Academic literature on the topic 'Netherlands. Nationale Ombudsman'

Abstract On 12 July 2018, the central government of the Netherlands changed its approach relating to traveller camps in the Netherlands. This change constitutes a huge political shift, as the government had previously adopted a ‘hands-off’ and ‘repressive-inclusion’ strategy, which was especially known for its infamous ‘phase-out policy’ or ‘extinction policy’ of traveller camps. This has now been replaced by a fundamental rights-proof approach that facilitates the travellers’ way of life. This article aims to uncover the various actions undertaken by international and national actors that seem to have contributed to the Dutch government’s changed stance. It looks particularly at the role played by four national actors: the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, the National Ombudsman, the Public Interest Litigation Project, and activist Roma, Sinti and travellers and their various interest groups. The article concludes that these actors’ efforts to establish political and legal change were successful as they addressed the same issue from different vantage points and through different means. That is, they all focused on the issue of the incompatibility of the phase-out policy with fundamental rights standards and relied on a variety of means available to them (such as litigation, lobbying, reporting, raising international awareness, and ensuring media coverage). By drawing some general lessons from this case study, this article aims to contribute to the existing literature on mobilizing human rights. In particular, it focuses on the (legal) activities national actors can undertake to bring about political and legal change in order to enforce the compliance of national authorities with fundamental rights standards in both law and policy.

The author of the article, first of all, draws attention to the current problems of protection and protection of human rights, which unfortunately are traced within the territorial jurisdiction of the European Union. Such problem is quite well demonstrated by Berbel Koffler, as the Commissioner of the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on human rights and humanitarian aid policy. Indeed, the Ombudsman of Germany has raised a number of deep dilemmas: violence against human rights defenders on the grounds of their professional activity, the relation of human rights institutions with public security and economic development. In fact, these questions, in varying percentages, are equally relevant to many countries in the world. In the outlined context, the case of the European Court of Human Rights “Gabriel Weber and Caesar Richard Saravia v. Germany” of 29.06.06 was analyzed. Actually, this case covers directly the issues of human rights and national security of Germany. Grounds for initiating this case have arisen in connection with the legislative provisions of the Law of Germany on the Restriction of the Secret of Correspondence, Mail and Telecommunications of 13.08.68., ("Law G-10"), taking into account changes made under the Anti-Crime Act of 28.10.94, which extend the powers of the Federal Intelligence Service, within the so-called strategic monitoring. It is about collecting information by listening to telephone conversations in order to identify and prevent serious threats to the Federal Republic of Germany, such as: armed attacks on its territory, international terrorist attacks, other serious crimes. According to the applicants who worked as journalists, strategic monitoring can be used against individuals to prevent effective journalistic investigations. In view of these suspicions, the applicants argued that they had violated the human rights guaranteed by the Convention, such as the right to privacy and correspondence, the violation of press freedom, and the right to an effective remedy. The ECHR Judges, having examined the circumstances of the case, concluded that there were no grounds to satisfy the complaints on the basis of the following arguments: 2) German legislation, as part of strategic monitoring, is endowed with adequate and effective safeguards against abuse by authorized entities. In addition, the article analyzes the multi-vector issue of banning citizens of some European Union countries from wearing hats that completely or partially hide their faces. The fact is that, under such restrictions, in particular, the traditional clothing of women adherents of Islam has fallen. It is a “burqa” and a “niqab”. The presented study is mainly based on the legislative practice of France, Belgium, which provides for administrative as well as criminal penalties for non-compliance with the stated prohibition. In such cases as S.А.С. France, Belkacemi and Oussar v. Belgium, Dakir v. Belgium, the applicants, alleged that they had violated the human rights guaranteed by the Convention, including: the right to respect for their private life; the right to freedom of expression of one's religion or belief; the right to freedom of expression; the right to freedom of association; humiliating treatment and discrimination against the enjoyment of the abovementioned human rights. According to most ECHR judges, who have dealt with the said cases, the disputed prohibition is not necessary in a "democratic society for public safety" but its main task is to preserve the conditions of "cohabitation" as an element of "protection of the rights and freedoms of others." In the context of this debate, attention was paid indirectly to such EU Member States as: Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Italy, Spain, Denmark, Switzerland. Keywords: human rights, legal guarantees, security, privacy.