JUDGEMENT OF N 63-January 14, 2011 ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PUGLIA
The ruling involved the vexed question concerning the interpretation of art. 33 of Law 104/92, with reference to the existence of the condition of continuing assistance for the disabled where the headquarters of the employee is at a considerable distance from their place of residence of the assisted. The decision of the Administrative Court clarifies that the requirement of continuity does not coincide with the day care, but it is enough that the assistance will take place on a systematic and adequacy, which can not be excluded in the case of absence of the employee from the place of the assisted. In other words, the distance can not be considered decisive factor for the failure to grant the benefit.
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Regional Administrative Court of Puglia
(Section Three) gives the following
Judgement on the appeal to General Ledger number 1371 of 2009 proposed by: Caio
Marshal, represented and defended by the lawyer. Harry, with an address at the Chambers of. Guy;
against
Ministry of Economy and Finance - General Command of the Guardia di Finanza - Regional Command of the Guardia di Puglia Finance, in the person of the Minister, Minister pt, represented and defended by the District of the State of Bari, legally domiciled in Bari, Via Melo, 97;
to cancel
"- the decision no 0244824/09 issued on 06/05/2009 and notified on 29.5.2009, the application is dismissed by the applicant to obtain the possibility to use permits in art. 33, paragraph 3, L. 104/92
and order of the Directors
notice to compensation for any damage arising from the conduct thereof. "
view of the action and its annexes;
Since the entry of appearance in court of the Ministry of Economy and Finance;
view of the briefs;
Taking all of the acts of the case;
View Ordinance No. 591 1 October 2009, acceptance of the instance of cross precautionary suspension;
Given the order of Section IV of the State Council, No 420 of 27 January 2010, the application is dismissed pre-trial at first instance, reform of the order referred to in this TAR
Rapporteur of the day in the public hearing December 3, 2010, Dr. Rosalba Giansante and heard the counsel for the appellant , Mr.. Harry, no one appeared resistant to the Administration;
held and considered the facts and law as follows.
FACT
exhibits in fact the MC Marshal Dick, an official of the Guardia di Finanza, according to the Lieutenancy of Cerignola (FG) that he had submitted on 12.02.2009 instance time to get three days off per month, pursuant to art. 33, paragraph 3 of Law No 104 of 1992 to assist the mother, Ms Immaculate Maffini, born in Marcianise (EC) on 22.01.1948 and living in Latin America, affected by sensory disabilities (art. 50 of Law No 342 of 2000) and partial blindness in both eyes found by the Commission in determining whether the disability of the USL Latina - Latin District.
adds that he has attached to this instance three statements in lieu of affidavit respectively, demonstrating the inability of the other components of the original family, Francesco Esposito Stefania Esposito, the mother continues to care for personal, non-admitted full time in hospitals or similar and that of Ms Immaculate Maffini the family of origin was made by Ms Maffini cited in a state of widowhood.
The applicant further submits that in with phonogram of 27.02.2009, notified on 30.03.2009, Commander Regional Command of the Guardia di Finanza Regionale Puglia had rejected his application, that this applicant had challenged that decision in written submissions, that measure No 0244824/09 of 06.05.2009, notified on 29.05.2009, the application was again rejected for lack of requirement of continuity.
The applicant then brought this action duly notified on 27.07.2009 and lodged at the Office of the Court on 27.08.2009, with whom he sought the annulment of that decision to reject No 0244824/09 of 06.05.2009 and order the respondent authority to pay compensation for any damage arising from the conduct thereof.
In support of the appeal the applicant raised the following complaints:
1 - violation and misapplication of Article. 33, paragraph 3 of Law No 104 of 1992, as amended by art. 19 of Law No 53, 2000.
