CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 août 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s6C5BED22 { margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s46DB5BA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .sB23EAC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 362/18 Zaira RUGGERI against Italy and 171 other applications (see list appended)   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 29   August   2023 as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato , 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”), represented by the lawyers and lodged on the various dates indicated therein; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applicants are all doctors or heirs of doctors who attended specialisation training courses between 1991 and 2006. They complained that the authorities had failed to provide them with appropriate remuneration, social security and welfare coverage during their professional training. 2.     Under Article 6 of Legislative Decree no.   257 of 8 August 1991, transposing European Council Directive 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982 amending Directive 75/362/EEC concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive 75/363/EEC concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, medical specialists had been receiving scholarships of approximately 11,000 euros (EUR) per year. This amount remained substantially unchanged until 2006. 3.     On 17 August 1999 Legislative Decree no.   368 entered into force, transposing European Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, which was intended to consolidate previous directives, including Directive 82/76/EEC, and to introduce a comprehensive reform of doctors’ professional training. The Legislative Decree instituted a specific work training contract and provided for social security and welfare coverage. It also established new criteria for determining the amount of remuneration for medical specialists. However, these provisions were to come into force with the making of a corresponding regulation on budget allocation. This occurred only in 2007, to take effect from the academic year 2006-2007. The applicants therefore did not benefit from the new provisions. 4.     The applicants consequently brought an action against the State for the damages caused by the delayed transposition of the directives. They asked, in substance, for the recognition of the higher amount of remuneration and of social security and welfare coverage; an inflation-linked adjustment and the triennial revision. All the actions were deemed unfounded and were dismissed. Actions lodged after 27 October 2009 (or in any case after ten years from the last request for payment) were declared statute-barred. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT Joinder of the applications 5.     Having regard to the similar facts and subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to order their joinder (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicants’ rights to appropriate remuneration and to social security and welfare coverage 6.     The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been deprived of their right to “appropriate remuneration” and to social security and welfare coverage as recognised by Directive 93/16/EEC. 7.     References to the right to “appropriate remuneration” for medical specialists were first introduced by Directive 82/76/EEC, transposed by the Italian authorities with Decree no. 257/1991. The Decree granted, as “appropriate remuneration” for medical specialists, the sum of EUR   11,000 per year. 8.     Directive 93/16/EEC reproduced the same provision and was transposed by Decree no. 368/1999, which added a regulation for social insurance and pension contributions and provided for a new “training contract”. 9.   