| L’Ombudsman in Germania e Austria: tra competenze generali e settoriali, una discrasia tra forma e sostanza? |
| Fascicolo 2006-4 |
| Scritto da Palermo Francesco | Woelk Jens |
|
Sommario 1. Introduzione. – 2. L’ordinamento tedesco. – 2.1. La difesa civica in Germania. – 2.2. L’Ombudsman militare. – 2.3. La disciplina costituzionale e legislativa. – 2.4. Le funzioni. – 2.5. La tutela giuridica. – 2.6. I poteri. – 2.7. Valutazione. – 3. L’ordinamento austriaco: l’Avvocato del popolo. – 3.1. Composizione e funzioni. – 3.2. L’accesso e i poteri: in particolare, il diritto di ricorso alla Corte costituzionale. – 4.1. L’Ombudsman a livello regionale: l’ordinamento tedesco. – 4.2. L’ordinamento austriaco. – 5. Valutazione.
Abstract Germany and Austria do not have a particularly strong tradition where the institution of Ombudspersons is concerned. However, both legal systems have established rather developed forms of “civic defence” both at the federal and the sub-national levels. Austria has introduced in its Constitution the “people’s advocate” as a general institution, providing it with some interesting prerogatives, in particular the right to access to the Constitutional Court for the judicial scrutiny of administrative acts. In Germany, on the contrary, no general institution is established, but a number of Ombudspersons or alike in specific fields. Particularly relevant is the role and the nature of the Ombudsman for military issues. In general, the comparative analysis of the two legal systems shows that institutions with a general scope tend to be less efficient than similar institutions vested with more pervasive powers, but limited in scope. |