Key facts of the case:
The applicants claimed that an act of the Parliament which revoked the Ombudsman, for alleged breach of his constitutional duties, is simply an unfounded, political manoeuvre and is unconstitutional.
The members of the Court examined the activity of the Ombudsman also from the perspective of Article 41 of the Charter. Article 41 of the Charter was referred to in the separate opinion. The members of the Court considered that the Ombudsman has acted within his mandate to improve the activity of public administration and public services, so that the right to good administration may not remain an illusory right.