#Competition #University #Palermo #readmitted #candidate #appeal #Tar #BlogSicilia #Latest #news #Sicily
She had been excluded from a competition from the University of Palermo for the guidance and tutoring center despite having obtained a score of 26 out of 30 and 25 out of 30 in the written tests and 19 out of 30 in the oral test.
allowed her to be eligible and to be included in the ranking.
The appeal to the Tar
Against this decision, the candidate filed an appeal with the TAR of Palermo assisted by the lawyers Girolamo Rubino and Calogero Marino.
The lawyers have shown that according to the rules of the competitions of the University of Palermo, the interview is considered passed with a score of 18 out of 30 and not 21 out of 30 as the examination commission had decided.
So the young woman had also passed the oral one.
The decision of the judges
The judges of the first section of the TAR of Palermo chaired by Salvatore Veneziano accepted the appeal and admitted the candidate excluded from the competition in the ranking.
Compensated by prof Unipa
Back in 2010, the University of Palermo had launched a selective procedure for the coverage of n.
1 post as a university researcher at the Faculty of Architecture, as a result of which the architect was proclaimed the winner.
EG The outcome of the procedure was, however, contested by two other participants with an appeal lodged before the TAR for alleged illegality put in place by the Commission of selection in carrying out the procedure.
The appeal to the TAR
The winner was the arch.
EG, with the patronage of the lawyers Girolamo Rubino and Giuseppe Impiduglia, supporting the correctness of the work of the examining commission, expression in any case of an unquestionable technical discretion by the Judging Body and therefore insisting on the rejection of the appeal.
The TAR Palermo, Second Section, after having rejected the precautionary request, declared the appeals lodged ten years ago unacceptable due to lack of interest in the decision of the appeal by the original applicants.
“Unreasonable duration of the judgment”
At this point, the arch.
EG decided to take legal action again, assisted by the lawyers Girolamo Rubino and Carmelinda Gattuso, in order to obtain the compensation recognized pursuant to Law no.
89/2001, the so-called “Pinto Law”, due to the excessive and unreasonable duration of the judgment that the same had undergone and defined after ten years.
The architect gets compensation from the state
The Court of Appeal of Palermo, accepting the complaints raised in court by the lawyers Girolamo Rubino and Carmelinda Gattuso, accepted the request for fair reparation and recognized the architect.
EG the compensation granted by the State to each citizen for the excessive duration of the trial, pursuant to the so-called “Pinto Law”.
Pending judgment, the architect also passed the competition for associate professor.