Usps Label Wrong Date

invalidity insurance contract whereby a public body shall ensure its directors

With regard to the profile of non-existence, at the inception of the business, of an express statutory prohibition that the second part of the appellant was only introduced into article. 3, paragraph 59 of Law No 24 December 2007 244, the Board reiterates the first place, and in accordance with an address well-established case law based on the principles laid down by the United Chambers sentence no 707 of April 5, 1991, which

payment by a local body of insurance premiums for policies taken out in favor of employees and managers to cover the consequences of convictions of the Court of Auditors, which descended by administrative violations in place by them against the organizing that is damage to the treasury, as it has no synallagma for the PA and not conforming to any public interest (most recently in the context of law that Section . Jur. Sicily, March 4, 2008 No 734. .

circumstances, the Board points out that the rule invoked by the appellant has ordered the cancellation of insurance contracts with a public body which ensures the risks related to its directors by the performance of official tasks associated with the office and on the responsibility accounting system and established moreover, that the current contracts cease to have effect on 30 June 2008 and is the administrator who carries out or to extend the contracts is the beneficiary of the insurance coverage are required to repay, as a loss of revenue, of a sum equal to ten times the total amount of premiums determined in policies in question.

textual examination of that rule, it appears not to introduce a new function into a ban on non-existent prior to its entry into force, but - as has correctly recognized the most recent case (Sect. egal. Sicilia, No 734 cit.) where Collegio ritiene di dover aderire – una valenza ricognitiva di un divieto già insito nel sistema e consacrato dalla costante ed uniforme giurisprudenza ed una valenza sanzionatoria (valevole ovviamente per le fattispecie realizzatesi solo dopo la entrata in vigore della norma ) che colpisce sia gli autori dell’illecito che i beneficiari: ne consegue, l’irrilevanza del richiamo operato dall’appellante della disposizione in esame per inferirne la legittimità del proprio comportamento

tratto dalla sentenza numero 108 del 19 febbraio 2010 pronunciata dalla Corte dei conti – Sezione Terza Centrale d’Appello