Speech by the President of the AOM and People's Advocate of Albania, Erinda Ballanca

Honorable Judge Emeritus Joseph Zammit McKeon, dear Mr. Spaker, Dear European Ombudsman, Dear Secretary General of the Venice Commission, dear and honorable colleagues, ladies and gentlemen,

First, allow me to thank our host, the Parliamentary Ombudsman of Malta and his team, on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

My thanks and appreciation go beyond this occasion. Through the years, the Ombudsman of Malta has become an international point of reference, not only for his leadership within the country but for the outstanding contribution related to the international aspect of our work, in particular to the Association of the Mediterranean Ombudsman. Being in office for more than eight years, I am a living witness of the constant growing of the influence and the reputation of this office in the international fora. And this is not an easy achievement, to the contrary, it takes a lot of work, dedication, leadership, and even sacrifices to be seen as a reference between equal office holders within different networks. So, double applause for the anniversary and the undisputable reputation.

On the other hand, it is a special privilege to deliver these opening remarks alongside esteemed personalities on an ever relevant topic: “Upholding Good Governance in Challenging Times: The Role of the Ombudsman”. For many of us who were here two years ago, discussing on a similar theme it is clear that we moved from the theme of two years ago (“The Right to Good Administration: Myth, Aspiration, or Reality?”) to the upholding good governance in challenging times.

This means that all our dilemmas on the myth and the aspiration have been wiped away as we recognized the necessity of good administration as a reality demanded from our people and give our self a role to uphold it in challenging times.

As we recognize the good administration as a reality, it is important to recognize the tremendous importance and contribution that has given on this regard the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, that has recognized the right to good administration as a human right. Regardless the regional or, if you want, restricted formal validity, only within the European Union, the boost that this provision has given to the notion, and concept, and practical implementation of good administration, is undisputable.

On a less enthusiastic note, perhaps today is also the moment to reflect not only on good administration, but on the broader concept of the rule of law itself. These two are not parallel lines running apart, the rule of law provides the foundation, while good administration is its living expression in the daily interaction between the state and its citizens. Where the rule of law weakens, good administration quickly becomes weak also; and where good administration fails, the promise of the rule of law is left unfulfilled. Our task as ombudsmen is to hold these concepts together, ensuring that legality is not only respected in principle but also practiced in every administrative decision that impacts the lives of citizens.

Building on this, I would like to bring into our discussion some of the most recent findings on the state of the rule of law in Europe. In Professor Laurent Pech’s[1] latest analysis on rule of law backsliding (presented at the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights (PACE) hearing on “Updating the Venice Commission Rule of Law Checklist”, Paris, 8 September 2025), it is emphasized that since 2016 around 77% of countries studied have experienced a recession of the rule of law. Updated scholarship calls this process rule of law backsliding. This is a global trend that we must take seriously as a warning signal, also in our work as ombudsmen.

Recent events such as the war in Ukraine and the conflict in Gaza illustrate how armed conflicts and violence can accelerate backsliding in the rule of law and human rights, through attacks on civilians, mass displacement, strained judicial safeguards, and the normalization of emergency powers. These crises remind us that when the basic architecture of legality is shaken, rights protections quickly reach low levels. At the same time, any sustainable steps toward de-escalation and a sustainable peace in Gaza are welcome news; if sustained and paired with unhindered humanitarian access and accountability, they can have a direct, positive impact on the protection of rule of law and human rights. For ombudsman institutions, even when such conflicts lie beyond our formal jurisdiction, they test domestic resilience and public trust, underscoring why our vigilance, independence, and insistence on legality must not waver.

It is precisely here that our role as ombudsmen comes in. We are the bridge between citizens and the administration, but today we must also act as the mirror of the system. We have powerful tools for diagnosis and action. The Rule of Law Checklist of the Venice Commission is our gold standard: a set of questions and benchmarks covering legality, legal certainty, prevention of abuse of power, equality before the law/non-discrimination, and access to justice, the very heart of the list. This instrument was adopted at the Commission’s 106th session (11–12 March 2016) and was conceived precisely to make the rule of law measurable and comparable. Probably, the updated RoL checklist should include as a benchmark the application of the Venice Principles on Ombudsman institutions too.

Today, however, it is not enough to measure “the law on the books.” We need to measure the gap between the law on the books and the law in practice, the very approach now proposed for the update of the Checklist: integrating the lessons of the CJEU and ECtHR on backsliding, posing questions about authoritarian tactics in legislation and emergency powers, and above all, capturing also non-legal developments that undermine standards, from political pressures to smear campaigns against judges.

At its core, good administration is not a technical rule; it is the moral promise of the state to its citizens. We, as ombudsmen, must turn that promise into a full, enforceable, and measurable right. We must not allow silence, delay, and lack of reasoning to become the norm. We must protect not only the “legal framework,” but also the citizen’s lived experience, at the service desk, on the digital portal, before the regulator, and in the courtroom.

Let us use this conference to emerge with a simple but strong commitment: from principles to results. To measure, to publish, to correct, to insist. Only in this way can we rebuild trust, the cornerstone of a functioning democracy.

______________

[1] Full Professor of Law, Dean of Law and Head of the Sutherland School of Law