CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s53E9AB06 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 December 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 55919/21 Emilio PREBIANCO against Italy and 31 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 21 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the application of retrospective legislation, specifically Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 to pending national proceedings involving the applicants. The applicants, who are all represented by the lawyer N. Zampieri, were employed by the local government authorities. When they were transferred, under Article 8 of Law no. 124/1999, to work for the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, their length of service with the local government authorities was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicants lodged proceedings before the national district courts (see appended table), arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental to them. They sought placement in the professional grade corresponding to their full length of service from the date of the transfer as well as the determination of any compensation due to them. When those proceedings were pending on appeal, Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23   December 2005 entered into force. This provision intended to give effect to what the legislator claimed to be the original intention of the Parliament when adopting Article 8 of Law no. 124/1999. Relying on that interpretative law, the domestic courts dismissed the applicants’ claims. The applicants challenged the judgments before the Court of Cassation. In the course of the proceedings, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2011 in Scattolon , C-108/10, the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the competent courts of appeal for determination of whether the transferred employees had suffered a substantial loss of salary solely as a result of the transfer. The appellate courts ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against these judgments and the Court of Cassation upheld the appellate courts’ findings and conclusions. The Court of Cassation refused to refer a question of constitutionality of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005, stating that the matter had already been assessed by the Constitutional Court in its judgment no. 311 of 2009. According to the Court of Cassation, in particular, there was no reason to refer a new question of the constitutionality of the contested provision, even though the Constitutional Court had decided before the issuance of the judgments Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011, and Cicero and Others v. Italy , nos. 29483/11 and   4   others, 30 January 2020, since the Constitutional Court had recognised the existence of overriding reasons relating to the public interest which justified retrospective application of the contested law and had established that the power to make such assessment rested with the Constitutional Court itself. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the legislative interference pending the proceedings which, in their view, infringed their right to a fair trial. They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the retroactive application of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 deprived them of their property insofar as this provision put an end to the dispute between them and the administration. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there an interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute on account of the retrospective application to their case of Article   1 §   218 of Law no. 266/2005 (see Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos.   43549/08 and   2 others, 7 June 2011, and Cicero and Others v. Italy , nos. 29483/11 and4   others, 30 January 2020)? If so, was that interference based on compelling grounds of general interest?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1, considering the enactment of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005? If so, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?   3.     Having regard to the refusal of the Court of Cassation to refer a question of constitutionality of the contested law on the basis that the Constitutional Court had already decided a similar matter in its judgment no. 311 of 2009, even though this judgment (i) was issued before the publication of the Court’s judgments in Agrati and Others v. Italy (nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011) and Cicero and   Others v. Italy (nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, 30 January 2020), and (ii) declared ill-founded the question of constitutionality and, therefore, did not preclude the referral of new questions of constitutionality on the same provision, especially when the development of the case-law of the Court provided for new arguments to consider a question of constitutionality not manifestly ill-founded, the Government are requested to clarify under which conditions the domestic legal system requests national judges to bring the interpretation of the Convention’s provisions offered by the development of the case-law of the Court to the attention of the Constitutional Court.   