2 - abuse of power per errata interpretazione dell’art. 33, comma 3, della legge n. 104 del 1992;
3 – violazione degli artt. 3 e 33 della legge n. 104 del 1992, per violazione dell’art. 3 della Costituzione, degli artt. 7, 25 e 26 della Carta dei Diritti Fondamentali dell’Unione europea, degli artt. 4, comma 1, lettera B ed art. 19 della Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite, sui diritti delle persone con disabilità.
Il M.C. Esposito ha contestato quanto rappresentato nel provvedimento impugnato e cioè che il requisito della continuità non sussisterebbe a causa della eccessiva distanza intercorrente tra la sede di servizio e la località di residenza del soggetto portatore di handicap, in quanto, conformemente a quanto ritenuto INPS circular No 90, May 23, 2007, the requirement of continuity should be systematic and adequacy of the characters rather than the nature of day care, the applicant also alleges the illegality of the contested measure was adopted because it would be in breach of Article. 7 Charter of Fundamental Human Rights which provides for privacy and family life, nor would agree with the reasoning of that decision in so far as it recalls the circular provides that the requirement of systematic assistance "does not should be applied in relation to the Police or to a category of workers, however, tied to a stable place of employment "because they are already using the conditional expresses doubts about this interpretation. The MC
Edwards has also sought an order of the administration resistant to damages produced by the denial of permits required, resulting in suffering damage to be identified by the inability to take advantage of the protections provided by law right to the protection provided by the weakest Constitution, no such damage would require proof the defendant had procured a breach of constitutional values \u200b\u200bprotected by the adoption of the contested measure and would be settled on an equitable basis.
Si è costituito a resistere in giudizio il Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, a mezzo dell’Avvocatura Distrettuale dello Stato di Bari, chiedendo il rigetto del gravame.
Entrambe le parti hanno prodotto documentazione.
Parte ricorrente ha presentato una memoria per la camera di consiglio e l’Avvocatura Distrettuale dello Stato in data 17.09.2009 ha depositato la relazione illustrativa del Comando Regionale Puglia della Guardia di Finanza del 07.09.2009.
Alla camera di consiglio del 30 settembre 2009, con ordinanza n. 591, è stata accolta la domanda incidentale di sospensione cautelare.
Con ordinanza n. 420 del 27 gennaio 2010, la Sezione IV del Consiglio di Stato ha rigettato l’istanza cautelare proposta in primo grado, in riforma della suddetta ordinanza di questo T.A.R..
Il M.C. Esposito ha presentato una ulteriore memoria per l’udienza di discussione.
Alla udienza pubblica del 3 dicembre 2010 la causa è stata chiamata e assunta in decisione.
DIRITTO
Il ricorso è fondato e deve, pertanto, essere accolto.
Coglie nel segno il motivo di censura con il quale il ricorrente ha dedotto la violazione, falsa applicazione ed errata interpretazione dell’art. 33, comma 3, della legge n. 104 del 1992.
Il Collegio ritiene utile, preliminarmente, focalizzare la regola di diritto da applicare alla fattispecie in esame.
L’art. 33 della legge n. 104 del 1992 al comma 3, concernente la fruibilità di permessi mensili retribuiti da parte del lavoratore, aveva inizialmente previsto che: “Successivamente al compimento del terzo anno di vita del bambino, la lavoratrice madre o, in alternativa, il lavoratore padre, anche adottivi, di minore con handicap in situazione di gravità, nonchè colui che assiste una persona con handicap in situazione di gravità parente o affine entro il terzo grado, convivente, hanno diritto a tre giorni di permesso mensile, fruibili anche in maniera continuativa a condizione che la persona con handicap in situazione di gravità non sia ricoverata a tempo pieno”; il comma 5, disciplinante la sede di lavoro più vicina ed il trasferimento, recitava: “Il genitore o il familiare lavoratore, con rapporto di lavoro pubblico o privato, che assista con continuità un parente o un affine entro il terzo grado handicappato, con lui convivente, ha diritto a scegliere, ove possibile, la sede di lavoro più vicina al proprio domicilio e non può essere trasferito senza il suo consenso ad altra sede.”
