Classification by “Models”

Abstract

As the comparative analysis has demonstrated so far, the legal bases of European ombudsman-institutions are designed very heterogeneously. Many legal orders have followed already established concepts; however, none of them has adopted such a concept without modifications. The reasons for these variations do not always derive from the particular constitutional system: Thus, even states with disparate legal cultures can exhibit great similarities in the legal structure of institutions.139 The comparative observation conveys the impression that the legal discussion of the establishment of an ombudsman-institution in each case kept a kind of “basic model” in mind, which was then enhanced by ideas from different legal orders and adapted to concrete necessities. Thus, primarily the younger institutions seem to follow different models in the provision of the various regulations (e.g. requirements of qualification, appointment and dismissal of incumbents, competence of control, initiation of proceedings, powers), sometimes also choosing entirely unique solutions. Many legal bases were amended subsequently with regard to new models and necessities: the ombudsmen of Sweden and Finland, for instance, were additionally assigned the explicit task of human rights protection. The impression of a strong distance to specific models is confirmed by the responses of the institutions to the expressly posed question on a possible role model for their legal structure: Ten of the questioned national institutions indicated that they do not follow any specific model, nine orientated themselves on several different models, nine (including the EU) modelled themselves on Denmark, five on Sweden, one on Spain and one on New Zealand, five did not give any indications at all and one institution considered their structure unique.