Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/cp210030it.pdf

Languages available: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea

COMUNICATO STAMPA n. 30/21

Lussemburgo, 2 marzo 2021

Sentenza nella causa C-425/19 P Commissione/Italia, Fondo interbancario di tutela dei depositi, Banca d'Italia e Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA

La Corte respinge l’impugnazione proposta dalla Commissione contro la sentenza del Tribunale relativa alle misure adottate da un consorzio di banche italiane a sostegno di uno dei suoi membri

Il Tribunale ha correttamente dichiarato che tali misure non costituiscono aiuti di Stato in quanto non sono imputabili allo Stato italiano

Nel 2013, la banca italiana Banca Popolare di Bari SCpA (BPB) ha manifestato il proprio interesse alla sottoscrizione di un aumento di capitale di Banca Tercas (in prosieguo: «Tercas»), un’altra banca italiana a capitale privato che era stata posta in regime di amministrazione straordinaria in seguito a irregolarità accertate dalla Banca d’Italia, l’autorità italiana di vigilanza sul settore bancario. (...)

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/cp210029en.pdf

Languages available: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 29/21

Luxembourg, 2 March 2021

Judgment in Case C-746/18 H. K. v Prokuratuur

Access, for purposes in the criminal field, to a set of traffic or location data in respect of electronic communications, allowing precise conclusions to be drawn concerning a person’s private life, is permitted only in order to combat serious crime or prevent serious threats to public security In addition, EU law precludes national legislation that confers upon the public prosecutor’s office the power to authorise access of a public authority to such data for the purpose of conducting a criminal investigation Criminal proceedings were brought in Estonia against H. K. on counts of theft, use of another person’s bank card and violence against persons party to court proceedings. A court of first instance convicted H. K. of those offences and imposed a custodial sentence of two years. That judgment was then upheld on appeal. 

(...)

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is reminding councils that people can spend their money as they wish, within reason, when paying for their own care, after an investigation found faults with the way Cornwall Council assessed a man’s finances.

The reminder has come following a complaint to the Ombudsman that Cornwall Council made a number of errors when establishing how much the man needed to pay for his care.

The council treated the family’s finances as though it was paying for the care, rather than the family. It made a self-funding calculation which limited the man’s personal expenditure to a restrictive personal expenses allowance, rather than allowing him to spend his money as he wished, within reason. Personal expenses allowances only apply when the council itself is paying for care, not for people who fund their own care.

The Ombudsman is also reminding councils that they must disregard half of a person’s work pension when calculating how much they must contribute towards their care, if that pension is being used to supporting a spouse or civil partner.

In this case the council also put too high a threshold on the proof it required to demonstrate the man was paying money to his wife. It said a joint account was not evidence of this, despite accepting the wife was using the money for her maintenance. The council’s poor calculations meant there was a delay in funding the man’s care when his capital fell below the government threshold of £23,250.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“I am issuing this report because I believe there may be systemic problems in the way Cornwall Council assesses people in the county.

“I have asked the council to identify anyone else adversely affected by similar issues over the past 12 months and provide them with a remedy too. I am disappointed the council has not yet agreed to do this, so I urge it to reconsider its position.”

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to the man’s wife and son and pay £6,941 to the man’s estate to reinstate his capital to £23,250. It will also pay the man’s son £250 for the time and trouble of making the complaint.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council should make sure it disregards 50% of occupational pensions when they are being paid to a spouse or civil partner for maintenance (for example,

by amending its policy and training officers) and ensure it does not restrict the discretionary expenditure of self-funders to the Personal Expenses Allowance. It should identify anyone else adversely affected by its current practices within the past 12 months and remedy any injustice they have been caused.

Article date: 02 March 2021

The website of the Fundamental Rights Forum 2021 and the call for proposals to host a session are now live.

• VISIT THE FORUM WEBSITE
• APPY TO HOST A SESSION

The Forum creates a unique platform for dialogue on pressing human rights challenges.

This year, it brings together the best of both in-person and online events. On 11-12 October, we will connect the main stage in Vienna with hubs in other cities and virtual sessions across Europe.

It will be a chance to look forward: building a vision of hope. For that reason, two topics run across the entire Forum: our responses to the effects of Covid-19 pandemic and the youth of Europe.

Threats to our fundamental rights existed before the pandemic changed the world. They are more visible and pressing than ever before.

The Fundamental Rights Forum 2021 will tackle these head-on.

Together we will deliver answers to questions shaping the critical human rights agenda. Together we will build hope.

Do you have an idea for a session that could help shape the human rights agenda for the years to come? Then, we want to hear from you.

We are looking forward to involvement from across society, including the worlds of politics, business, trade unions, civil society, the arts, faith and non-confessional communities and sports.

Full details of how to apply are available on the Fundamental Rights Forum website(link is external), which is now live.

Ein Tiroler kaufte sich ein Hybridfahrzeug und beantragte bei der vom Verkehrsministerium mit der Abwicklung der Förderungsanträge betrauten Stelle Kommunalkredit Public Consulting GmbH (KPC) den „E-Mobilitätsbonus für E-PKW“. Das Verkehrsministerium selbst bezeichnet diesen Bonus als „wichtigen Beitrag der österreichischen Bundesregierung für klimafreundliche Mobilität in Österreich“. Der Bonus wurde dem Mann jedoch mit dem Hinweis verwehrt, dass die Reichweite mit dem Elektroantrieb des Fahrzeugs weniger als 50 km betragen würde. Eine Auszahlung der Förderung wäre nur dann möglich, wenn alle auf der Seite www.umweltfoerderung.at genannten Voraussetzungen erfüllt seien, so das Ministerium. Nach welchen Kriterien bzw. welcher Berechnungsmethode die Reichweite tatsächlich errechnet wird, blieb indessen unerwähnt.

Der Tiroler konnte eine Bestätigung des schwedischen Fahrzeugherstellers vorweisen, wonach der Plug-in-Hybrid „eine Reichweite von 50 km mit Reifenklasse A gemäß EG 2018/1832AM/NEFZ“ aufweise.

Von der Volksanwaltschaft um Stellungnahme ersucht, führte eine neuerliche Prüfung des Förderantrags durch BMK und KPC zum selben Ergebnis – dass die Förderungsablehnung berechtigt sei. Die Reichweitenprüfung erfolge schon seit 2018 nach einem weltweit harmonisiertem Testverfahren für leichte Nutzfahrzeuge (WLTP). Demnach weise das Fahrzeug des Antragstellers nur eine rein elektrische Reichweite von 42 bis 45 km aus. Die KPC würde Förderwerbern auch eine Liste zur Verfügung stellen, auf der geförderte Fahrzeuge genannt seien. Das Fahrzeug des Förderwerbers stehe nicht auf dieser Liste. Die Webseite des Fahrzeugherstellers würde zudem ebenfalls nur 42 km rein elektrische Reichweite nennen.

Die Volksanwaltschaft kritisierte, dass Personen, die sich für die Förderung interessieren, aus den zur Verfügung gestellten Informationen den Modus der Reichweitenberechnung nicht erkennen können. „Die Liste der KPC, welche Kfz förderwürdig sind, wird auf der Webseite nicht zur Verfügung gestellt“, erklärt Volksanwalt Walter Rosenkranz. Die Volksanwaltschaft regte an, einen direkten Link zu dieser Liste im Leitfaden auf www.klimafonds.gv.at einzurichten.