CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 24 juin 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE9E4B253 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s64E792FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:39.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB813FB12 { width:198.97pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC8636342 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; border-collapse:collapse } .sF5C9E8B1 { height:46.3pt } .sD1CDDC62 { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s2490CDBC { border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .s8DB21C27 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .s26ADB50A { border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e0e0e0 } .sFD306575 { height:35.55pt } .s2F4AF114 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s734752C4 { margin-left:13.34pt; padding-left:4.51pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s898DAE93 { border:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8E8B00CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:0.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-0.45pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB71F2881 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBCA334AF { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7CB6920E { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-right:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s62945D10 { border-top:0.75pt solid #808080; border-left:0.75pt solid #808080; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       SECOND SECTION           CASE OF AZIENDA AGRICOLA SILVERFUNGHI S.A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY   (Applications nos. 48357/07, 52677/07, 52687/07 and 52701/07)               JUDGMENT         STRASBOURG   24 June 2014       FINAL   24/09/2014   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v.   Italy, The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Işıl Karakaş, President,   Guido Raimondi,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Helen Keller,   Paul Lemmens,   Egidijus Kūris,   Robert Spano, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 May 2014, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in four applications (nos.   48357/07, 52677/0/07, 52687/07 and 52701/07) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) in 2007 by four firms with registred addresses in Italy (see Annex for details). 2.     The applicant companies were represented by Ms Alessandra Mari, a lawyer practising in Rome. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms Ersiliagrazia Spatafora and their Co-Agent, Ms Paola Accardo. 3.     The applicant companies alleged that they had suffered a violation of Article 6   §   1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as a result of legislative intervention in pending proceedings. 4.     On 11 October 2012 the applications were communicated to the Government. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.     The background to the cases 5.     The applicants are agricultural firms operating in northern and/or disadvantaged areas in Italy as defined in the relevant Italian laws. 6.     In the 1980s the Italian legislator instituted a series of norms to favour economic activity in general and, more specifically, agricultural activity. 7.     More precisely, Article 1(6) of Law no. 48 of 1988 (Legislative Decree no. 536 of 30 December 1987) (see “Relevant domestic law”, below) provided a concession ( fiscalizzazione ), namely, that as of 1 January 1987 the State would bear a portion of the contributions paid by employers in the agricultural sector for the purposes of Article 31(1) of Law no. 41/48 in respect of each employee. 8.     Furthermore, Article 9(5) of Law No. 67 of 1988 ( Legge finanziaria 1988 ) (see “Relevant domestic law” below) introduced a system of exemptions ( sgravi contributivi ) in respect of payments for the purposes of premiums and contributions related to welfare and assistance. Such payments were due in the measure of 15% (later 30%) by employers in the agricultural sector in northern regions and 40% (later 60%) by employers in the agricultural sector working in disadvantaged agricultural zones in the south of Italy. 9.     According to the applicant companies, Article 9(6) of Law No. 67 of 1988 (see “Relevant domestic law” below) indicated that the latter benefit was not alternative to the one provided for by Law no. 48 of 1988. That sub-article specified that for the purposes of the calculation of the exemption mentioned above, the concession was not to be taken into account. This, they considered, was also clear from the explanatory memorandum ( scheda di lettura ) to the law (see “Relevant domestic law” below). 10.     Following further normative changes between 1988 and 1996, the burden to be taken over by the State amounted to the following: a)     85,000 Italian lire (approximately 44 euros (EUR)) per employee for twelve monthly salaries; b)     a global 5.62 percentage points for exemptions in respect of contributions for the purposes of TBC (Tuberculosis), ENAOLI (Orphans of Italian Employees) and the SSN (National Health Service); c)     a global 4.92 percentage points for exemptions regarding the said contributions in respect of labourers and 5.02 percentage points for employees and directors, as from 1 June 1996. 11.     Despite the law, by circular no. 160 of 18 July 1988 the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity, considered that the two benefits (concession and exemption) could not be accumulated and had to be considered as alternative. 12.     In fact, the applicant companies benefited only from the exemption ( sgravi contributivi ) and not from the concession ( fiscalizzazione) . They considered that this interpretation was contrary to what was provided for in the law. 13.     