El Ararteko concluye su actuación en relación con una queja después de que Alokabide haya devuelto a un ciudadano la cantidad abonada por la intervención del servicio técnico en la valoración de una avería

Date of article: 12/09/2024

Daily News of: 18/09/2024

Country:  Spain - Basque Country

Author: Regional Ombudsman of the Basque Country

Un ciudadano, inquilino de una vivienda asimilada a la de protección pública en régimen de arrendamiento, solicitó la intervención del Ararteko con motivo de su desacuerdo con la decisión de la sociedad pública Alokabide de no reembolsar una factura por el servicio técnico contratado para el diagnóstico de una vitrocerámica averiada.

En abril de 2023, el reclamante en conocimiento de la sociedad pública que la vitrocerámica sufrió una avería y señaló que se trataba de un electrodoméstico ya antiguo.

En respuesta, el personal de Alokabide le informó de que debía contactar con el servicio técnico oficial para valorar el caso y llevar a cabo la reparación correspondiente. Días más tarde el promotor de la queja le, mediante correo electrónico, la valoración realizada por el servicio técnico y la factura simplificada, un total de 66,55 euros.

Alokabide decidió no reparar la vitrocerámica y el reclamante envió un nuevo solicitando la devolución del importe que tuvo que abonar por la intervención del personal técnico, insistiendo en que la avería no le resultaba imputable dado que no había quedado acreditado que se hubiera hecho un mal uso de la vitrocerámica. Consecuentemente, consideraba que tampoco tendría que hacer frente a los gastos por la contratación del personal técnico que acudió a la vivienda para comprobar la entidad de la avería.

El Ararteko solicitó la colaboración del Departamento de Vivienda del Gobierno Vasco y le trasladó una serie de consideraciones. 

Esta Defensoría considera que si la persona arrendataria tiene la obligación de devolver la vivienda al concluir el contrato tal como la recibió, es justo que la parte arrendadora deba realizar durante la vigencia del contrato aquellas reparaciones que resulten necesarias para conservar la vivienda en unas condiciones óptimas. Es decir, el principio de conservación de la vivienda arrendada no sólo se extiende a las obras, sino también a las reparaciones necesarias y al servicio técnico prestado.

Además, en este caso, no se ha acreditado un uso inadecuado de la vitrocerámica. Teniendo en cuenta que se trata de un electrodoméstico antiguo, la avería parece ser consecuencia del uso prolongado y del propio ciclo de vida del aparato.

El Departamento de Vivienda ha resuelto finalmente reembolsar la devolución de la cantidad abonada por el reclamante.

RESOLUCIÓN

Vitoria-Gasteiz, 12 de septiembre de 202

Read more

Resolution of Parliament of Georgia regarding Public Defender’s 2023 Parliamentary Report

Date of article: 13/09/2024

Daily News of: 24/09/2024

Country:  Georgia

Author: Public Defender (Ombudsman) of Georgia

On June 27, 2024, the Parliament of Georgia adopted a resolution relating to the Public Defender’s 2023 Report on the Situation of Human Rights and Freedoms in Georgia. With the resolution, the Parliament of Georgia instructed state agencies to implement the recommendations issued in the Public Defender's 2023 parliamentary report.

In the 2023 parliamentary report, the Public Defender made 301 recommendations to the state agencies, autonomous republic and municipal bodies, as well as officials. The Parliament of Georgia reflected approximately 74.42% of the mentioned recommendations in its resolution (about 12% of them were partially reflected). The rest of the recommendations were not reflected in the resolution or are not considered to be reflected on the grounds that substantial changes were made in them.[1]

In the resolution, the Parliament of Georgia issued 270 tasks to ensure the implementation of the Public Defender's recommendations. It should be noted that part of the tasks issued by the Parliament miss the spirit of the recommendations of the Public Defender, due to the essential changes made in their wording, and thus the Public Defender’s Office considers that they do not represent tasks based on the recommendation of the Public Defender. In addition, some tasks were repeated and presented twice in the resolution (duplicated tasks), etc. Detailed analysis and data on the rate of reflecting the Public Defender's recommendations will be reflected in a special report - on the implementation of the mentioned resolution of the Parliament, which will be prepared by the Office after the expiration of the deadline given to the agencies to fulfill the tasks, namely, after March 2025.