The Court reiterates that it is not competent to apply EU law or to examine alleged violations of EU rules unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. It is primarily for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, if necessary in conformity with EU law, the Court’s role being confined to ascertaining whether the effects of such adjudication are compatible with the Convention ( Jeunesse v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 12738/10, §   110, 3   October 2014). Moreover, in assessing such compatibility, the Court is in principle bound by the presumption of equivalent protection to that provided by the legal system of the EU (see Avotiņš v. Latvia [GC], no.   17502/07, §§   101-04, 23 May 2016). However, where the measure at issue has been taken in order to give effect to a directive, which is binding on the member States as regards the result to be achieved but leaves it to them to choose the means and manner of achieving it, the Court is called to determine whether the effects of national decisions in a particular case are compatible with the Convention (see Michaud v. France , no. 12323/11, § 113, ECHR 2012), as the presumption of equivalent protection does not apply in view of the margin of manoeuvre available to the national authorities (see O’Sullivan McCarthy Mussel Development Ltd v. Ireland , no. 44460/16, § 112, 7 June 2018). 10.     Thus, in the present case, the Court has jurisdiction to examine whether the interference with the applicants’ right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was justified. To this aim, the preliminary question to be answered by the Court is whether the applicants can claim to have had a “right or legitimate expectation” with regard to obtaining higher remuneration and social security and welfare coverage (see Dimici v. Turkey , no.   70133/16, §   75, 5 July 2022; N.M. and Others v.   France , no. 66328/14, § 42, 3   February 2022; and Aliyeva and Others v.   Azerbaijan , nos. 66249/16 and 6 others, §§   103-04, 21   September 2021). 11 .     As stated by the Court of Justice of the European Union (“the CJEU”), the aforementioned directives do not contain any definition either of the remuneration which is to be regarded as appropriate or of the methods by which that remuneration is to be fixed. Such definitions are in principle a matter for the Member States, which must adopt specific implementing measures in the field. Nevertheless, the CJEU stated that it is for the national court to interpret national law, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive concerned in order to achieve the result sought by the directive, in casu , to ensure that the doctors concerned devote all their professional activity to their practical and theoretical training throughout the week, or, in the case of a specialist in part-time training, a significant proportion of it (see, to that effect, judgment of 24   January 2018 in Pantuso and Others , joined cases C-616/16 and C-617/16, EU:C:2018:32, §§   41-46, with further references; judgment of 25 February 1999 in Carbonari and Others , C-131/97, EU:C:1999:98, § 45; and judgment of 3   October 2000 in Gozza and Others , C-371/97, EU:C:2000:326, § 36). 12.     In fulfilment of these powers and obligations, Legislative Decree no.   257/1991 provided for an annual scholarship. The applicants have submitted no allegations or evidence, either in the domestic courts or before the Court, to demonstrate that the amount of the scholarship was not sufficient. 13.     That being so, the Court cannot accept the applicants’ argument that the increase provided for in 2007 was an admission by the Italian legislature that the smaller sum previously granted was incompatible with the directives. In fact, the increase was part of a comprehensive discretionary reform involving not only remuneration but also the medical specialists’ legal status (see, mutatis mutandis , Aldeguer Tomás v. Spain , no. 35214/09, § 89, 14   June 2016). 14.     The same conclusion can be reached in respect of those applicants who, having attended specialisation training courses between 1999 and 2006, claimed to have acquired a right or at least a legitimate expectation to receive higher remuneration on the basis of Decree no. 368/1999. 15.     