​Si è svolto a Bologna il 16 febbraio 2024 un convegno organizzato dal Difensore civico della Regione Emilia Romagna sul tema: ORGANI DI GARANZIA tra realtà e potenzialità. Il messaggio uscito dal convegno è che gli organi di garanzia, in quanto garantiscono servizi a tutela dei cittadini in forma gratuita, sono un importante presidio democratico a difesa dei diritti specie dei più deboli, presidio che va valorizzato e rafforzato. 

L’incontro era articolato in due sessioni: prima sessione - Difesa civica: prospettive e orizzonti di riforma seconda sessione - Comitato regionale per le comunicazioni: pluralismo, indipendenza e garanzie per il cittadino.

Nella prima sessione è intervenuto anche il Difensore civico della Provincia autonoma di Trento, che ha affrontato il tema dell’evoluzione delle competenze della difesa civica e relativi profili operativi.

Nell’intervento ha evidenziato l’evoluzione delle competenze del Difensore civico quale organo stragiudiziale di risoluzione delle controversie tra ente e cittadino alternativo alla giurisdizione ordinaria - non più confinate alla segnalazione agli organi di amministrazione attiva di disfunzioni, carenze, omissioni e ritardi - a fronte di un approdo verso incisive forme di intervento (anche) ascrivibili agli strumenti ​​di tutela alternativa a quella giudiziale; si pensi al rimedio giustiziale del ricorso al Difensore civico avverso il diniego di accesso agli atti in cui l’organo di garanzia esercita competenze di tipo paragiurisdizionali o al suo coinvolgimento nella risoluzione in via non contenziosa di controversie derivanti dall'erogazione di prestazioni sanitarie (legge n. 24/2017). Nè sono mancati riferimenti alle competenze di tipo processuale a tutela delle persone disabili (ex art. 36 legge 104/1992).

Il Difensore civico ha sottolineato la valenza dei compiti di ausilio e consulenza qualificata al cittadino ai fini di un corretto inquadramento giuridico delle questioni, a prescindere che la questione sia poi trafusa (o meno) in un intervento di carattere generale nei confronti dell’amministrazione interessata. In tale sede ha fornito i dati numerici in ordine alle pratiche trattate e ai ricorsi definiti negli anni 2022 e ​​​2023.

La Justicia de Aragón, Concepción Gimeno, y el asesor, Samuel Fau, han participado esta mañana en su IV reunión Esta comisión tiene como objetivo la mejora de la respuesta institucional a las víctimas, para lo cual reúne a representantes de la administración de Justicia, las Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado, la Delegación de Gobierno y las administraciones local y autonómica. La reunión de esta mañana es la primera a la que se convoca a la institución del Justicia de Aragón. En este sentido, Concepción Gimeno ha agradecido al presidente de la Audiencia Provincial de Zaragoza, Alfonso Ballestín, la invitación “que nos va a permitir escuchar y determinar los temas y los procedimientos en los que el Justicia de Aragón pueden desempeñar un papel útil”.

Para la Justicia de Aragón, las conclusiones de la Comisión permitirán al Justiciazgo nutrirse de información fidedigna, precisa y solvente para poder trasladarla a las víctimas, en el marco de la labor de atención que se realiza en la sede. Igualmente, el foro es el adecuado para trasladar a todas las administraciones implicadas las inquietudes y necesidades que las víctimas hacen llegar a la institución “haciendo efectiva de esta manera nuestra labor de mediación, desde el respeto al reparto competencial”, según ha expresado Concepción Gimeno. La Justicia de Aragón ha recordado que la institución no interviene cuando un asunto está judicializado, ya que el ámbito de actuación es la actividad administrativa local y autonómica, sin perjuicio de dar traslado al Defensor del Pueblo de temas de interés general, en el marco de las relaciones de coordinación entre defensorías.

Lingue: es de en fr it pl pt

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2024-03/cp240052it.pdf

COMUNICATO STAMPA n. 52/24

Lussemburgo, 21 marzo 2024

Sentenza della Corte nella causa C-10/22 | LEA

La normativa italiana che esclude dalla gestione dei diritti d’autore le società indipendenti stabilite in un altro Stato membro è incompatibile con il diritto dell’Unione

Essa costituisce una restrizione alla libera prestazione dei servizi che non è né giustificata né proporzionata

La LEA è un organismo di gestione collettiva disciplinato dal diritto italiano e legittimato all’intermediazione di diritti d’autore in Italia. La Jamendo, società di diritto lussemburghese, è un’entità di gestione indipendente dei diritti d’autore che svolge la sua attività in Italia dal 2004. La LEA ha chiesto al Tribunale di Roma che sia ordinato alla Jamendo di cessare la sua attività di intermediazione in materia di diritti d’autore in Italia. Secondo la normativa italiana, tale attività è infatti riservata in via esclusiva alla Società italiana degli autori ed editori nonché agli altri organismi di gestione collettiva ivi indicati, come la LEA, mentre le entità di gestione indipendenti sono escluse da tale settore. 