Indeed, from as early as 1994 a number of agricultural firms (in particular Floramiata Spa) instituted proceedings (following administrative refusals) complaining about the matter, and consistent case-law in favour of the agricultural firms was established by the Italian courts, including the Court of Cassation. The applicant companies submitted that between 1997 and 2003 more than twenty-five first-instance judgments and more than five appeal judgments on the same subject matter had been delivered, together with two Court of Cassation judgments (see “Relevant domestic law and practice”, below) finding in favour of the agricultural firms. 14.     In this light, in 2000/2002 the applicant companies instituted proceedings as explained below. Pending these judicial proceedings Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 (hereinafter Law no. 326/03) was enacted (see “Relevant domestic law” below), providing that the benefits could not be accumulated. 15.     By judgment no. 274 of 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court considered that Law no. 326/03 was legitimate and not unconstitutional (see “Relevant domestic law and practice” below). B.     The domestic proceedings instituted by the applicant companies 1.     Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s 16.     On 7 November 2000 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had held contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 173,738,951 Italian lire (approximately EUR 90,000) plus interest and subject to revaluation. 17.     The INPS’s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection ( silenzio-rifiuto ), on 26 June 2001 the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the INPS. The latter again failed to reply. 18.     Thus, on 4 January 2002 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription (2000 onwards). 19.     By a judgment (no. 56/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Considering that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant company had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums (from 2000 onwards), with interest and subject to revaluation, and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings. 20.     By a judgment (no. 276/03) of 25 September 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 4 November 2003 the Brescia Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 21.     Following the entry into force of Law no. 326/03 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 22.     The applicant company cross-appealed, arguing that the application of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 to its case would amount to a violation of Article 6 of the Convention and a violation of the Italian Constitution in so far as it obliged the State to abide by the European Convention, a matter which had not been considered at all by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 7 July 2006. 23.     By a judgment (no. 10110/07) filed in the relevant registry on 2 May 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326/03. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed on the basis that Law no. 326/03 had an authentic interpretative nature and was therefore only apparently retroactive, it having now been given the original intended meaning of the law. Indeed, as a thorough examination of the relevant laws revealed, the benefits at issue could not be awarded cumulatively; rather, one had to identify the most favourable benefits to a firm according to its specific position. Furthermore, the State had legitimate discretion to decide whether benefits could be granted cumulatively or not, thus no issue relating to a fair trial could be considered to arise. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. 2.     Scarpellini S.r.l 24.     On 9 July 2001 and again on 29 January 2002 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had witheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 April 1990 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 413,928,856 Italian lire (approximately EUR 213,776) plus interest and subject to revaluation. 25.     The INPS’s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection ( silenzio-rifiuto ), on 7 June 2002 the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the INPS. The latter again failed to reply. 26.     Thus, on 11 June 2002 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription. 27.     By a judgment (no. 58/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Holding that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums (from 2001 onwards, the date on which prescription was interrupted), with interest and subject to revaluation, and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings. 28.     By a judgment (no. 277/03) of 25 September 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 4 November 2003 the Brescia Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 29.     Following the entry into force of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 30.     The applicant company cross-appealed along the lines mentioned above. 31.     By a judgment (no. 12863/07) filed in the relevant registry on 1 June 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. 3.     SAP Pietrafitta S.r.l. 32.     On 14 and 30 July 1999 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had withheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 January 1989 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 210,609,000 Italian lire (approximately EUR 108,770) plus interest and subject to revaluation. 33.     The INPS failed to reply. 34.     Thus, on 25 January 2000 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription. 35.     By a judgment (no. 8/2001) of 3 April 2001 the Siena Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Considering that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums, with interest and revaluation (from 1999, the date of its administrative claim, onwards), together with the full costs of the proceedings. 36.     By a judgment (no. 249/02) of 16 April 2002 filed in the relevant registry on 24 April 2002 the Florence Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 37.     Following the entry into force of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 38.     