The Court notes that the remuneration referred to by the applicants had not been established, as the relevant provisions of the Decree only introduced new criteria for determining the amount of remuneration and left it to the government to make specific regulations taking into account various requirements and the availability of funds. Indeed, the Decree made the entry into force of those provisions conditional on the adoption of governmental budgetary measures. The new provisions were not implemented until 2007. In the meantime, Article 46 § 3 of Legislative Decree no. 368/1999 had expressly provided for the continued application of Legislative Decree no.   257/1991. 16.     Thus, the provisions referred to by the applicants were not in force at the time of their training. Therefore, the Court concludes that the applicants could not claim any right or legitimate expectation to receive a higher remuneration (see Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], no. 44912/98, §§ 53-60, ECHR 2004-IX). 17.     Regarding the social insurance and pension contributions provided for by the same Decree, the domestic courts clearly held that such measures were not required by the directives and that therefore their enactment, as well as the postponement of their entry into force, fell within the discretion of the legislature (see, among other authorities, the Court of Cassation’s judgments nos.   4449/2018 and 9104/2021). 18.     The Court observes that according to its established case-law, rights to an old-age pension or social benefit are not included among the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and the Protocols thereto (see Beeler v.   Switzerland [GC], no. 78630/12, § 57, 11 October 2022; Aielli and Others v.   Italy (dec.), nos. 27166/18 and 27167/18, § 22, 10 July 2018; and Da   Silva Carvalho Rico v. Portugal (dec.), no. 13341/14, § 30, 1 September 2015). In the present case, since, according to the domestic courts, no security and welfare coverage for medical specialists was prescribed by the above-mentioned directives and Article 41 of Decree no. 368/1999 was not in force during the applicants’ specialisation training, the applicants cannot claim to have had a legitimate expectation amounting to a possession under Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 (contrast Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom (dec.) [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 54, ECHR 2005 ‑ X). 19.     In the light of the above, the Court concludes that these complaints are incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and the Protocols thereto within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. Alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicants’ right to adjustment of salary scales 20.     The applicants argued that their right to appropriate remuneration had also been violated as a consequence of the failure to apply the increase provided for by Article 6 § 1 of Legislative Decree no. 257/1991. Pursuant to that provision, the annual scholarship payable to medical specialists was to be increased annually in line with the inflation rate and recalculated every three years by ministerial decree in accordance with the minimum salary increases established by the collective bargaining processes of the National Health Service’s medical staff. 21 .     The provision was only applied in 1992, increasing the applicants’ scholarship in line with the inflation rate. After that, the annual increase was suspended until 2005 by a series of legislative provisions, as was the triennial recalculation. As pointed out by the Constitutional Court, those provisions were intended to safeguard the national budget and the fulfilment of obligations assumed in respect of the European Union in a period of harsh economic crisis (see the Constitutional Court’s judgment no. 432 of 23   December 1997). 22.     The Court refers to its principles concerning “austerity measures” taken in response to financial crises and the resulting wide margin of appreciation of Contracting Parties when it comes to general measures of economic or social strategy (see, for example, Aielli and Others , cited above, § 26, and the case-law cited therein). Because of their direct knowledge of their society and its needs, the national authorities are in principle better placed than the international judge to appreciate what is in the public interest on social or economic grounds, and the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless it is “manifestly without reasonable foundation” (see Stec and Others , cited above, § 52). 