Successivamente il legislatore è intervenuto modificando la suddetta normativa con la legge n. 53 del 2000; l’art. 19 di tale legge, per quello che in questa sede interessa, alla lettera a), concernente il comma 3 del suddetto art. 33, dopo le parole: “permesso mensile” ha inserito le seguenti parole: “coperti da contribuzione figurativa”; ed alla lettera b), relativamente al comma 5, of the same Article. 33 deleted the words "with his partner"; art. 20, on The extension of assistance to the handicapped, in paragraph 1 also ruled: "The provisions of Article. Law 33 of February 5, 1992, No 104, as amended by art. 19 of this Act shall apply even if the other parent is not entitled as well as parents and family workers, public employment or private, to assist with continuity and exclusively a relative or a relative within the third degree a disability, even if not living together. "
From the literal of the guidelines applicable to the facts of this appeal as mentioned above after the changes introduced by Law No 53 of 2000, as the contested measure was adopted on 06.05.2009, it is clear that the legislature in 2000 by art. 19 deleted the words "with his partner" in paragraph 5 only on the nearest place of work and transfer, but not for paragraph 3 on the monthly allowance paid to that concern the case in question. However
the art. 20 of the Law 53 of 2000, though refers to Article. 33 as amended by art. 20, extends the applicability of the whole art. Law 33 of February 5, 1992, No 104, family workers, with employment public or private, to assist with continuity and exclusively a relative or affinity within the third degree of a disability, even if not living together. "leveled so in that respect the rules on permits and site work and transfer.
the light of the foregoing, the Board believes that the paid leave may be granted to family members and workers living and to those not living together, but they provided to assist with continuity and exclusively to the disability.
Turning to analyze, on the basis of these coordinates the specific case under appeal, the Board believes that the core issue mail from today's action is whether the MC Esposito assist continuity with his mother, given that exclusivity is not at issue, this question must be addressed given that the amendments introduced by Law No 53, 2000, as has already ruled in this Section No decision 8 .04.2010 1329, are generally characterized by an implementation of the right to the assistance of the disabled and that factor, which is the rationale, must prevail to the interpretation of any provision of that issue in order to ensure consistency the system and compatibility with the constitutional principles, even art. 3 of the Constitution.
The Board, confirming the guidelines was recognized in by this section (see Judgement No. 1329/2010 cit.), that the condition of continuity of care can not be the same as an everyday aid itself, it is sufficient if such assistance is carried out according to criteria of systematic and adequacy (the principles which incorporated the INPS Circular No. 90 of May 23, 2007), as proposed by the applicant condisibilmente, so much so that the benefits in question can not but be recognized only in the event of hospitalization of disabled full-time at a suitable structure.
If the above is true distance may in itself be nullifying the non-grant element benefit, as claimed by this section order No. 591 1 October 2009 upheld the suspension cross-instance, even with that sentence no 1329/2010, also cited by the applicant lodged on 26.11.2010, this section felt that for continuity of care, understood as effectiveness of care in favor of the disabled by the employee, parent or relative of the subject , can not - for the granting of days off - in the sense impediment to occur on a sense of the concept of separation only in a spatial sense.
The Board also considered and agreed with the prospect of MC Esposito e contrariamente da quanto sostenuto da parte resistente nella relazione illustrativa del Comando Regionale Puglia della Guardia di Finanza del 07.09.2009, che non possa ritenersi condivisibile la motivazione del provvedimento stesso di rigetto laddove richiama la parte della circolare del Comando Generale della Guardia di Finanza n. 113616/102 del 07.04.2008 che prevede che il requisito della sistematicità dell’assistenza “non dovrebbe trovare applicazione in relazione alle Forze di Polizia ovvero ad una categoria di lavoratori, comunque legata ad una sede di servizio stabile”.