The applicant company cross-appealed along the lines mentioned above. 39.     By a judgment (no. 13291/07) filed in the relevant registry on 7 June 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. 4.     Floricultura Zanchi 40.     On 10 December 2001 the applicant company requested the INPS to return the monies which it had withheld contrary to what was provided for by law when it failed to apply the concession in its respect, for the period between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1997, amounting to 163,373,972 Italian lire (approximately EUR 84,375) plus interest and revaluation. 41.     The INPS’s failure to reply amounting to an implicit rejection ( silenzio-rifiuto ), on 15 May 2002 the applicant company instituted an administrative procedure before the INPS. The latter again failed to reply. 42.     Thus, on 11 September 2002 the applicant company instituted judicial proceedings to recover the monies due (as mentioned above) for the period not covered by prescription (2001 onwards). 43.     By a judgment (no. 57/2003) of 13 February 2003 the Bergamo Tribunal found in favour of the applicant company. Considering that the two benefits could be accumulated and that the applicant had paid the relevant dues, it ordered the INPS to pay back the misappropriated sums, with interest and subject to revaluation (from 2001 onwards), and to pay its share of the costs of the proceedings. 44.     By a judgment (no. 278/03) of 25 September 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 4 November 2003 the Brescia Court of Appeal dismissed the INPS’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. 45.     Following the entry into force of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 the INPS appealed to the Court of Cassation. 46.     The applicant company cross-appealed along the lines mentioned above. 47.     By a judgment (no. 12864/07) filed in the relevant registry on 1 June 2007 the INPS’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Cassation on the basis of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003. The remaining grounds of appeal were dismissed for the same reasons outlined above. Each party was to bear its own costs for the entire proceedings. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Concession ( fiscalizzazione degli oneri sociali ) 48.     Article 1(6) of Law no. 48 of 1988 (Legislative Decree no. 536 of 30   December 1987) reads as follows: “A reduction of contributions for the purposes of Article 31 sub-article 1 of Law no. 41/48, of Lire 133.000 per employee, is granted to employers in the agricultural sector to run from 1 January 1987 throughout the salary period up to 30 November 1988, for every monthly payment up to the twelfth month included. Such a reduction does not apply to employers in the agricultural sector who operate in the territories mentioned in Article 1 of the laws on interventions in the South of Italy ( il Mezzogiorno ) ( testo unico ) approved by Decree no. 218 of the President of the Republic of 6 March 1978.” B.     Exemptions ( sgravi contributivi ) 49.     Article 9(5) and (6) of Law No. 67 of 1988 ( legge finanziaria 1988 ) read as follows: “(5) As from 1 January 1988, premiums and contributions related to welfare and assistance in respect of employees, whether on indeterminate or determinate duration contracts, are due in the measure of 15% by their employers in the agricultural sector in Northern regions in accordance with Article 9 of Decree no. 601 of the President of the Republic of 29 September 1973. The said premiums and contributions are due in the measure of 40% by employers in the agricultural sector operating in disadvantaged agricultural zones as defined in Article 15 of Law no. 984 of 1977 and in the measure of 20% by employers in the agricultural sector operating in disadvantaged agricultural zones as defined in Article 1 of the laws on interventions in the South of Italy ( il Mezzogiorno ) ( testo unico ) approved by Decree no. 218 of the President of the Republic of 6 March 1978. (6) For the purposes of the calculation of the exemption mentioned in sub-article 5, the concession ( fiscalizzazione ) provided for in Article 1 sub-articles 5 and 6 of Legislative Decree no. 536 of 30 December 1987 as modified by Law no. 48 of 1988, is not to be taken into account.” 50.     According to the explanatory memorandum (scheda di lettura) in respect of sub-article 6, the amount of premiums and contributions due is arrived at by, firstly, calculating the percentage of exemption applicable according to the different rates provided by sub-article 5 of the text and subsequently subtracting the share, per head, of the concession and percentage established in sub-articles 5 and 6 of Article 1 of Legislative Decree 536/1987. C.     Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 51.     Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003, entitled Urgent dispositions to favour development and to adjust the trend in public finances, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “Article 9 sub-article 6 of Law No. 67 of 1988 together with any subsequent modifications, must be interpreted to the effect that the exemption referred to in its sub-article 5 (...) cannot be accumulated with the benefits provided for in (...) Law no. 48 of 1988.” 52.     According to the travaux préparatoires the law provided an authentic interpretation of the non-cumulability of the two benefits, in relation to which a significant number of proceedings had been instituted, with the courts taking the opposite view than that taken and applied in practice by the INPS. Thus, the norm was intended to avoid greater burdens than those which had been borne in previous years. D.     Case-law before the enactment of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 1.     Court of Cassation judgment no. 14227/00 of 14 July 2000 filed in the relevant registry on 27 October 2000 in the case of Floramiata Spa (upholding first-instance judgment no. 267/1996 of 31 October 1996 and judgment on appeal no. 85/1998 of 8 February 1998). 