(...)

A Bromsgrove care home cannot show it has complied with recommendations from the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman – forcing the Ombudsman to publish a rare critical notice.

It follows a complaint a family made about Wayside Care Ltd, that runs the Wayside Nursing Home in New Road, which charged them for 28 days’ care after their father passed away. This is despite the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)’s guidelines stating providers should only charge families for up to three days.

Following an investigation in 2023, the Ombudsman asked the care home to refund the father’s estate for the extra days charged. It also asked the company to review its contract to ensure it is in line with CMA guidance.

The care provider agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations; however, it has failed to provide evidence that it has in fact carried them out, despite the Ombudsman chasing for the information.

The Ombudsman has issued an Adverse Findings Notice against the provider which puts on record their failure to comply. The Ombudsman will share its findings with care regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Ms Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman said:

“It is simply not good enough for providers to agree to comply with our recommendations and then fail to produce evidence they have done so. We check to confirm compliance when we find fault.

“I am particularly disappointed that this care provider agreed to refund this family but has then said it will seek to recoup this cost by enforcing late fees it had previously waived.

“I am concerned this provider’s contemptible attitude, both to my office and the family, does not demonstrate a mature and customer-focused approach to improving its services for residents.”

Following the initial complaint, the provider was asked to apologise to the family and refund the man’s estate any money paid towards care costs from three days after his death.

It should also review its current contract to ensure it is in line with the CMA’s guidance on charges after a person has died.

Article date: 21 March 2024

A comprehensive investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has found that thousands of women may have been affected by DWP’s failure to adequately inform them that the State Pension age had changed.  

The 1995 Pensions Act and subsequent legislation raised the State Pension age for women born on or after 6 April 1950. We investigated complaints that, since 1995, DWP has failed to provide accurate, adequate and timely information about areas of State Pension reform. 

We published stage one of our investigation in July 2021. Our investigation found failings in the way DWP communicated changes to women’s State Pension age. 

This final report combines stages two and three of our investigation. It both considers the injustice resulting from the maladministration we identified during stage one and also sets out our thinking about remedy. 

To date, DWP has not acknowledged its failings nor put things right for those women affected. DWP has also failed to offer any apology or explanation for its failings and has indicated it will not compensate women affected by its failure. 

DWP’s handling of the changes meant some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances. It diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control. 

PHSO Chief Executive Rebecca Hilsenrath, said:  

“The UK’s national Ombudsman has made a finding of failings by DWP in this case and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. DWP has clearly indicated that it will refuse to comply. This is unacceptable. The Department must do the right thing and it must be held to account for failure to do so.   

“Complainants should not have to wait and see whether DWP will take action to rectify its failings. Given the significant concerns we have that it will fail to act on our findings and given the need to make things right for the affected women as soon as possible, we have proactively asked Parliament to intervene and hold the Department to account.

“Parliament now needs to act swiftly, and make sure a compensation scheme is established. We think this will provide women with the quickest route to remedy.”   

The investigation has been complex and involved analysing thousands of pages of evidence. On a number of occasions, parties were allowed additional time to consider and comment on our views. We also agreed last year to look again at part of our stage two findings following a legal challenge. All of this resulted to delays in the final report. 

The report has been laid before Parliament, with a request that it looks at our findings and intervenes to agree a remedy for the women affected. While Parliament will make its own decisions about rectifying the injustice, we have shared what we consider to be an appropriate remedy. In addition to paying compensation, we have made it clear that DWP should acknowledge its failings and apologise for the impact it has had on complainants and others similarly affected. 

The Ombudsman has received a series of complaints relating to how well DWP has communicated a variety of State Pension reforms. Concerns about communication of changes to the State Pension age constitute only one such area of complaint. The Department has also declined to act on other issues that have been consistently highlighted in complaints. A report from the Ombudsman later in the year will set these out.