23 .     The Court firstly notes that the measures challenged were taken to offset the consequences of an economic crisis: hence, the authorities had acted with the public interest in mind. In fact, the above-mentioned provisions were part of a much wider programme involving the whole public sector which affected not only the applicants but public servants more generally. Moreover, the applicants did not suffer any direct reduction of their income as they were only denied an expected increase. There is no allegation or evidence in the present applications that the measures taken left the applicants devoid of all means of subsistence, nor did they argue that they risked falling below the subsistence threshold (see Fábián v.   Hungary [GC], no.   78117/13, §   82, 5 September 2017). Hence, the measures cannot be deemed disproportionate (see, mutatis mutandis , Savickas and Others v.   Lithuania (dec.), no. 66365/09 and others, §§ 92-93, 15 October 2013). 24.     In the light of the above, the Court concludes that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and 4 of the Convention. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 25.     Having been subjected to harsher pay conditions and having been denied social security benefits which their colleagues who enrolled from the academic year 2006/2007 onwards had been granted, the applicants alleged that they had been discriminated against, in breach of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. 26.     The Court has already stated that the use of a cut-off date is an inevitable consequence of introducing new regulations to replace previous schemes. Thus, bearing in mind the margin of appreciation afforded to States in this sphere and considering that the benefits granted to medical specialists by 2007 were part of a comprehensive reform aimed at improving the training system as well as rationalising public expenditure in this field, the cut-off date can be deemed reasonably and objectively justified (see Maggio and Others v.   Italy , nos.   46286/09 and 4 others, 31 May 2011). In creating a scheme of benefits, it is sometimes necessary to use cut-off points that apply to large groups of individuals, and which may to a certain extent appear arbitrary. However, this is an inevitable consequence of introducing new systems which replace previous and outdated schemes (see Twizell v. the United Kingdom , no.   25379/02, §   24, 20 May 2008). There can be no “discrimination” contrary to the Convention in such a case. The applicants’ complaint, resulting in substance in a claim for retrospective application of the reform of 2006, must therefore be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article   35   §§   3 and 4. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention due to the reversal of the Court of Cassation’s case-law 27.     Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the Court of Cassation had unexpectedly overruled its own well ‑ established case-law on the interpretation of Article 6 of Legislative Decree no. 257/1991, which provided for the triennial recalculation of the amount of the scholarship. 28 .     While it is true that, in four decisions cited by the applicants (nos.   16385/2008, 18562/2010, 12624/2015 and 12595/2017), the Court of Cassation had granted a triennial recalculation for the period between 1994 and 2002, that interpretation was overruled in 2018 (see the Court of Cassation’s judgment no.   4449/2018) and consequently abandoned (see judgments nos. 13572/2019, 8378/2020, 8506/2020, 9191/2020, 17913/2020, 17995/2020 and 9104/2021), when the Court of Cassation stated that the recalculation had previously been suspended until 2006 by a series of pre-existing statutory provisions which had been overlooked in its previous four judgments. The new interpretation was aimed at bringing the case-law into line with the existing legal framework. 29.     