In recent months, the PEC (Certified Mail) has been at the center of a part in the debate because of the choice of the Minister Brunetta to make it the preferred tool of communication between citizens, businesses and public administrations.
As readers of this blog will recall, the use of the PEC , I was never fully convinced , but the PEC can be an instrument to facilitate transactions with citizens, improve the quality of life of users and reduce the costs of bureaucracy (both the public sector and the citizens).
Things, for the moment, did not go as it was in the plans of Minister Brunetta : there are many professionals (although required by law) did not trigger a PEC box and a few (very few) people who have decided to take advantage of the initiative government to "give away" the PEC .
The cause of this real FLOP is to be found, mainly in the fact that the government does not want the PEC: with rare exceptions, the agencies do not publish the address on their sites PEC does not allow citizens to submit petitions and applications for electronically, ignore telecommunication services to citizens and businesses.
This behavior is objectionable on two grounds:
a) Administrations that do not use the PEC, continue to prefer paper, administrations are inefficient (not reaping the benefits of dematerialisation), wasting public money (for all wireless PEC costs about 19 dollars less than a paper one), discriminatory (forcing users with disabilities to the print and queues at the counters), in short, are entities that (a view anachronistic) pursue a bureaucratic logic ("we have always done so") and refuse to make the performance legal obligations as simple as possible.
b) Administrations that do not use the PEC violate the law so serious and inexcusable, damaging some rights that are already (more than four years) recognized individuals and businesses.
In this respect, is emblematic of what happened in the past few days and saw stars the Ministry of Education, University and Research .
These are the facts: an aspiring agrotechnic sent the state exam application form via certified mail, because the electronic mode was not provided by the act that had banned the testing, the National College of agrotechnicians asked the Ministry for Public administration and, indeed, the Ministry of Education if the request was properly filed. The first answer was the department headed by Minister Gelmini has categorically ruled out the possibility of using the PEC as a Ministerial Order is not envisioned as a way of forwarding requests to participate, adding that the PEC
is a tool whose use is still in its infancy and is therefore not included among the possible ways of sending applications to participate in competency examinations.
The note from the Ministry of Education has caused embarrassment and uproar and it runs the risk of thwarting many of sforsi made in recent months to promote the use of the PEC, the Department of Public Service has seen so must act on each other, supporting the Contrary to what was stated by the Ministry of Education and heralding a circular "with which govern the mandatory transmission by PEC requests to participate in any type of competition, including those related to enrollment in professional associations."
Many have written to me to know who was right in this "quarrel between Ministries" (but could not talk to each other?): Well, can not be called in question in the note that the Ministry of Education, there are several inaccuracies. First, it is true that the PEC is a still experimental (it has been governed by Decree n. 68/2005 and, according to Legislative Decree no. 82/2005, the agencies should have the dotarsene 2006), but the worst part is that they completely ignored the provisions of Articles 6 D. Decree no. 82/2005 (which introduced the right to the use of certified electronic mail) and 48 D. Decree no. 82/2005 (which expressly provides for the transmission of communications as PEC is equivalent to the postal service).
As I wrote a few weeks ago, the PEC is a right and then people can use it (in the manner provided by law) without prior consent in writing to the Ente.
At the regulatory level, the PEC is equivalent to the letter with acknowledgment of receipt and, therefore, it can be argued that the provision of the instrument "recommended" in the competition, in itself, implies the possibility for the participation of the private with the PEC; faced with an order to exclude, the candidate would be no further appeal to the Administrative Judge (TAR) to enforce the vices of legal violations and abuse of power.
And anyway, even if the Administration - in the contract - specifically excluding delivery through PEC, this exclusion (limiting participation) should be adequately and suitably justified, otherwise, against a forecast of this kind could appeal to the TAR.
A few months ago, in a presentation on the Certified Mail , I spoke of "Fiction of the PEC" to try to describe the events (laws and administrative) of this instrument: a story of constant twists and where the "happy ending "seems further and further away.
And 'shareable, then, the disappointment clear in the note the Department of Public Service, the Ministry of Education guidelines such as those are now unacceptable. The rules are there (in years) and are very clear: the government can not prevent the use of technology in administrative proceedings.
In my humble opinion, are not necessary circular (like the one announced by Brunetta): the rules must be enforced, using all the remedies provided for by law, primarily the judiciary.
If the authorities do not have the sensitivity and diligence to ensure the effectiveness of digital rights, a judge will be called to ordinarglielo .
There is a reassuring conservatism that dwells in the public offices. And 'the reassuring conservatism that leads to write nonsense.
We must work because they do not come back. I am convinced that if people are showing how it can improve the quality of their time and their work through the use of information technology administrative act will not want to give it up.
The Ministry of Education and its branch offices are always distinguished for rearguard battles, eg. USP does not accept the Sondrio (requests for temporary uses and assignments, and produced by existing staff) the reference to documents already in its possession, even explicit reference to the presidential decree No. 445 of 2000, and is not the only . As for the PEC I have turned exploiting the agreement with ACI, but upon returning from vacation I find that by September 15 must migrate postacertificata.gov.it. I did, but the service is at 50% as send but not receive, in addition, unlike the PEC ACI, the government does not seem, for now, configurable and manageable through a normal email client, but you are obliged to connect with the site. Most government offices and local authorities (from personal experience in the far north), when asked the PEC, they answer that they prefer a fax
(Good job, Ernesto!
[...] This post was Mentioned on Twitter by Ernesto Belisario, luca Menini, domenico flagpole, flagstaff Dominic, Paul Alfano and others. Paul Alfano said: RT @ diritto2punto0: New blog post: PEC: We are the comic http://blog.ernestobelisario.eu/2010/08/28/pec-siamo-alle-comiche/ [...]
I am speechless .... I do not know whether to laugh or cry. In reality cry ...
That the PEC is a perfectly legal means of transmission and equalized, in fact, the registered A / R is not in doubt .. indeed, it also represents something more ensuring, in some cases, even the contents of the recommended.
The problem lies nell'identificabilità of the subject and send it to PA.
The PEC (call it easy) allows this? In my opinion, unfortunately, no.
It can, therefore, legitimately, be refused a PEC, in terms that do not, with a reasonable degree of certainty, knowable sender's name. I think we can imagine a letter sent to the PA consists of paper sheets unsigned.
Speech in part, of course, it should be done in the case in which the documents are sent digitally signed: in this case nothing could oppose the PA.
And the CEC-PAC? In this case, as well as being guaranteed by law to identify the subject at the time of issuance of credentials, there is a specific provision, paragraph 3-bis of art. CAD 65, which makes perfectly valid, as a tool for submission of applications to the PA, the use of the CEC-PAC.
Now I do not know if it is given to the request for participation was digitally signed or not, or if it had been forwarded by CEC-PAC. What I "awe" is the response of a ministry that knows nothing of PEC and even makes the effort to ask his neighbors to the government!
Perhaps the Ministry of Education are considering the introduction of a new source of law? A "law in practice" that have the force of law should be accompanied by adequate practice ...
Excuse me .. returning from vacation is more difficult than anticipated.
In my comment I was referring to paragraph 1, lett. ca, art. 65 of the CAD and non-existent in paragraph 3a ..
Paragraphs, letters, bis, tris: give me back the towel and the week puzzles!
[...] The minimum criteria of accessibility? And so on until you get to the issue of transparency with € ™ s episode € ™ highlight of this summer on the legality or otherwise use the PEC € ™ s  in a specific context and that he [...]