4.     The applicants are invited to submit a declaration concerning the status of enforcement of the domestic judgments on the merit in their regard. If a domestic judgment has been enforced in their regard, the applicants are invited to include in the declaration the following information: the number, the R.G. and the date of the judgment in their favour, the sums received, and possibly the sums subsequently recovered by the administration. The applicants are invited to provide all the relevant documents concerning the enforcement of the judgments and, where applicable, the recovery of the sums. APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence First instance judgment Second instance judgment First judgment of the Court of Cassation Referral to the Court of Appeal   Final order of the Court of Cassation 1. 55919/21 Prebianco v. Italy 11/11/2021 Emilio PREBIANCO 1953 Paese Treviso District Court, R.G. 817/02, 30/05/2003 Venice District Court, R.G. 592/03, 04/12/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 22905/09 and 22907/09, 02/08/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 624/13, 24/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17194/15, 13/05/2021 2. 55941/21 Dalla Vecchia v. Italy 11/11/2021 Maria Luisa DALLA VECCHIA 1957 Treviso 3. 55989/21 Favero v. Italy 11/11/2021 Laura FAVERO 1959 Preganziol 4. 55998/21 Ceccon v. Italy 11/11/2021 Gemma CECCON 1946 Castelfranco Veneto 5. 56280/21 Mazzariol v. Italy 11/11/2021 Paola MAZZARIOL 1961 Trévise 6. 56313/21 Cappellari v. Italy 11/11/2021 Valeria CAPPELLARI 1951 Carbonera 7. 57585/21 Granello   v. Italy 11/11/2021 Roberto GRANELLO 1961 Collesalvetti 8. 57599/21 Elvite v. Italy 11/11/2021 Luise ELVITE 1947 Trévise 9. 58777/21 Bortoluzzi v. Italy 25/11/2021 Franca BORTOLUZZI 1954 Mestre Venice District Court, R.G. 347/04, 23/05/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 616/05, 10/11/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 24793/09, 24/01/2013 Trieste Court of Appeal, R.G. 155/13, 30/12/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17185/15, 25/05/2021 10. 58785/21 Cini v. Italy 25/11/2021 Antonella CINI 1958 Mestre 11. 58789/21 Tosello v. Italy 25/11/2021 Silvia TOSELLO 1960 Marcon 12. 58868/21 Cecconi v. Italy 23/11/2021 Luciana CECCONI 1949 Mestre 13. 58874/21 Favaretto v. Italy 25/11/2021 Antonella FAVARETTO 1958 Martellago 14. 58901/21 Roncarati v. Italy 23/11/2021 Benedetta RONCARATI 1973 San Maria di Sala 15. 58903/21 Lorenzi v. Italy 25/11/2021 Daniela LORENZI 1960 Stra 16. 58907/21 Cagnin v. Italy 23/11/2021 Marilena CAGNIN 1961 Noale 17. 58911/21 Zuccon v. Italy 23/11/2021 Martina ZUCCON 1971 Mira 18. 58975/21 Pugiotto v. Italy 23/11/2021 Giampaolo PUGIOTTO 1956 Mirano 19. 58983/21 Salmaso v. Italy   23/11/2021 Bruno SALMASO 1950 Fosso’ 20. 58986/21 Favaro v. Italy 23/11/2021 Emanuela FAVARO 1962 Spinea 21. 58996/21 Milan v. Italy 23/11/2021 Stefano MILAN 1959 Mira 22. 59001/21 Milione v. Italy   23/11/2021 Adelina MILIONE 1958 Spinea 23. 59012/21 Carelli v. Italy 23/11/2021 Filomena CARELLI 1950 Noale 24. 60870/21 Fracassetto v. Italy 02/12/2021 Maria Luisa FRACASSETTO 1958 Lusia Rovigo District Court, R.G. 554/03, 21/07/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 1019/05, 1028/05, 1029/05, 25/02/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 16724/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 634/13, 20/10/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 14159/15, 03/06/2021 25. 60906/21 Corra’ v. Italy 02/12/2021 Fiorenzo CORRA’ 1952 Boara Pisani Rovigo District Court, R.G. 552/03, 21/07/2005 26. 60902/21 Pivotto v. Italy 02/12/2021 Bruno PIVOTTO 1957 Breganze Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1273/03, 02/12/2004 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 61-63/05, 05/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19959/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 635/13, 22/10/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17190/15, 03/06/2021 27. 60911/21 Pozza v. Italy 02/12/2021 Fabio POZZA 1957 Recoaro Terme Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1274/03, 02/12/2004 28. 60960/21 Covolo v. Italy 02/12/2021 Giuseppe COVOLO 1961 Breganze Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1267/03, 02/12/2004 29. 60913/21 Bortoluz v. Italy 30/11/2021 Valeria BORTOLUZ 1955 Feltre Belluno District Court, R.G. 24/04, 08/06/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 867/05, 868/05, 877/05, 895/05, 896/05, 902/05, 903/05, 27/11/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 29699/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 632/13, 20/10/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 14158/15, 31/05/2021 30. 60923/21 Corrado v. Italy 30/11/2021 Evelina CORRADO 1952 Belluno Belluno District Court,R.G. 26/04, 13/06/2005 31. 60934/21 Maccagnan v. Italy 30/11/2021 Antoniella MACCAGNAN 1954 Mel Belluno District Court, R.G. 231/04, 13/06/2005 32. 61115/21 De Villa Bais v. Italy 30/11/2021 Mariella DE VILLA BAIS 1956 San Pietro in Cadore Belluno District Court, R.G. 233/04, 13/06/2005