The new direction Mibac
In 2007 we organized two appeals to the Head of State against the tender of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture for ... .. various skills in the role of managers (specifically architects Supervisors) that no one knew anything, the years went by and participated in the competition also challenged the ranking, but this time all deposited directly to the State Council together with a copy of the previous appeal the notice "illo tempore" deposited at Mibac.
The State Council required the Ministry of the reasons for which he had never submitted its counter to the first appeal (to law), setting the hearing on May 24, 2009.
Now after almost a year, the SC public against the sentence attached to the applicants, arguing among other arguments that the ban has not been challenged.
But as it happens, the appeal is against:
a) the contract and the integration of the notice;
b) the rankings;
c) the appointment of the selection board;
d) all additional and various measures.
The reasons for the rejection - which has about 4 small pages to write which the Council of State took approximately one year after the meeting ("Hearing") of May 27, 2009 - I think the level of the contents of the decision is equal to the form in which the sentence is addressed to the "Direction genital
I wonder if the Minister and the Minister Brunetta Bondi (despite the cuts) are aware of the existence of this new Ministerial Direction.
The comment we leave it to readers, but the question arises: is it possible, in a state of law, that the ministry receives two applications to the Head of State, signed a PHEIC TECSTATministeri and one signed by seven architects of the administration both regularly acquired and protocols and the deposit does not comply promptly, so as to effect more than one year from the date of his sentence?
possible that it is claimed that the ruling was not appealed against the ban and calls for an indefinite and unknown ministerial opinion of April 1, 2009 (which can be requested to acquire).
We would also like to know why there is no response to the appeal dell'USPPI, who decided not to respond? The Secretary-General
Arch Danilo De Girolamo
0 comments:
Post a Comment