Intervento del difensore civico del Lazio a proposito di un caso riguardante una casa di cura

La rivista Prospettive ha ricordato un intervento del Difensore civico, risalente al 9 agosto scorso, a proposito del limite temporale dei ricoveri. Si trattava del caso di una casa di cura che aveva fatto sottoscrivere a un paziente un modulo nel quale era previsto un limite massimo di 60 giorni per il ricovero.

La figlia del paziente si era a questo punto rivolta alla Fondazione promozione sociale, la quale aveva fatto notare che tale limite non poteva ritenersi conforme alla normativa vigente, sulla base di una valutazione del principio della continuità assistenziale sancito dall’articolo 2 della legge 833 del 1978, istitutiva del Servizio sanitario nazionale.

La Fondazione aveva interessato al caso, tra gli altri, proprio il Difensore civico: Marino Fardelli si era pertanto impegnato, richiamando anche una sentenza del Consiglio di stato, la n. 1858 del 2019, a richiedere l’intervento della Direzione regionale Salute e integrazione sociosanitaria e della Azienda sanitaria locale Roma 3.

Quest’ultima, infine, aveva confermato la posizione assunta dal Difensore civico a sostegno delle tesi della Fondazione, stabilendo che le strutture sanitarie accreditate (nel caso di specie si trattava infatti di casa di cura erogante prestazioni per conto del servizio sanitario regionale) devono garantire la continuità assistenziale ai pazienti, con esclusione di ogni automatismo nella definizione della durata del ricovero. I 60 giorni vanno quindi intesi solo come un termine generico, che può essere soggetto a eccezioni.

Un eloquente esempio, tiene a sottolineare il Difensore civico del Lazio, di attività di questo organo a sostegno dei diritti dei cittadini, in questo caso nella loro veste di pazienti del servizio sanitario regionale.

La adjunta primera del Defensor del Pueblo, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril, ha mantenido este miércoles una reunión en la Secretaría de Estado de Justicia para tratar asuntos relacionados con la tramitación de expedientes de nacionalidad.

En el encuentro se han abordado los planes de agilización y las previsiones de esa Secretaría en relación con la aplicación de la nueva Ley de Memoria Democrática.

La adjunta ha estado acompañada en esta reunión por la directora de su Gabinete, Mª José Pastor, y por el director del Área de Seguridad y Justicia, Andrés Jiménez.  

Por parte de la Secretaría de Estado han asistido la directora general de Seguridad Jurídica y Fe Pública, Sofía Puente, la subdirectora general de Nacionalidad y Estado Civil, Mar López, y el vocal asesor del gabinete del Secretario de Estado de Justicia, Roberto Tirado.

Les faits

M. B. est demandeur d’emploi et souhaite participer à une formation. Il contacte le centre de formation qui acte son inscription.

Il reçoit quelques jours plus tard une convocation du centre de formation lui indiquant les dates et heures de cours.

La formation se tient à 150 km de son domicile, aussi décide-t-il de loger à l’hôtel la veille.

Néanmoins, lorsqu’il se présente au centre de formation, on lui apprend que les cours initialement prévus sont annulés. M. n’a pas été informé de cette annulation et demande un dédommagement pour la réservation de l’hôtel et ses frais de transport.

Il adresse une réclamation au FOREM qui lui indique qu’il a reçu sa demande de formation du centre mais que, suite à un problème interne, elle n’a pas été validée ; raison pour laquelle il n’a pas été prévenu du changement de date.

Le FOREM déplore les désagréments que cette situation lui a occasionnées et lui propose qu’il intègre la prochaine formation.
S’il est satisfait de pouvoir participer à la prochaine formation, il estime que sa demande de dédommagement n’a pas été prise en compte. Il s’adresse donc au Médiateur.

L’intervention du Médiateur

Le Médiateur interpelle le FOREM quant au dossier de M. B. préjudicié par un manque de communication entre le FOREM et le centre de formation.

L’issue de la médiation

Le FOREM consent à rembourser à M. B. les frais réellement engagés. A savoir, une nuitée d'hôtel ainsi que les kilomètres parcourus aller-retour de son domicile au centre de formation.

The European Parliament has adopted a report detailing the activities of the Petitions Committee in 2021.

In a report adopted with 408 votes in favour, 44 against and 31 abstaining, MEPs detail the main activities of the Committee on Petitions in 2021. Some of the main subjects of petitions in 2021 were fundamental rights and health, environmental issues, the rights of minorities, education, and employment.

Pandemic raises concerns of health and fundamental rights

In a year marked by the pandemic, fundamental rights were a major concern for petitioners. These petitions concerned in particular the impact of COVID-19 emergency measures on access to education, on the freedom of movement, and on the right to work. Some petitioners also raised the differences in status between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated. The Petitions Committee and Committee on Transport also organised public hearing on improving air passenger rights during the COVID-19 crisis.

Health was another often-raised topic, including for example the public health crisis, the protection of citizens’ health (including vaccination policy), and the use, implementation and application of the EU Digital COVID Certificate in the Member States.

Citizens highlights environmental issues and discrimination of minorities

The environment was also a major concern for petitioners, concerning for example mining activities, illegal logging, illicit waste disposal, nuclear safety, air pollution and the deterioration of natural ecosystems. On 2 December 2021, the committee organised a hearing on the environmental and social impacts of mining activity in the EU, and it also adopted a motion for a resolution on chemical residues in the Baltic Sea.

Several petitions related to minority rights and discrimination, including the rights of national or linguistic minorities, their right to education in their mother tongue, and other linguistic rights. On the rights of LGBTI+ families in the EU, the committee organised a workshop on 22 March 2021 and tabled a motion for a resolution on LGBTIQ rights in the EU. Also, the committee continued its work on upholding the rights of persons with disabilities, for example holding a workshop and proposing a resolution on the protection of persons with disabilities.

In 2021, the committee also organised one fact-finding mission. MEPs travelled to the Basque Country in Spain to investigate 379 cases of unsolved murders perpetrated by ETA.

Going forward, MEPs would like to see more efforts to raise awareness about the right to petition, particularly in EU member states where fewer people send in petitions. To boost inter-institutional cooperation with the European Commission, MEPs propose setting up an IT tool containing all available information on follow-up action taken on petitions (for example legislative proposals and infringement procedures). Overall, they would like to see the Commission follow up on petitions more actively.

Background

Every EU citizen and resident has the right to petition the European Parliament on issues affecting them and falling within EU’s fields of activity. In 2021, Parliament received a total of 1 392 petitions. In that year, the number of people supporting petitions on Parliament’s Petitions Web Portal was 209 272 (up from 48 882 in 2020)

When 15 December 2022 - 16 December 2022

Where Vienna, Austria

Organised By OSCE

External event

The Office of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media is organising a conference to discuss the impact of artificial intelligence on freedom of expression.

The conference gathers experts in the field. They will explore the use of AI in promoting newsworthy and public interest content online, and online content governance in times of crises.

FRA will present its recent report on bias in algorithms.

The event takes place on 15 and 16 December in Vienna.