53.     The Court of Cassation held that the two benefits (concessions and exemptions) were not incompatible. They had been provided for by different laws and had different aims. Thus, if a firm fulfilled the requirements to be eligible for both benefits, they could not be denied. It considered that the INPS had not submitted any relevant arguments, save for a reiteration of the text of the impugned law. According to the Court of Cassation, by means of Article 9(6) of Law No. 67 of 1988, the legislator had wished to specify that the exemption was to be applied to the entire rate and not to the rate resulting after concession, thus excluding the incompatibility of the two benefits and presupposing the enjoyment of both contemporaneously. The Court of Cassation noted that when the legislator had wished to exclude the application of the concession to employers operating in the South, it had specifically done so (as in Legislative decree no. 536 of 1987). However, the legislator had made no mention of employers operating in disadvantaged areas in the North. 2.     Court of Cassation judgment no. 17806/03 of 26 May 2003 filed in the relevant registry on 24 November 2003 54.     The Court of Cassation reiterated its finding in judgment no.   14227/00 of 27 October 2000 (above), considering that there was no reason to depart from those conclusions. Moreover, it noted that the theory that, in general, benefits could not be granted cumulatively had been proved false even by Article 68 of Legislative Decree No. 388 of 2000, which explicitly mentioned that certain benefits could not be granted cumulatively. Had it been a general principle no explicit statement by the legislator would have been required. E.     Constitutional Court judgment no. 274 of 7 July 2006 regarding the constitutionality of Law no. 326 of 24 November 2003 55.     The Constitutional Court noted that the legislator had intervened due to the uncertainty created by a well-established administrative practice and supervening case-law to the contrary ten years later. It considered that it was not necessary to verify whether the enacted law had been interpretative (thus retroactive) or innovative with retroactive effect. Indeed, the prohibition on applying laws retroactively was a constitutional norm only applicable to the criminal sphere. It considered that the legislator could enact both laws of authentic interpretation – which clarify and determine the extent of the original norm within the content of what was originally plausibly provided – and innovative ones with retroactive effect in so far as such retroactivity was reasonably justified and not in conflict with other values and interests protected by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that a law of authentic interpretation could not be unreasonable in so far as it was limited to assigning to the provision to be interpreted a meaning which was already therein contained and which was one of the possible meanings of the original text. Indeed, in the present case, the prohibition on applying the benefits cumulatively had been one of the possible interpretations of Article 9(6) of Law No. 67 of 1988 which had immediately been contested by the INPS but which ten years later had been given another, indeed possible, meaning by the Court of Cassation. Given this state of uncertainty, the impugned law of authentic interpretation could not be considered unreasonable. F.     More recent case-law - Court of Cassation judgment no. 21692 of 25 June 2008 56.     In this judgment the domestic court was again faced with the interpretation of the laws concerning the cumulability of benefits, the constitutionality of Law no. 326/2003 and the subsequent implications under Article 6 of the Convention. 57.     Confirming the interpretative nature of Law no. 326/2003, it considered that even if the law were ignored, the interpretation (of the relevant provisions) which conformed to the ratio legis was that of the non-cumulability of the benefits at issue. While it was true that the court had twice considered that benefits could be applied cumulatively if i) they were provided to see to different needs and ii) if the law did not expressly prohibit such accumulation, in the present case the reasons justifying the relevant reductions overlapped in part. This was evident from the object, function and method of calculation of the benefits at issue. Thus, had they been intended to be cumulative, it would have had to be expressly provided for in law or authorised. The fact that the benefits at issue were not cumulable was further confirmed by an assessment of the entire legal framework concerning the subject matter, including, for example, other benefits available to the agricultural sector in general. It followed that the enactment of Law no. 326/2003 had no bearing on the interpretation of the provisions, and thus had no effects which were incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention. THE LAW I.     JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS 58.     In accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the Court decides to join the applications, given their similar factual and legal background. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION 59.     The applicant companies complained that the enactment of Law no. 326/03 constituted a legislative interference in pending proceedings, in breach of their right to a fair trial as provided for by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 60.     The Government contested that argument. A.     Admissibility 61.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     The applicant companies’ submissions 62.     