CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mai 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9F46BEC9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sC6B6F7B3 { width:150.43pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 1772/18 Enrico GALLI against Italy and 33 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10   May   2022 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay, President,   Raffaele Sabato,   Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications 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”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”) on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol   No. 1 to the Convention to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia and their former co-Agent, Ms   M.G. Civinini, and to declare the remainder of the applications inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The issue in the case is whether the enactment of Law no. 296 of 27   December 2006 (“Law no. 296/2006”) and its application to the applicants’ pensions constituted an unjustified interference with their possessions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention. 2.     The applicants are pensioners who, in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security, transferred to Italy the pension contributions they had paid in Switzerland in respect of work that they had performed there over several years. The Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“the INPS”) calculated their pensions by employing a theoretical level of remuneration ( retribuzione teorica ) instead of their actual remuneration ( retribuzione effettiva ). The former resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the social security contributions paid in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%). The calculation therefore had as its basis a notional salary, which, according to the applicants, resulted in their receiving a much lower pension than that which they should have received. 3.     On 1 January 2007 Law no. 296/2006 entered into force, maintaining the method of calculation used by the INPS. 4.     In judgments nos. 172/2008 of 23 May 2008 and 264/2012 of 28   November 2012, the Constitutional Court declared ill-founded two questions as to the unconstitutionality of Law no.   296/2006 raised in different sets of proceedings by other pensioners. 5.     The applicants, who had lodged applications with the INPS both before and after the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006 seeking to have their pensions recalculated, considered that following the judgments of the Constitutional Court cited above, the national courts were bound to dismiss claims such as theirs. They therefore either did not challenge in the national courts the decisions of the INPS rejecting their applications or, as regards those applicants who had already instituted judicial proceedings against such decisions, considered that lodging appeals at national level against judgments of first- and second-instance courts would be futile. 6.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 had unlawfully and disproportionately interfered with their property rights. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 7.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 8.     The Government submitted, inter alia , that the applicants had failed to comply with the six-month rule. In the alternative, they asserted that even if the Court were to subscribe to the view that Law no. 296/2006 amounted to a continuous interference with the applicants’ property rights, the complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 would still have been lodged out of time. The applicants disagreed, arguing that the six-month period had started to run from the date of judgment no. 166/2017 of 12 July 2017 whereby the Constitutional Court had declared inadmissible a further question as to the unconstitutionality of Law no. 296/2006. 9.     The Court reiterates that, as a rule, the six-month period runs from the date of the final decision in the process of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Where it is clear from the outset however that no effective remedy is available to the applicant, the period runs from the date of the acts or measures complained of, or from the date of knowledge of that act or its effect on or prejudice to the applicant (see Dennis and Others v. the United Kingdom   (dec.), no. 76573/01, 2 July 2002). Where an applicant avails himself of an apparently existing remedy and only subsequently becomes aware of circumstances which render the remedy ineffective, it may be appropriate for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 to take the start of the six-month period from the date when the applicant first became or ought to have become aware of those circumstances ( Varnava and Others v. Turkey   [GC], nos.   16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009, and Edwards v.   the United Kingdom   (dec.), no. 46477/99, 7 June 2001). 10.     