The Court’s assessment, in cases of case-law development, has always been based on the principle that a departure from a well-established jurisprudence is not, in itself, contrary to the proper administration of justice since a failure to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk rendering it a bar to reform or improvement ( Atanasovski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no. 36815/03, § 38, 14 January 2010). 30 .     Moreover, the requirements of legal certainty and the maintenance of public confidence do not confer a right to consistency in case-law (see Unédic v.   France , no. 20153/04, § 74, 18 December 2008). Case-law development is not, in itself, contrary to the proper administration of justice since a failure to maintain a dynamic and evolutive approach would risk hindering reform or improvement (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v.   Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016, and Albu and Others v.   Romania , nos. 34796/09 and 63 others, § 34, 10 May 2012). 31.     The Court has held that the existence of well-established case-law imposes a duty on the Supreme Court to make a more substantial statement of reasons to justify a departure from its own case-law ( Atanasovski , cited above, §   38). In the present case, the Court of Cassation emphasised that the overruling complained about was necessary in order to bring the case-law into line with pre-existing statutory provisions which had been partially overlooked in its previous decisions. The Court notes that these statutory provisions were clear in excluding the triennial recalculation for the period covering the applicants’ professional training. It also reiterates, as pointed out by the Court of Cassation, that the statutory provisions were part of a wider exercise aimed at safeguarding the national budget in a period of economic crisis. 32.     From an analysis of the judgments cited by the applicants (see paragraph 28 above) it emerges that, while it is true that the Court of Cassation reversed its previous case-law concerning substantive rights, the new interpretation was immediately adopted in the judgments that followed, without any conflicting positions being taken. It follows that no persistent inconsistencies arose in the treatment of applicants’ claims but only a departure from previous case-law (see, contrary, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others , §§ 124-28). 33.     Moreover, the Court also reiterates that it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999‑I). Likewise, it is not its function, save in the event of evident arbitrariness, to compare different decisions of national courts, even if they were given in apparently similar proceedings, as the independence of those courts must be respected (see Stanković and Trajković v. Serbia , nos.   37194/08 and 37260/08, § 40, 22 December 2015). In the present case, the Court observes that the applicants had the benefit of adversarial proceedings in which they were able to adduce evidence and freely formulate their defence and in which their arguments were properly examined by the courts. Likewise, the courts’ conclusions and their interpretation of the relevant law cannot be regarded as manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable. Accordingly, the Court finds that there has been no appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that this complaint is manifestly ill ‑ founded. Alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention as regards the application of the statute of limitations 34.     The applicants, whose domestic complaints had been declared statute ‑ barred because they had been lodged after 27 October 2009, challenged these domestic decisions. They submitted that the limitation period had not been foreseeable because of the inconsistencies in the domestic case-law on the matter and that, in any case, there should have been no limitation since the relevant directive had never been correctly transposed. 35.     