Unfortunately, compared to previous years, the number of recommendations that the Parliament did not reflect in the resolution has increased. In particular, in the resolution of 2023, the Parliament did not reflect 23 recommendations included in the Public Defender’s annual report, this indicator was 23 recommendations in 2022 as well, while in the resolution of 2024, the Parliament did not reflect 44 recommendations of the 2023 parliamentary report of the Public Defender. The list of the mentioned recommendations is attached to this statement in the form of an appendix.

It should be noted that until this stage, the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee has not held a meeting in the Parliament, where the fulfillment of the tasks issued in the 2023 resolution of the Parliament was to be discussed and the relevant conclusion was to be developed.[2]

The Public Defender calls on the Parliament of Georgia to strengthen the parliamentary oversight mechanisms in the process of monitoring the implementation of mandatory tasks issued by him, and in turn expresses readiness to cooperate with state agencies in all formats for the proper fulfilment of the tasks issued by the Parliament.

[1] The rate of reflecting the recommendations can be slightly clarified by the Public Defender’s Office as a result of the communication with the state agencies and the analysis of the information received from them. The clarified data will be reflected in the special report of the Public Defender on the implementation of the resolution N4332-XIVms-Xmp of the Parliament of June 27, 2024

[2] The said obligation has been determined by the Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee under the second paragraph of Article 163 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedures and Article 6, Paragraph 4 of its provisions. The latest conclusion of the Committee on the implementation of the resolutions adopted by the Parliament is available on the website of the Parliament. Only information regarding the resolution of 2019 can be found. See < https://info.parliament.ge/#law-drafting/20671 > [12.09.2024]

Read more

Ombudsman asks Commission to ensure diversity of expertise on Regulatory Scrutiny Board

Date of article: 17/09/2024

Daily News of: 24/09/2024

Country:  EUROPE

Author: European Ombudsman

NEWS - DATE Tuesday | 17 September 2024
CASE 439/2023/KR - OPENED ON Tuesday | 04 April 2023 - DECISION ON Friday | 13 September 2024 - INSTITUTION CONCERNED European Commission ( No further inquiries justified ) - COUNTRY Belgium

  • Complaint submitted 03/03/2023
  • Analysis of the complaint  03/03/2023
  • Inquiry ongoing 04/04/2023
  • Inquiry outcome 13/09/2024

The Ombudsman has made suggestions to the European Commission on the composition of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and on the Board’s interactions with interest representatives.

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board reviews and issues opinions on the Commission draft impact assessments that accompany proposals for new EU legislation or evaluations of existing legislation. If the Board issues a negative opinion, the Commission must amend the draft impact assessment to address its concerns. This gives it significant influence on the Commission’s decision making when it comes to EU law making.

Following an inquiry, the Ombudsman asked the Commission to do more to ensure the composition of the Board includes sufficient expertise in macro- and microeconomics, social policy, and environmental policy. The diversity of expertise corresponds to requirements set out in a Commission communication on the Regulatory Scrutiny Board published in 2015. As part of meeting this goal, the Commission should clearly describe the criteria it applies for selecting Board members.

The Ombudsman also said the Commission should ensure Board members avoid holding meetings with individual interest representatives. She stressed that, when it comes to outreach activities, it was important for members to consider not only the actual risk of undue influence on their work, but also the public perception of their independence.

The Ombudsman’s inquiry followed a complaint from a non-governmental organisation. The organisation had criticised the Board’s role in relation to a specific file and shared wider concerns regarding its independence.

Read more

Arrêt du Tribunal dans l’affaire T-334/19 | Google et Alphabet/Commission (Google AdSense for Search)

Date of article: 18/09/2024

Daily News of: 24/09/2024

Country:  EUROPE

Author: Court of Justice of the European Union

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-09/cp240143fr.pdf

Languages available: en fr

COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE n° 143/24

Luxembourg, le 18 septembre 2024

Arrêt du Tribunal dans l’affaire T-334/19 | Google et Alphabet/Commission (Google AdSense for Search)

Google AdSense : le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission

Le Tribunal confirme la plupart des appréciations de la Commission, mais annule la décision par laquelle celleci a infligé une amende de presque 1,5 milliard d’euros à Google, au motif notamment qu’elle a omis de prendre en considération l’ensemble des circonstances pertinentes dans son appréciation de la durée des clauses contractuelles qu’elle avait qualifiées d’abusives

Google exploite depuis 2003 une plate-forme publicitaire appelée AdSense. Google a développé à cet égard divers services dont, en particulier, un service d'intermédiation publicitaire liée aux recherches en ligne appelé AdSense for Search (AFS).

(...)

Read more