In disparte la questione, peraltro evidenziata anche dal ricorrente, che già l’uso del condizionale esprimerebbe i dubbi su detta interpretazione da parte dello stesso Comando Generale della Guardia di Finanza che ha emanato la circolare, il Collegio ritiene che non applicare al personale della Guardia di Finanza il requisito della continuità come sopra inteso e, quindi, ritenendo sufficiente che l’assistenza alla persona handicappata da parte del lavoratore si svolga secondo criteri di sistematicità e di adeguatezza, sistematicità che non può escludersi nel caso di obiettiva lontananza del dipendente dalla sede del disabile, sarebbe discriminante per tale categoria di lavoratori, come peraltro rappresentato nella circolare stessa per altre categorie di lavoratori.
Rientra poi nelle valutazioni personali del lavoratore che assiste la persona handicappata trovare la migliore soluzione organizzativa to give the best possible assistance to disabled persons the same, compatible with the remote and the specific needs of the patient.
The Board, aware of the difficulty, do you think we should strike a balance between the values \u200b\u200bprotected, self-organization of the administration pursuant to art. 97 of the Charter and safeguard the fundamental right to health under Article. 32 of the Constitution itself, abstractly conflicting, but not without considering that in the balancing of conflicting interests must be considered paramount, for in the field in question, the right to health of the patient.
The profile of illegality raised by the plea of \u200b\u200bsuillustrato ricorso ha una indubbia valenza assorbente rispetto agli altri motivi di gravame, sicché la fondatezza della dedotta censura comporta l’accoglimento del ricorso stesso, senza necessità di pronunziarsi sugli ulteriori motivi d’impugnazione.
Conclusivamente, per i suesposti motivi, il ricorso deve essere accolto e, conseguentemente, deve essere annullato il provvedimento prot. n. 0244824/09 del 06.05.2009 con il quale il Comando Regionale Puglia della Guardia di Finanza ha rigettato l’istanza del ricorrente volta ad ottenere tre giorni di permesso mensili, ai sensi dell’art. 33, comma 3, della legge n. 104 del 1992, per poter assistere la madre, sig.ra Immacolata Maffini.
Il Collegio rigetta, invece, la domanda for costs and to pay damages, also made the appeal in question.
should highlight in this regard that even if the infringement of a person's inviolable right is specifically identified source of non-pecuniary damages liability under art. 2059 cc protecting the serious violations of inviolable rights of the person, not otherwise remediable. (See Council of State, Section VI, March 23, 2009, No. 1716) is deemed necessary to further highlight that, even assuming its configurability for a type of damage such as that alleged in this case, the application must be however, rejected because the right to compensation for pain and suffering, in all cases where it is deemed compensable, can not ignore the allegation by the applicant, the facts from which infer the existence and extent of injury (see United Cassation No. 3677/2009). If
issue in this case the question is worded broadly and not supported by even the slightest evidence. The MC
Edwards complains, in fact, generally that the damage would have resulted from denial of permits required, damage identified in the "suffering resulting from the inability to take advantage of the right protections provided by law inspired by our constitution to protect the Charter of the weak" .
expenses, according to the rule of negative outcomes, must get paid della parte resistente, nell’importo liquidato nel dispositivo.
P.Q.M.
Il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Puglia (Sezione Terza) definitivamente pronunciando sul ricorso, come in epigrafe proposto, lo accoglie e per l’effetto annulla il provvedimento impugnato.
Respinge la domanda risarcitoria.
Condanna parte resistente al pagamento delle spese processuali e degli onorari di giudizio, che liquida in €. 2.000,00 (duemila/00) in favore del M.C. Maresciallo Caio.
Ordina che la presente sentenza sia eseguita dall'autorità amministrativa.
Così deciso in Bari nella camera di consiglio del giorno 3 dicembre 2010 con l'intervento dei magistrati:
Pietro Morea, Presidente
Antonio Pasca, Consigliere
Rosalba Giansante, Referendario, Estensore
L'ESTENSORE
IL PRESIDENTE
0 comments:
Post a Comment