The Court notes that, after a period of uncertainty and conflicting decisions on the applicable limitation period and its starting date, the Court of Cassation in judgment no. 10813 of 17 May 2011 set the limitation period at ten years and held that time should run from 27 October 1999, that is, the date of entry into force of section 11 of Law no. 370/1999. The Court of Cassation, referring to, among other things, the CJEU’s case-law, emphasised that from that moment on it should have been clear to the applicants that the Italian authorities would not take any further steps to implement Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993. 36.     The Court reiterates that statutory limitation constitutes one of the legitimate restrictions on the right of access to a court as it serves several important purposes. By ensuring legal certainty and finality and contributing to public confidence in the courts, it constitutes one of the fundamental aspects of the rule of law (see, for example, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others , cited above, § 116). 37 .     While it is true that before the Court of Cassation’s judgment there was uncertainty about the limitation period, it must be emphasised that a mere conflict of case-law is not sufficient in itself to constitute a violation of Article   6 of the Convention (see paragraph 30 above). Divergences may be tolerated when the domestic legal system is capable of remedying a conflict in its case-law, as in the present case. 38.     In this connection, the Court firstly observes that the Court of Cassation took careful account of the applicants’ interests, granting them the longest limitation period, ten years, available in domestic law. 39.     Furthermore, it did not hold that time should run from the first transposition of Directive 82/76/EEC into domestic law in 1991, as accepted in some previous decisions and as appeared possible in the light of the CJEU’s case-law (see judgment of the grand chamber of 24 March 2009 in Danske Slagterier , C-445/06, EU:C:2009:178, § 56). Instead, the Court of Cassation decided that time should run from the last legislative intervention aimed at reforming the system. 40.     In conclusion, the Court finds that there has been no appearance of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. Remaining complaints 41 .     The Court notes that the applicants’ remaining complaints either do not meet the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention or do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention or the Protocols thereto. 42.     It follows that this part of the applications must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 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 21 September 2023.     Liv Tigerstedt   Péter Paczolay   Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 362/18 Ruggeri v. Italy 22/12/2017 Zaira RUGGERI 1976 Messina Italian Alessia GIORGIANNI 2. 39696/18 Attanasio and Others v. Italy 14/08/2018 Silvia ATTANASIO 1978 Novara Italian Roberto BERRI 1976 Novara Italian Cristina BIAMINO 1978 Cuggiono Italian Chiara BORRACCINO 1977 Trecate Italian Francesca BRUCCULERI 1976 Rosignano Monferrato Italian Luigi Mario CASTELLO 1974 Ivrea Italian Laura COLLIMEDAGLIA 1979 Novara Italian Elisa CORNETTI 1979 Vespolate Italian Cristina DE BERNARDI 1976 Turbigo Italian Daniela DI FLURI 1975 Pregnana Milanese Italian Ignazio DIVENUTO 1972 Novara Italian Stefania ESPOSITO 1976 Domodossola Italian Sara FESTARI 1977 Marano Ticino Italian Alessia FRANCINI 1976 Biella Italian Cristina GALLI 1975 Marano Ticino Italian Roberta GILODI 1974 Novara Italian Luca GRILLENZONI 1977 Biella Italian Jenny GUALINO 1976 Grignasco Italian Sandro GUGLIELMETTI 1976 Novara Italian Alessandro LITTERA 1979 Marano Ticino Italian Francesca LOMBARDI 1976 Acquaviva delle Fonti Italian Marta LOVISOLO 1975 Nebbiuno Italian Nicola MASIELLO 1963 Lecce Italian Francesco MURGANTE 1973 Oleggio Italian Claudia MUSCAS 1976 Galliate Italian Elisa Angela OLDANI 1977 Bareggio Italian Alessandra PAGGIORO 1977 Biella Italian Mariella PANCARI 1976 Oleggio Italian Roberta Zaira PEDRAZZOLI 1978 Oleggio Italian Massimiliano PINO 1974 Novara Italian Elis PRANDO 1975 Viverone Italian Anna Michela Antonia PUPPI 1972 Turate Italian Rachele RAPETTI 1975 Invorio Italian Monica REGGIANI 1977 Rivalta di Torino Italian Pier Paolo SAINAGHI 1977 Novara Italian Elizabeth SALVADOR 1976 Cavaglià Italian Marco SALVATORES 1975 Saint-Christophe Italian Elena SALVITI 1974 Corbetta Italian Silvia SANTOCONO 1979 Santhià Italian Katia SAVIO 1980 Alice Castello Italian Chiara SAVIOLO 1979 Torino Italian Fausto TARANTO 1977 Novara Italian Nadir TONELLO 1976 Biella Italian Cristina TONNA 1978 Borgomanero Italian Grazia Maria TOTA 1977 Milan Italian Elena VERCELLOTTI 1976 Novara Italian Davide VOLPE 1977 Salerno Italian Nicola VOLPE 1977 Salerno Italian Elisa ZAVATTARO 1974 Novara Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 3. 