CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 avril 2007

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 96 April 2007 Guadagnino v. Italy and France (dec.) - 2555/03 Decision 12.4.2007 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Decision of Italian and French courts to decline jurisdiction to try the merits of a dispute concerning the performance of a contract of employment: admissible   The applicant, who is now in retirement, worked at the research institute Ecole française de Rome (“the institute”) on the basis of individual contracts governed by Italian law. While she was in her post, a Law entered into force laying down new criteria for civil servants’ salaries. The applicant requested the institute to recalculate her accrued entitlements in the light of the new criteria and to upgrade her post. When her request was refused she applied to the magistrate’s court, acting as an employment tribunal, seeking recognition of her right to a professional qualification corresponding to the work she had been performing and payment of the difference between the remuneration she had received and that to which she considered herself entitled.   The institute argued that the Italian courts did not have jurisdiction in the matter and applied to the Court of Cassation for a preliminary ruling on the issue of jurisdiction. It argued that the institute was a branch of the French State and that its activities came under the direct supervision of the French Ministry of Education. It maintained that the applicant’s work formed part of the institute’s official activities and that her claims were not of an exclusively pecuniary nature – in which case the matter would have been subject to Italian law – but related also to her professional qualifications. The Court of Cassation, sitting in plenary, ruled that the Italian courts lacked any competence in the matter. It found that the applicant’s work, which concerned the dissemination of French culture and civilisation abroad through the publication of literary and scientific works, was part of the official activity of the French Ministry of Education and was governed by French law. The fact that the contractual relationship had been governed by Italian private law was not significant for the purposes of determining which courts had jurisdiction. The applicant’s requests, relating in particular to her professional status within the institute, had not been of a purely pecuniary nature. The applicant was dismissed as she had reached the retirement age of 60. She brought proceedings against the institute before the magistrate’s court seeking to have her dismissal set aside, to be reinstated in her post and to be paid the difference in remuneration arising out of implementation of the new collective agreements. She argued that the retirement age in Italy was 65 years. The Court of Cassation held that the Italian courts were not competent to rule on applications concerning the lawfulness of the applicant’s dismissal, which involved an assessment of her work. It referred to its established case-law, according to which disputes involving staff of French cultural institutions fell within the jurisdiction of the French courts. However, it considered that the Italian courts had jurisdiction in relation to the request for payment of the difference in remuneration, which was an exclusively pecuniary issue. The applicant applied to the French Conseil d’Etat seeking to have the decision dismissing her set aside, to be reinstated in her post and to be paid the salary she should have received since her dismissal. The Conseil d’Etat rejected the application, finding that the French administrative courts did not have jurisdiction. In its view, the joint wish expressed by the parties at the time the applicant was recruited was for the employment contract to be governed by Italian law. Moreover, the applicant’s position as publications assistant was not governed by any provision of French law: admissible .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes