January 2016

Report: an opinion has been requested on the application of article 5, paragraph 8, of the Code of Ethics, "conflicts of interest for marital relations", in light of a change in the marital status of the beneficiary of a contract, which has been awarded by a Department based on the principle of educational continuity.
The person submitting the report subsequently decided to permanently refrain from teaching when that implies the signing of new contracts, in compliance with applicable laws.

Recommendations: the Committee considers that the matter raised - in the light of social and cultural evolution - is a delicate and general issue for the University and should be investigated to protect the principle of good performance from possible conflicts of interest, and in view of a possible revision of the Code of Ethics.

February 2016

Report: behaviours and situations which may impede the professional development of a department technician.

Opinion: the Committee has held a hearing with the head of the Human Resources and Organization Directorate; in the light of the organizational measures that have been implemented and of the documents that have been examined, the case can be closed without further investigations, actions or hearings.

March 2016

A meeting convened by the Rector with the Director General, the Committee for Equal Opportunities, the Vice Rector for Equity and Diversity Policies, the Rector's Delegate for organizational well-being, the head of the Transparency Unit, came to the conclusion that University bodies should be better coordinated to be more efficient and effective.

April 2016

Report: formal complaint by a PhD holder against their supervisor.
Opinion: the Committee, having carefully and thoroughly examined the report and the relevant documents, has a fully positive opinion of the role played by the University and therefore believes that the case should be closed without further hearings. The Committee also warns the PhD holder to refrain from spreading information that is incomplete, to say the least, and may damage the reputation of the University.

May 2016

Professor Gottardi has provided a Note to clarify the rules, the competent bodies and procedures, that should be involved in cases of workplace bullying. This is a first step that needs to be developed into a more elaborate document defining the reach of the Committee for the implementation of the code of ethics and its relations with other institutional bodies of the University. In particular, the Note underlines the need to:

• define the areas of competences of University bodies, and distinguish between exclusive and concurrent competences;
• determine how communication should flow within the University;
• establish procedures to adopt decisions, communicate them to the parties involved, and decide how to report them outside.