( State Council sect. VI, Judgement of 16 December 2010 No 9102 )
With No Appeal 10164/2009, brought under Article. 25 of Law No 241 of 1990, the spa xx Express Courier applied to the Regional Administrative Court of Lazio, Rome, challenging the refusal implied, to the application for the view formed by the same company on September 18, 2009, to gain access to all administrative documents the proceedings leading to the statement, the inspection against the company and the consortium Excel scarl Sac instantly notified, as required in solid and ended with the formal the latter the payment of certain defaults. It also requires the applicant for the annulment, if necessary, legislation regulating INPS, including the determination of the Special Commissioner No 1951 February 16, 1994, and all acts prodromal conditions, consequential and / or related to the measure, and order the administration to the exhibition of documents and all documents in the file of the administrative proceedings concluded with the minutes of 31 September 2009 drawn up against Excel scarl sac and the consortium. In support of the appeal while the company relied complaints of violations and false application of general principles on access to documents administration under Articles. 22, 24 and 25 of the Act. No 241, 1990 (in particular, the principles of good performance, transparency, due process and the right of defense), making a false application of the determination of the Special Commissioner February 16, 1994 Social Security No 1951 as well as abuse of power in several respects. Was, however, the company xx Express Courier that the interest in access directly derived from the need to defend their interests and individual rights, in the procedure above, before having to cede its dominant position, the right to privacy and, again, is not the case that the confidentiality of investigations, asking, in the conclusions, the condemnation of the administration presentation of their documents in the file of proceedings concluded with the statement, the inspection ABOVE-MENTIONED drawn against it, with the condemnation of the administration to pay damages resulting from the unlawful denial. The dispute, which was the INPS, at the outset objected to the ineligibility of the appeal both for its vagueness and because .... Source: LaPrevidenza.it, 24/01/2011
Documents:
0 comments:
Post a Comment