The applicant companies relied on the Court’s principles regarding access to court and legislative intervention under Article 6 of the Convention, and referred in particular to the Court’s judgment in Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) ([GC], no. 36813/97, ECHR 2006 ‑ V). They considered that there existed no legitimate reasons or compelling general interest reasons which could allow the Italian legislator to legitimately intervene in pending proceedings by enacting a law with retroactive effect concerning facts which had already come to be and proceedings which had already been initiated, thus usurping the function of the judiciary and violating the applicants’ right to a fair trial as well as impairing the very essence of the their right to a court. Indeed, the only reason behind the intervention had been financial, namely to avoid payments in a number of judgments, at first ‑ instance and on appeal, which had found in favour of the applicant companies and other companies in the same position. This was clear even from the name of the law – Urgent dispositions to favour development and to adjust the trend in public finances ( Disposizioni urgenti per favorire lo sviluppo e la correzione dell’andamaneto dei conti pubblici ). Without the intervention, and in accordance with the established case-law arising from a multitude of cases including judgments of the Court of Cassation, the applicant companies’ claims would have succeeded. However, the intervention ensured that, contrary to what had already been established, the INPS would be successful. 63.     The applicant companies noted that the “interpretative” law was enacted fifteen years after the original law and in the absence of any divergent case-law. In fact, as from the year 1996 – with the first-instance judgment in the case of Floramiata Spa – until the legislative amendment, the domestic courts had consistently found in favour of companies in their situation. The established case-law had been based on the legislator’s intention, as transpired from the explanatory memorandum issued by the Parliament study service ( servizio studi ) [1] , and the relevant travaux préparatoires [2] , and it therefore could not be said that the enacted law was an interpretative law – its meaning having been totally clear to the parliamentarians. That case-law had established that the benefits could be accumulated both on the basis of the literal meaning of the applicable norms, which were considered to be unequivocal, and on the basis of the rationale behind the two benefits, which had a different function and operated at different levels. Indeed, the applicant companies noted that on the one hand concessions were an instrument adopted by the legislator in lieu of a direct grant of State aid to all firms [3] and on the other hand exemptions were direct benefits aimed at supporting employers in the agricultural sector who operated in zones and territories with particular disadvantages. They noted that the Court of Cassation had explicitly held that the two benefits were not incompatible and that they had been provided for by different laws and had different aims (see paragraph 53 and 54 above). In that light, according to the applicant companies, it could not have been considered an interpretative law and it had been referred to as such at the domestic level only to get away with a retroactive application of the law to accommodate the INPS, which had opted not to follow the evident meaning of the then applicable norms. 64.     Moreover, interpretative laws had to be considered as an exception to the rule, particularly given the importance of the separation of powers upon which a democratic society was founded and which provided that it was for the judiciary to interpret and apply laws and therefore to decide disputes. This was even more relevant when a dispute arose between a private party and the public administration. Ergo, even interpretative laws could not be used as an instrument by the legislator to favour the public administration, that is, itself. However, in Italy it was common practice to introduce “interpretative” provisions in matters involving financial interests to secure higher income (or lower expenditure) for the public administration. They referred, for instance, to the various considerations made by the Court of Cassation (in its highest formation) in judgment no.   25506 of 2006 concerning similar circumstances. They further referred to the Court’s judgments in Maggio and Others v. Italy (nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, 31 May 2011), Agrati and Others v. Italy (nos. 43549/08, 6107/09 and 5087/09, 7 June 2011), Arras and Others v. Italy (no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012), and De Rosa v. Italy (nos. 52888/08, 58528/08, 59194/08, 60462/08, 60473/08, 60628/08, 61116/08, 61131/08, 61139/08, 61143/08, 610/09, 4995/09, 5068/09 and 5141/09, 11 December 2012) where the Court had found violations of Article 6 resulting from the retroactive application of various so-called interpretative provisions, enacted solely for financial reasons. 65.     The applicant companies distinguished their case from that of National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom (nos. 21319/03, 21449/93 and 21675/93, 23 October 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII). They noted that they had been induced into error by the INPS, which had immediately applied the law in the most favourable way to it. Nevertheless, certain companies, particularly Floramiata Spa, had immediately, as early as 1993, taken administrative and subsequently judicial action against the INPS to contest the latter’s interpretation of the law by circular no. 160 of 1988. At the time, the agricultural associations had kept abreast of the developments in the pending case, keeping their members informed. The applicant companies, however, admitted that it was only after the positive final outcome for Floramiata Spa, decided by the Court of Cassation in 2000 – the first time such a body had determined the subject matter at issue – that the four ( sic ) applicant companies had introduced their own administrative and subsequently judicial claims. The applicant companies argued that, in respect of the preceding years, they had chosen to pay the dues demanded by the INPS (calculated on the basis of the impugned interpretation) to avoid the severe financial civil sanctions which would have been applied to them automatically, as well as to avoid the risk of criminal proceedings being brought against them for failure to pay the relevant dues and any pursuant implications which could have led them into bankruptcy. 