CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 février 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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. 149 February 2012 Arras and Others v. Italy - 17972/07 Judgment 14.2.2012 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Retroactive legislative interference in litigation between private parties: violation Facts – As pensioners and former employees of a banking group, the applicants benefited from an exclusive welfare system with a more favourable equalisation mechanism. Following the privatisation of the group in 1990, their pension system was reformed on a number of occasions. A number of pensioners in the applicants’ position instituted proceedings contesting the group’s refusal to continue applying the more favourable equalisation mechanism in their case, which refusal had resulted in them receiving lower pensions. In 1994 the domestic courts found in favour of the pensioners. The applicants instituted proceedings in 1996 expecting that the previously established case-law would apply to their cases too. However, after favourable first and second-instance decisions, Law no.   243/04 came into force. It laid down that, with retroactive effect from 1992, retired employees of the group could no longer benefit from the favourable equalisation mechanisms. Subsequently, the Court of Cassation reversed the lower courts’ decisions and dismissed the applicants’ claims. Law – Article 6 § 1: Under the Court’s constant jurisprudence, the legislature was not prevented from regulating rights derived from the laws in force through new retrospective provisions. However, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of fair trial precluded interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute. Even though the State was not a party to the proceedings at issue, the Court held that its responsibility was engaged in both its legislative and judicial capacities. Law no.   243/04 had retrospectively determined the substance of disputes pending before ordinary courts thus making it pointless for an entire group of individuals in the applicants’ position to carry on with the litigation. Consequently, there had been no equality of arms between the two private parties since the State had found in favour of one of them after it enacted the impugned legislation. Moreover, the Government had adduced no compelling reason of general interest capable of justifying legislative interference of that sort. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: Awards ranging between EUR 5,500 and EUR 30,000 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. (See also Zielinski and Pradal & Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos.   24846/94 et al., 28   October 1999; and Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , no.   13427/87, 9   December 1994)   © 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