CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .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 } Published on 2 September 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no.   32696/20 Antonio DELFINO against Italy lodged on 20   July 2020 communicated on 15   July 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In application of section 23 of the Prison Administration Act (“Law no.   354 of 1975”) national authorities paid to detainees working in prison 70% of their salaries, the remaining 30% being diverted to an assistance fund for victims of crime (until 1978) and to regional and local authorities (from 1978 to 1986). By the judgment no.   49 of 1992 the Constitutional Court declared section   23 of Law no.   354 of 1975 unconstitutional, considering that the salary reduction unfairly discriminated detainees against other citizens. Based on the established case-law at that time (judgment of the Court of Cassation, Labour Section, no.   8055 of 1991), several detainees brought their claims before labour courts. In the context of these proceedings the Ministry of Justice objected that labour courts did not have jurisdiction to hear those claims. Invoking section   69 of Law no.   354 of 1975, as amended by Law no.   663 of 1986, the authorities argued that complaints concerning prisoners’ work should fall within the jurisdiction of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences ( magistrato di sorveglianza ). Labour courts, including the Court of Cassation (see, for example, judgment of the plenary Court of Cassation no.   490 of 1999), upheld this interpretation and rejected the detainees’ claims for lack of jurisdiction. By the judgment no.   341 of 2006 the Constitutional Court declared section   69 of Law no.   354 of 1975 unconstitutional, considering that judicial proceedings before the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in matters concerning prisoners’ work did not guarantee the very essence of the right to a fair trial. After an unsuccessful conciliation attempt in 2006, in 2009 the applicant brought a claim against the Ministry of Justice to request the payment of the amounts retained from 1982 to 1986 in application of section 23 of the Prison Administration Act. Labour courts dismissed his claim at three instances. In particular, by a judgment of 13   March 2014, upheld by the Court of Cassation on 24   October 2019, the Rome Court of Appeal considered the applicant’s right to obtain the payment of the contested sums as time-barred, by allowing the Ministry of Justice’s objection that the applicant had failed to prove that he had exercised that right within five years from the termination of working activities in prison. With this regard, domestic courts considered that the burden to prove working activities in prison and, in particular, specific periods of work and places of detention from 1986 to the date he requested for the first time the payment (2006) was on the applicant. The applicant complains that by refusing to pay him the sums unlawfully retained in application of an unconstitutional provision national authorities violated his right under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the judgment of the Constitutional Court no.   49 of 1992, did the applicant have a legitimate expectation, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention, to obtain the payment of the contested sums?   2.     If so: (a)     was the domestic authorities’ refusal to pay in accordance with the law? (b)     did such refusal strike a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individuals’ fundamental rights (see, for the general principles, Beyeler v.   Italy [GC], no.   33202/96,   §§   114 and 120, ECHR 2000-I; Broniowski v.   Poland [GC], no.   31443/96,   §   151, ECHR 2004-V; and Bērziņš and Others v.   Latvia , no.   73105/12,   §   90, 21   September 2021)?   The Government are requested to provide examples of final decisions recognising to detainees the payment of the sums retained under section   23 of Law no.   354 of 1975 following its annulment by the judgment of the Constitutional Court no.   49 of 1992.