66.     Nevertheless, the applicant companies considered that there were other factors which distinguished the instant case from the above-mentioned case where the United Kingdom Government and Parliament had officially and immediately declared their intention to correct the law by a norm of authentic interpretation which would have overcome the “technical defects” present in the original law. In the present case the legislator had introduced the “interpretative” law fifteen years after the enactment of the original law, during which time the Parliament had never raised any questions or doubts about the law. Moreover, the law had been introduced after at least (referring only to cases brought by the lawyers in the present case) 140 judgments (forty-three of which had become final, the INPS having failed to appeal) finding against the public entity, including two Court of Cassation judgments (see paragraphs 53 and 54 above), none of which had identified any “technical defects” in the formulation of the original law and none of which had referred to the even remote possibility of giving the self-evident law another interpretation. More importantly, the intention to do so had become apparent after the applicant companies had already obtained two judgments in their favour, at first-instance and on appeal. Furthermore, one could not ignore the difference between the attitude and manifest will of the United Kingdom Government and Parliament over the years and that of the Government in the present case. One also had to note the relationship between the Government and the INPS, an integral part of the State’s administration. Thus, it was reasonable to consider (even on the basis of the travaux préparatoires and other statements made in certain domestic judgments) that the INPS, having been unsuccessful in hundreds of proceedings, had itself solicited the executive to act in order to nullify the pronouncements against it, rendering devoid of any meaning the distinction between executive and judiciary, but enabling the improvement of its financial situation. Lastly, the Attorney General’s attitude towards the applicant companies’ case (see paragraph 68 below) also distinguished it from National & Provincial Building Society (cited above). 67.     It followed that the same findings made by the Court in the above-mentioned case could not be made in the present case. It was rather the Government that had been opportunistic, hiding behind the excuse of the original intention of Parliament, despite judgments and materials indicating the contrary. 68.     The applicant companies further submitted that in its judgment no.   274 of 7 July 2006 the Constitutional Court had not examined the constitutional legitimacy of the law on the basis of Article 6 of the Convention, namely the principle of a fair trial as also laid down in the Italian Constitution, and therefore it had not examined the constitutional legitimacy of the law in the light of the applicants’ arguments – the said analyses having become customary only after the 2009 judgment in Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) ([GC], no. 10249/03, 17 September 2009). Indeed, in its judgment no. 274 the Constitutional Court had made statements which were contradictory to the principles derived from Article 6, and moreover had not categorically stated that the norm was one of genuine interpretation (see paragraph 54 above). Furthermore, the relevance of the applicant companies’ arguments had been evident also to the Attorney General to the Court of Cassation ( Procuratore Generale della Repubblica presso la Corte di Cassazione) who had not considered the challenge under Article 6 as manifestly irrelevant or ill-founded and who had made statements such as “the claimants’ reasonable expectation to see their claim granted” and “[the provision] influenced the judge’s decision”. (b)     The Government’s submissions 69.     The Government submitted that in allowing the INPS’s appeal, in which the latter had pleaded jus superveniens , the Court of Cassation had considered that the supervening law was one of authentic interpretation which had intervened in order to regulate the relationship between different benefits. It provided for the rule that facilitations or tax reductions in favour of agricultural firms situated in mountainous territories or disadvantaged agricultural zones could not be accumulated with benefits or tax reductions in favour of agricultural firms in the south of Italy, or with contributory concessions in respect of illness for the financing of the National Health Service. One had to determine which category of territory (Southern Italy, Central-North, mountainous region, or disadvantaged agricultural zone) an agricultural firm fell under in order to identify which benefit was applicable to that firm. 70.     The Government submitted that the enactment of and the authentic interpretation given to Law no. 326/03 was justified on the basis of compelling general interest reasons. On that issue, the Constitutional Court had delivered judgment no. 274 of 2006, holding that the impugned law did not minimise the role of the judiciary or violate the principle of confiance legitime ( sic ). It considered that the impossibility of cumulating such benefits had been one of the possible interpretations of the law as from the start. That interpretation had immediately been followed by the INPS, but was then contradicted by the Court of Cassation ten years later. Such a situation had created uncertainty and it had therefore been reasonable to intervene by means of a law of authentic interpretation. The Government further submitted that it had been necessary to enact Law no. 326/03 to re ‑ establish the original interpretation of the applicable legal norms which had been applied consistently for ten years by the INPS but which had been given a different meaning by the domestic courts the first time the issue was brought before them (final judgment no. 14227 of 27 October 2000). 