57679/19 Cuccu v. Italy 29/10/2019 Annalisa CUCCU 1978 Italian Giovanni GRANARA 4. 61251/19 Amici and Others v. Italy 08/11/2019 Francesca AMICI 1973 Ronciglione Italian Natascia BOVENGA 1970 Rome Italian Novella BUSCEMI 1974 Rome Italian Rossella CATANIA 1967 Castrovillari Italian Renzo CIARDINI 1974 Rome Italian Riccardo CIATTI 1974 Rome Italian Maria Pia GIORNO 1977 Rome Italian Mario GRASSO 1969 Rome Italian Claudia LUCCHINI 1974 Rome Italian Susanna PETRUCCI 1973 Aosta Italian Linda QUARESIMA 1974 Terracina Italian Angela SPOSATO 1976 Rome Italian Francesca TONI 1978 Rome Italian Teresa VALERIO 1974 Rome Italian Chiara BUSCEMI 5. 65245/19 Lucisano and Others v. Italy 10/12/2019 Alessia LUCISANO 1974 Rome Italian Federico ACCROCCA 1974 Rome Italian Andrea CELLIE 1969 Rome Italian Manuela Rita CORONA 1971 Rome Italian Chiara BUSCEMI 6. 3663/20 Amendola and Others v. Italy 13/12/2019 Angela AMENDOLA 1969 Rome Italian Carolina ANDREONI 1978 Rome Italian Ludovica ARGNANI 1977 Rome Italian Federico AUGELLO 1974 Nettuno Italian Ursula BASILE 1977 Marino Italian Antonio BERTINO 1977 Rome Italian Alessia BIANCAFARINA 1977 Arezzo Italian Giulio BIOVI 1964 Rome Italian Alessandro BRACCIONI 1970 Rome Italian Katia BRESSAN 1973 Rome Italian Claudio CAGGIANO 1980 Rome Italian Elisabetta CALABRESE 1979 Rome Italian Cesare CALDERINI 1976 Rome Italian Alessandro CALISTRI 1977 Rome Italian Salvatore CANDIOLI 1972 Rome Italian Myriam CAPPUCCI 1975 Rome Italian Roberto CAPPUCCIO 1980 Rome Italian Claudia CARDELLA 1975 Rome Italian Martina CARNEVALINI 1976 Rome Italian Teodorico CASALE 1963 Santi Cosma e Damiano Italian Diletta CASSINI 1977 Rome Italian Carolina CAUCHI 1974 Anzio Italian Mario CAVACECE 1978 Rome Italian Chiara CAVALLOTTI 1980 Rome Italian Michela CELESTRE 1978 Velletri Italian Maria CERA 1976 Rome Italian Manuela CIARROCCA 1975 L’Aquila Italian Elena CICERONE 1972 Borgorose Italian Marika CIPROTTI 1978 Genazzano Italian Elena COCUZZI 1976 Valsinni Italian Linda COCUZZI 1978 Rome Italian Antonella COMETA 1974 Porano Italian Sonja CONDORELLI 1974 Acireale Italian Emanuela CORAZZESI 1972 Rome Italian Serena CORSETTI 1979 Rome Italian Maria Rosaria D’APRILE 1974 Rome Italian Luca DE CARLO 1978 Rome Italian Gian Paolo DE FRANCESCO 1976 Porano Italian Francesca DE MATTEO 1972 Rome Italian Antonella DE SANTIS 1974 Rome Italian Claudia DI BARTOLOMEO 1978 Rome Italian Maria Chiara DI LAURO 1975 Rome Italian Fulvio Pasquale D’OSTUNI 1972 Vidigulfo Italian Maria Agnese FABBRI 1980 Rome Italian Federico FACCENNA 1975 Rome Italian Francesca FATTORE 1976 Rome Italian Edy FEBI 1980 Rome Italian Francesca FERRI 1976 Rome Italian Erica FINOLEZZI 1976 Rome Italian Veronica FIORI 1977 Ciampino Italian Annarita FORCIONE 1978 Rome Italian Nicola FOTI 1974 Rome Italian Immacolata Tiziana FRANZESE 1975 Rome Italian Serena GARGANO 1974 Rome Italian Alessandra GASBARRONE 1974 Terracina Italian Donatello GEMMA 1974 Rome Italian Laura GIACINTI 1976 Marino Italian Antonio GIARDINA 1972 Potenza Italian Raffaella GIGLI 1976 Terni Italian Simona GIGLIO 1968 Rome Italian Francesca GIGLIOTTI 1977 Rome Italian Maria Cristina GIUSTINIANI 1974 Rome Italian Roberta GRANDE 1978 Frosinone Italian Francesco GRECO 1974 Rome Italian Franco IAFRATE 1976 Rome Italian Michela IOSUE 1974 Rome Italian Mauro LA PIETRA 1972 Rome Italian Valentina LA TORRE 1977 Paris Italian Antonella LAURITO 1975 Monteforte Italian Loredana LEJEUNE 1960 Montecompatri Italian Rosaria LICITRA 1980 Rome Italian Marco LIVERANI 1978 Lisbon Italian Errica LOMBARDOZZI 1972 Rome Italian Giuseppe LONGO 1970 Rome Italian Alessandra LUSI 1977 Rome Italian Andrea MACEO 1976 Bologna Italian Emanuela MAGNOLFI 1972 Sora Italian Maria Grazia