Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-01/cp210003it.pdf

Languages available: es de en fr it pt sl

Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea

COMUNICATO STAMPA n. 3/21

Lussemburgo, 14 gennaio 2021

Sentenza nella causa C-63/19 Commissione / Italia

Lo sconto sul prezzo dei carburanti per i residenti della Regione autonoma FriuliVenezia Giulia non comporta, di per sé, una violazione della direttiva sulla tassazione dell’energia

La Commissione non ha dimostrato che l’Italia abbia istituito una riduzione delle accise, sotto forma di rimborso dell’imposta versata Nel 1996 il Consiglio 1 ha autorizzato l’Italia ad applicare, fino al 31 dicembre 2006, una riduzione dell’aliquota di accisa sulla benzina acquistata nel territorio della Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italia).

Tale autorizzazione mirava a contrastare la prassi dei residenti della Regione autonoma FriuliVenezia Giulia di rifornirsi di carburante a minor prezzo in uno degli Stati membri vicini, la Slovenia.

Dopo il 31 dicembre 2006, i residenti della Regione autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia hanno continuato a beneficiare di uno sconto sul prezzo «alla pompa» dei carburanti, più recentemente grazie a una legge regionale del 2010 2 .

Secondo il sistema di contribuzione attuato da tale legge, i gestori delle stazioni di servizio concedono a detti residenti, in quanto consumatori finali, riduzioni sul prezzo dei carburanti. L’amministrazione regionale rimborsa, poi, ai gestori delle stazioni di servizio un importo pari alle riduzioni concesse. 

(...)

Two London schoolchildren were left in bed and breakfast accommodation for too long by Redbridge council, according to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s investigation has found the living conditions the children were subject to in the bed and breakfast accommodation have had a significant impact on the family. The two children’s schooling was affected: they had to share a bed and suffered disrupted sleep because of the night-time noise, and there was no room for them to do their schoolwork.

The family was placed in bed and breakfast accommodation in the Redbridge area by another London borough. The other borough decided the family was intentionally homeless because the mother had refused a damp and mouldy flat, which would have exacerbated both her and her children’s respiratory conditions.

Instead of making its own decision on whether the family was intentionally homeless, Redbridge accepted the other borough’s decision, and decided it did not have a duty to house the family under the Housing Act.

The council then placed the family in bed and breakfast accommodation for more than a year under the Children Act. However, the Ombudsman’s investigation found the council could not show it assessed the harm caused to the family by staying in the bed and breakfast accommodation for such a long period, or that it made regular reviews of their situation.

During this time, the council offered the family options including a studio flat – where the three would have had to sleep, eat and do homework in the same room – or accommodation away from the borough in the north or Midlands. The woman rejected the first because it would be too small, and the second because her older child was due to take GCSE exams in a local school, and she had no network of support outside the capital. The council decided it then no longer had any duties to the family as the mother had rejected these options.

Because the family’s living conditions were so poor, the woman suffered increased anxiety, stress and panic attacks. The ombudsman also found the council did not make allowances for her poor mental health when it dealt with her, and instead misinterpreted her behaviour as ‘being difficult’ and blamed her situation on her lack of co-operation.

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

“Councils should balance the impact of being housed in bed and breakfast accommodation against the affect this might have on children, regardless of which Act the council is housing them under.

“In this case two children were left for far too long in poor accommodation. This left them – in their own words – ‘stuck in a cycle of instability’ and unable to fulfil their potential in school.

“I hope the council’s acceptance that it could have done more to support the woman, given her understandable anxiety and depression, will lead to it dealing with people in difficult situations with more empathy in future.”

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 woman and pay her £3,900. This is made up of £250 a month for leaving her family in unsuitable accommodation for 14 months, £250 for the distress caused by the council failing to consider the effect her anxiety and depression had on her actions or the difficulties she had communicating because of her dyslexia, and a further £150 for her time and trouble caused by the council’s delays dealing with her complaint.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council has agreed to remind staff that people living in difficult circumstances may have consequent mental health difficulties that cause them distress and impair their ability to adhere to social norms. In such circumstances, the council should consider its duties under the Equality Act and officers may need to adjust their expectations.

