Eduskunnan oikeusasiamies ”pienen ihmisen” asialla – joustavuutta vai hampaattomuutta näkökulmasta riippuen?
Avainsanat:
valtiosääntöoikeus, ihmisoikeudet, oikeusasiamies, laillisuusvalvonta, hyvitys, lastensuojelu, vangitAbstrakti
Parliamentary Ombudsman as support to the vulnerable – flexible or toothless institution?
The Finnish Parliamentary Ombudsman institution is a success story. It is almost 100 years old and has spread from Sweden and Finland all over the world. The roles and tasks of ombudsmen, however, are different for example in Finland or Spain. The author concentrates only on the Finnish Ombudsman institution.
Nowadays, the Ombudsman is best known as a guardian of human rights and fundamental rights. That duty was given to him/her when the fundamental rights provisions of the Constitution of Finland were revised in 1995.
Traditionally, the Ombudsman – and the two Deputy Ombudsmen – investigate complaints filed by anyone who thinks an oversight subject has acted unlawfully or neglected a duty in the performance of their task. The Ombudsman may also on his/her own initiative take up a matter within his/her remit. The Ombudsman carries out on-site inspections of public offices and institutions, as is necessary to oversee matters within his/her remit.
In practice, own initiatives and inspections of the Ombudsman have more impact than traditional complaints. All may result in the Ombudsman drawing the attention of the Government to defects in legislation, but this is more likely as a result of own initiatives.
The Ombudsman has often been quite flexible in his/her working methods and has so been able to help the vulnerable, especially children. He/she has drawn the attention of the Government to serious problems of children living in state children’s homes. One result of the activities of the Ombudsman is the Child Welfare Act of 2007.
The power of the Ombudsman, however, has limits, as he/she cannot change a decision of a court or interrupt the execution of a decision of an authority. People often expect just this of the Ombudsman, and when he/she fails to do so they may regard the Ombudsman institution as totally toothless.
In conclusion: The Ombudsman institution is both flexible and toothless – depending on the circumstances. It is different from the standpoint of the vulnerable compared to the institutional standpoint.
