerning compensations and
redresses concerning the complainants. Thank you very much.

CHAIR: Thank you. Let’s start with the Ombudsman of Slovenia to answer
the questions if you wish.

JERNEJ ROVŠEK (Acting Ombudsman of Slovenia)

Yes, very briefly, this is the problem, as I mentioned we have competence
only relation to public sector. We are authorized according to our law
to propose compensation to state institution, to individual and we
do it very often when it is very clear the reason and the relation to
the human right violation, so it is very rarely but few times we were
successful. Usually individual have to go to the court. Thank you.

CALLIOPE SPANOU (Ombudsman of Greece)

Thank you. The fact that in certain cases there is this new legal tool the
shifting of the burden of proof does not mean that the principle of the
presumption in a sense is not valid any more. It is an exception that
functions within this principle for certain cases for reasons that have
to do with specific problems appearing there. It is because usually this
is a legal tool that is used also for other kinds of discrimination and 3 rd INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTIONS
also at work place. It is a general legal tool for discrimination. And it
has to do with the fact those who are discriminated against are usually
the weakest part. And they hesitate to come forward as we said few
minutes ago to denounce and to claim their rights to protection. In
that case this tool tries to reinforce a little bit their position but as I
said earlier it is very difficult tool to use. It doesn’t mean by definition
that we shift or the court shifts the burden of proof, there has to be
enough evidence in order to ask the other side to prove the opposite.
And of course at the end it is a matter of how the court will assess this
evidence from both sides, so the court is always at the end, what the
ombudsman does is to try to find out and we can also have examine
witnesses we can have also the position on oath so there are certain
techniques in order to try and establish the facts. If it is not possible
then we say, “it is not possible” and the next step is to go to the court
which has more powers and more means to do it. But let’s not take the
most difficult cases of a difficult legal technique let’s take normal cases,

16 - 17 September 2015, ANKARA | 177