The council has also agreed to remind social workers of the need to regularly review bed and breakfast placements involving families. It will produce a joint working protocol for housing and children’s services to ensure there is access to a range of housing options, so it can arrange accommodation for families where bed and breakfast is not appropriate.

According to Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen, the guiding letter issued by the National Police Board in spring 2020 presented interpretations concerning the supervision of assembly restrictions that cannot be considered legally acceptable. According to the letter, the police could have intervened also in events other than public meetings or public events as defined in the Assembly Act. 

The Parliamentary Ombudsman stressed that, although many means could be effective in limiting the Covid19-epidemic, the authorities can only exercise powers based on law. The Government's policies or recommendations have not afforded the police any additional powers.  

Section 58 of the Communicable Diseases Act cannot be interpreted, contrary to its clear wording, in such a way as to cover all events where people gather. The assembly restrictions imposed by the Regional State Administrative Agencies can only apply to public meetings and public events as defined in the Assembly Act. With regard to these, the powers exercised by the police are laid down in the Assembly Act. 

In addition, the Police Act otherwise allows the police to intervene in situations that pose a concrete threat to public order and security - in this case, the number of people present is not as a rule decisive. However, the provisions on police powers laid down in the Police Act cannot justifiably be interpreted in such a way that they would allow the police to take measures affecting people`s fundamental rights to prevent the spread of Covid19-virus to which specific special legislation (Communicable Diseases Act) does not provide the right.   

The Ombudsman noted that, in particular in the spring, the situation was new to all authorities and the prevention of serious threats required swift measures. The National Police Board has since amended its guidance and it is currently largely in line with Parliamentary Ombudsman’s views. For these reasons, the Ombudsman felt that bringing his views to the attention of the National Police Board was a sufficient measure.

Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen's decision 2678/2020 has been published (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi. 
For more information on the matter, please contact Principal Legal Adviser Juha Haapamäki, tel. +358 9 432 3334.

El Ayuntamiento de Santa Lucía y el Diputado del Común incrementarán la colaboración y tendrán una comunicación más intensa para atender las demandas de la ciudadanía.

Tras la reunión mantenida en la sala de juntas de Alcaldía el Diputado del Común Rafael Yanes destacó que “hemos realizado una visita institucional para colaborar con el Ayuntamiento de Santa Lucía y estrechar lazos de trabajo para atender a la ciudadanía”. El defensor del pueblo canario añadió que “hemos visto los expedientes abiertos en el municipio, son pocos, unos  del ámbito sindical, otro  de servicios públicos y otros  que ya han sido respondidos de  protección animal y  seguridad en playas, tan solo falta por responder uno que afecta al área de  Igualdad”. Yanes concluyó que “Estamos muy satisfechos con las respuestas dadas por el Ayuntamiento”.

El alcalde Santiago Rodríguez agradeció “la visita realizada tanto del Diputado del Común como del Adjunto Primero, hemos hecho un repaso de las quejas que ciudadanos de Santa Lucía han elevado a esta institución”. El primer edil añadió que “hemos acordado tener una colaboración más intensa, vamos a trabajar para responder a los  expedientes que nos han trasladado y también para tener cauces de comunicación más fluidos”. “También trabajaremos para resolver todas aquellas quejas que afecten a la mala praxis de la administración con la ciudadanía, en una población de 76 mil habitantes solo hay seis quejas abiertas, pero aunque hubiera una sola queja nos preocuparía”, concluyó Rodríguez.

León, Burgos y Palencia acumulan el mayor número de reclamaciones.

Sanidad, Educación y Familia son las áreas donde existe un mayor número de quejas.

Se han tramitado 1.771 quejas directamente relacionadas con la Covid-19.