It further observes that it has already dealt with a similar objection by the Government in Matteo v. Italy ((dec.), no. 18773/13, §§   33-35, 21   September 2021). 11.     Turning to the present case, the Court stresses that, in their application forms and observations, the applicants themselves stated that following judgments nos. 172/2008 and 264/2012 of the Constitutional Court, they had become aware that the remedies they were pursuing or could have pursued (namely, proceedings before the national courts) were bound to fail and thus they did not continue or institute such proceedings. 12.     For this reason, the Court finds that, irrespective of the instantaneous or continuous nature of the situation complained of, the applicants had a duty of diligence and initiative to lodge their applications with the Court without unexplained or excessive delay in order to ensure legal certainty since they no longer had any hope of obtaining a solution at the domestic level (see, mutatis mutandis , Samadov v. Armenia (dec.), no. 36606/08, §§   12 and 14, 26   January 2021). They should therefore have lodged their applications within six months from judgment no. 172/2008 of the Constitutional Court, dated 23   May 2008, which they failed to do (having lodged the applications almost ten years later at the end of 2017 or beginning of 2018 – see the appended table). 13.     It follows that the applications are inadmissible for having been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2022.     Liv Tigerstedt   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Represented by 1. 1772/18 Galli v. Italy 27/12/2017 Enrico GALLI 1940 Cagno (CO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 2. 1777/18 Valcepina v. Italy 27/12/2017 Luigino VALCEPINA 1944 Valdisotto (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 3. 1781/18 Laiso v. Italy 27/12/2017 Umberto Samuele LAISO 1936 Lauria (PZ) Elisabetta FATUZZO 4. 1786/18 de Bernardi v. Italy 27/12/2017 Giovanni DE BERNARDI 1941 Dubino (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 5. 1794/18 Bellina v. Italy 28/12/2017 Salvatore BELLINA 1940 Cermenate (CO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 6. 1803/18 Di Gaspero v. Italy 27/12/2017 Teresa Maria DI GASPERO 1940 Zoppola (PN) Elisabetta FATUZZO 7. 1809/18 Rover v. Italy 31/12/2017 Mario ROVER 1940 Sacile (PN) Elisabetta FATUZZO 8. 2632/18 Todde v. Italy 03/01/2018 Michele TODDE 1944 Bosa (OR) Elisabetta FATUZZO 9. 2633/18 Canal v. Italy 03/01/2018 Giuseppina CANAL 1941 Sacile (PN) Elisabetta FATUZZO 10. 2634/18 Bettini v. Italy 03/01/2018 Ettore BETTINI 1940 Piateda (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 11. 2638/18 Comalli v. Italy 28/12/2017 Bruno COMALLI 1941 Mantello (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 12. 2639/18 Spinelli v. Italy 28/12/2017 Giuseppe SPINELLI 1938 Albino (BG) Elisabetta FATUZZO 13. 2645/18 Leoni v. Italy 28/12/2017 Eugenio LEONI 1948 Novate Mezzola (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 14. 2661/18 Piccinin v. Italy 28/12/2017 Egidio PICCININ 1936 Selvazzano Dentro (PD) Elisabetta FATUZZO 15. 2665/18 de Michiel v. Italy 28/12/2017 Mario Germano DE MICHIEL 1939 Castelnovo del Friuli (PN) Elisabetta FATUZZO 16. 2667/18 Randazzo v. Italy 28/12/2017 Giulio RANDAZZO 1943 Carini (PA) Elisabetta FATUZZO 17. 2799/18 Tomassacci v. Italy 04/01/2018 Norma TOMASSACCI 1940 Pergola (PU) Elisabetta FATUZZO 18. 2803/18 Compagnino v. Italy 04/01/2018 Angelo COMPAGNINO 1940 Licodia Eubea (CT) Elisabetta FATUZZO 19. 2804/18 Cantillo v. Italy 04/01/2018 Vincenzo CANTILLO 1939 Agropoli (SA) Elisabetta FATUZZO 20. 2805/18 Trivella v. Italy 04/01/2018 Giovanni TRIVELLA 1946 Cedrasco (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 21. 3448/18 Dall’Osto v. Italy 08/01/2018 Giancarlo DALL’OSTO 1946 Thiene (VI) Elisabetta FATUZZO 22. 3888/18 Marino v. Italy 02/01/2018 Tindara MARINO 1944 Patti (ME) Elisabetta FATUZZO 23. 3889/18 Baraglia v. Italy 02/01/2018 Valerio BARAGLIA 1937 Dubino (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 24. 3891/18 Pellicioli v. Italy 02/01/2018 Donato PELLICIOLI 1947 Nembro (BG) Elisabetta FATUZZO 25. 3892/18 Ranghetti v. Italy 02/01/2018 Silvana RANGHETTI 1954 Montello (BG) Elisabetta FATUZZO 26. 3898/18 Zangrandi v. Italy 02/01/2018 Siro ZANGRANDI 1947 Rapallo (GE) Elisabetta FATUZZO 27. 3901/18 Fumagalli v. Italy 02/01/2018 Carlo FUMAGALLI 1939 Tavagnacco (UD) Elisabetta FATUZZO 28. 5086/18 Nana v. Italy 05/01/2018 Rosa Maria NANA 1945 Lanzada (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 29. 5090/18 Velludo v. Italy 05/01/2018 Giulio VELLUDO 1941 Bregnano (CO) Elisabetta FATUZZO 30. 5097/18 di Marco v. Italy 05/01/2018 Severino DI MARCO 1939 Zoppola (PN) Elisabetta FATUZZO 31. 5345/18 Iob v. Italy 05/01/2018 Lilia IOB 1937 Tolmezzo (UD) Elisabetta FATUZZO 32. 5371/18 Iob v. Italy 05/01/2018 Leandro IOB 1937 Tolmezzo (UD) Elisabetta FATUZZO 33. 5380/18 Roseano v. Italy 05/01/2018 Severino ROSEANO 1940 Tolmezzo (UD) Elisabetta FATUZZO 34. 5398/18 Gianoncelli v. Italy 05/01/2018 Attilio GIANONCELLI 1945 Tresivio (SO) Elisabetta FATUZZO