71.     The Government considered that it was that judgment which then opened the doors to a number of firms which decided to bring proceedings to recover the extra sums they had paid. The interpretative law had therefore not upset the consistent consolidated case-law, but had simply clarified which of the two possible interpretations reflected the ratio legis . Referring to the Court of Cassation’s judgment no. 21692 of 25 June 2008 (paragraph 57 above) and to a commentary on it by a specialised lawyer who had previously defended the INPS’s position, the Government appealed to the Court to trust the domestic authorities with the interpretation of domestic laws, in the light of the applicable national legal framework. 72.     They considered that it was of relevance that the applicant companies had acquiesced in paying their dues according to the INPS calculations for about a decade. In fact, until the first final judgment was issued on the matter in 2000, the applicant companies could not have based themselves on any case-law in their favour. Indeed, the Government noted that even in 2008 the Court of Cassation (judgment no. 21692) had considered that in the absence of an express provision one could not apply the cumulability of benefits and that that conclusion could already have been arrived at in 1988. It followed that the legislative intervention had had no bearing on the applicant companies’ proceedings. 73.     As to the applicant companies’ reliance on the explanatory memorandum issued by the Parliament study service, the Government highlighted the Court of Cassation’s conclusions (page 9 of the judgment) in that respect, namely, that “the document cannot be strictly attributed to the Acts of Parliament and the interpretive hypothesis formulated therein does not reflect the opinion of the members of Parliament who participated in the procedure by which the law was adopted”. 74.     The Government further submitted, at a late stage of the proceedings and only following further questions from the Court, that a strict interpretation concerning the cumulability of benefits was imposed by EU legislation concerning State grants. They noted that in 1992 the European Commission had opened infringement proceedings against Italy concerning such benefits, which disproportionately favoured certain enterprises. 75.     In reply to the applicant companies’ observations, the Government submitted that while it was true that at the time (2006) the Constitutional Court had not taken into consideration Article 6 of the Convention, the principles on which that court had based its judgment were found in the Italian Constitution and were similar to the principles set out in the Convention. Moreover, the Court’s case-law had not expressly excluded any intervention pending proceedings by the legislature, which was the same line of reasoning taken up by the Constitutional Court, which had assessed whether compelling general interest reasons had existed and found that they had. In conclusion, apart from financial reasons, the aim of Law no. 326/03 had been to ensure respect for the original intention of the legislator. It was not irrelevant that the subject matter in the case was in fact benefits given by the State, whether cumulatively or alone, and it was therefore not unreasonable for the legislator to intervene in order to clarify the applicable conditions for the obtaining of, and the limits to, such benefits. 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 76.     The Court has repeatedly ruled that although the legislature is not prevented from regulating, through new retrospective provisions, rights derived from the laws in force, the principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 preclude, except for compelling public interest reasons, interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute (see, among many other authorities, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece , 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B; National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom , cited above, §   112; and Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos.   24846/94 and 34165/96 to 34173/96, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII). Respect for the rule   of law and the notion of a fair trial require that any reasons adduced to justify such measures be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection (see Stran Greek Refineries , cited above, § 49, and Maggio and Others v. Italy , nos. 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08, 54486/08 and 56001/08, § 45, 31 May 2011). Financial considerations cannot by themselves warrant the legislature substituting itself for the courts in order to settle disputes (see Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, §   132, ECHR 2006 ‑ V, and Cabourdin v. France , no. 60796/00, § 37, 11   April 2006). (b)     Application to the present case 77.     The Court notes that, as shown by the Court of Cassation’s judgments in the applicant companies’ proceedings, the enactment of Law no. 326/03, while the proceedings were pending, in reality determined the substance of the disputes and the application of it by the Court of Cassation made it pointless for an entire group of companies in the applicant companies’ positions to carry on with the litigation. Thus, the law had the effect of definitively modifying the outcome of the pending litigation, to which the State was a party, through one of its administrative entities, endorsing the State’s position to the applicant companies’ detriment, despite the latter having been successful at first-instance and on appeal. 78.     The Court observes that the Government claimed that the intervention was necessary on the basis of compelling general interest reasons. They referred to financial considerations and the necessity of establishing the original interpretation of the applicab