Aumentan las actuaciones de oficio hasta alcanzar los 94 expedientes, de los que 36 están relacionados con la pandemia.

El Procurador del Común ha tramitado durante el pasado año un total de 6.341 expedientes, de los cuales 6.247 corresponden a quejas formuladas por los ciudadanos y 94 a las actuaciones de oficio.

Por provincias, León lidera, en esta ocasión, las estadísticas con un total de 1760 reclamaciones, que representa el 28,1% del total. Le sigue Burgos con 1009 quejas y Palencia con 707. A continuación se sitúan Soria con 526, Valladolid con 479, Zamora con 440, Segovia con 386, Ávila con 230 y Salamanca con 214.

Completan las estadísticas las reclamaciones de ciudadanos residentes en otras provincias de fuera de la Comunidad, que fueron un total de 301. Además, de 194 quejas cuyos autores están identificados a todos los efectos pero no incluyen el domicilio, ni la provincia.

Aumentan el número de quejas que, siendo una única reclamación, han sido presentadas por numerosos firmantes.

En cuanto a la distribución por áreas de las quejas destacan las relativas a Sanidad, que fueron las más numerosas con un 35,6% del total, seguida de las reclamaciones del área de Educación con un 29,2%, Familia, Igualdad de Oportunidades y Juventud con un 7,49 %, Empleo Público con un 6,3%, Administración Local con un 6,2%, Hacienda con un 3,4%, Medio Ambiente con un 3,3%, Fomento con un 3,1%, Industria, Comercio y Seguridad Social con un 2%, Interior y Movimientos Migratorios con 1,3%,Justicia con un 0,67%, Cultura y Turismo y Deportes con un 0,77% y Agricultura, Ganadería y Desarrollo Rural con un 0,43%. Aumentan además las consultas recibidas que no han derivado en queja y que asciende a cerca de 140.

Este año, debido a la situación de la pandemia se ha elaborado una estadística de los expedientes relacionados directamente con la Covid-19 y que ascienden a 1771, de las que 1735 son a instancia de parte y 36 corresponden a actuaciones de oficio. De estas quejas destacan las relativas a Sanidad (cierre de consultorios rurales, falta de material, atención presencial, etc.), Educación (protocolos inicio del curso, jornada continua, falta de medios...) y Familia que en este caso tienen que ver con las residencias de las tercera edad. En cuanto a las actuaciones de oficio en materia Covid-19, destacan las relacionadas con la asistencia sanitaria a las personas mayores, la presencia de enfermeras en los centros educativos, la publicación de contratos Covid por parte de la Junta de Castilla y León, la aprobación de exenciones o reducciones en el abono de tasas que genera la ocupación por las terrazas de la vía pública, los protocolos para la reapertura de parques infantiles, las ubicaciones de los mercados tradicionales, la mejora de la asistencia sanitaria en las residencias, indicaciones para el inicio del curso escolar, la devolución de tasas y pagos para actividades extraescolares y en residencias de estudiantes, entre otras.

Entre las 94 actuaciones de oficio, además de las 36 anteriormente mencionadas, destacan la preocupación del Procurador del Común por las deficiencias de internet y telefonía en el mundo rural, las listas espera tanto en Sanidad como en residencias, los problemas de las riadas en Castilla y León, la demora en la entrega de las actas de reorganización de la propiedad de las fincas de reemplazo resultantes de los procesos de concentración parcelaria en Castilla y León, la situación del transporte sanitario en Ávila, los problemas de desplazamiento para las personas de las zonas rurales que deben contralar el Sintrom, la cobertura de puestos de trabajo vacantes reservados a funcionarios de Administración local con habilitación de carácter nacional, el derecho a la educación de la población gitana, la conservación de los palomares, la compatibilidad del Ingreso Mínimo Vital y la Renta Garantizada de Ciudadanía, las nuevas zonas habilitadas para el baño en Castilla y León o problemas de abastecimientos de agua, entre otras.