MANCINO 1976 Riardo Italian Annarita MANIGRASSO 1971 Rome Italian Alberto MASCELLI 1963 Rome Italian Valeria MAZZARINO 1978 Loano Italian Francesco MELARAGNI 1978 Viterbo Italian Andrea MELE 1975 Rome Italian Anna MELLINI 1974 Pisa Italian Mariella MONTANO 1976 Arizzano Italian Monica MUCCIARONE 1977 Sessano del Monte Italian Michele NACLERIO 1976 Milan Italian Bich Lien NGUYEN 1978 Rome Italian Mafalda ORLANDO 1969 Rome Italian Viviana PADELLA 1966 Rome Italian Simona PADULA 1977 Formello Italian Micaela PAGLIARI 1975 Trento Italian Sara PARLANTI 1977 Rome Italian Giuseppe PASIMENI 1973 Rome Italian Virginia PASSERI 1978 Tivoli Italian Emanuela PICCIRILLI 1977 Fiumicino Italian Benedetta PIMPINELLA 1967 Santi Cosma e Damiano Italian Chiara PONTIROLI 1978 Frascati Italian Daniele PORCELLI 1977 Rome Italian Stefano PRO 1974 Frosinone Italian Emanuela PROIETTI 1978 Vimercate Italian Yuri Massimo PUCE 1977 Rome Italian Alberto REBONATO 1978 Perugia Italian Silvia REMEDIANI 1970 Macerata Italian Katia RIPAMONTI 1972 Rome Italian Antonella ROSELLI 1977 Rome Italian Stefano ROSI 1977 Rome Italian Cristina SANTORO 1974 Rome Italian Maria SANTORO 1978 Rome Italian Serena SAPUTO 1980 Palermo Italian Raffaela SCARNICCHIA 1977 Cori Italian Francesco SCICCHITANO 1979 Lamezia Terme Italian Simona SECHI 1973 Rome Italian Margherita SEMINARA 1978 Rome Italian Domenico SERGI 1979 Rome Italian Caterina SIMON 1977 Milan Italian Mauro SIMONE 1978 Rome Italian Gian Paolo SPINELLI 1975 Rome Italian Simona STELLATO 1978 San Fili Italian Manuela TARDIOLA 1972 Trento Italian Francesca TASSI 1971 Palombara Sabina Italian Federica TOMEI 1978 Supino Italian Gabriella TOMEI 1978 Supino Italian Manuela TOMMASIELLO 1976 Rome Italian Giovanni TORINO 1973 Rome Italian Chiara TOZZI 1978 Fiano Romano Italian Simona TRENNA 1976 Rome Italian Stefano VALENTE 1978 Rome Italian Veronica VALLE 1972 San Felice Circeo Italian Tiziana VAVALÀ 1980 Rome Italian Giuditta VIOLA 1978 Marino Italian Andrea VITALI 1975 Rome Italian Paolo FABIANO 1974 Rome Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 7. 5954/20 Gurgone v. Italy 16/01/2020 Antonino GURGONE 1980 Milan Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 8. 5976/20 Alkabes v. Italy 16/01/2020 Micol Ester ALKABES 1979 Milan Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 9. 5978/20 Bertazzi v. Italy 16/01/2020 Laura BERTAZZI 1978 Nago Torbole Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 10. 6039/20 Baccaro and Others v. Italy 23/01/2020 Sante Alessandro BACCARO 1974 Bisceglie Italian Cecilia BEZZI 1975 Rome Italian Sabino BONADUCE 1964 Valenzano Italian Rita CADONI 1972 Quartu Sant’Elena Italian Giovanni CALTAVUTURO 1971 Siena Italian Giuseppe CANCELLO 1976 Milan Italian Rodolfo CANGIANO 1976 Capua Italian Stefano CAPOBIANCO 1977 Ponte Italian Giuseppe CAPONETTO 1974 Catania Italian Barbara CARAU 1971 Iglesias Italian Vincenzo CAROTENUTO 1975 San Giovanni Rotondo Italian Barbara CASU 1971 Cagliari Italian Tanina CATALDO 1971 Ragusa Italian Armida Alida CIORRA 1974 Latina Italian Anna Lisa CONTI 1970 Nuoro Italian Germano CORONELLA 1973 Casal di Principe Italian Angela CURCIO 1966 Naples Italian Roberto D’ELIA 1964 Rome Italian Rosa DAMBROSIO 1964 Sannicandro di Bari Italian Antonella DE CAPRARIS 1976 Foggia Italian Gaetano DE LUCA 1965 Casole Bruzio Italian Anna DE PASQUALE 1970 Parma Italian Paolo DEMAIO 1974 Modica Italian Valeria DEVIRGILIIS 1976 Rome Italian Paola DI GIOVANNI 1975 Mazara del Vallo Italian Raffaele DI MICHELE 1974 San Giovanni Rotondo Italian Teresa DI PALMA 1976 Latina Italian Ornella BLANCA 1967 Enna Italian Olimpia DIFRUSCOLO 1973 Bari Italian Gianluigi DI STASIO 1968 Santa Maria Capua Vetere Italian Pierina ENA 1968 Olbia Italian Sabrina FARACI 1968 Licata Italian Anna Maria FERRARO 1967 Rome Italian Francesco FERRIGNO 1975 Angri Italian Laura FRANCESE 1975 Ruvo di Puglia Italian Daria FUNARO 1973 Rome Italian Serena GENNARO 1977 Parma Italian Maria GERRATANA 1974 Cuneo Italian Giorgio GIANNATTASIO 1979 Cham Italian Marina IBBA 1968 Quartu Sant’Elena Italian Urania Elisabetta LAGRASTA 1970 Cervaro Italian Stefania LANZA 1967 Guidonia Italian Simona LEDDA 1972 Settimo San Pietro Italian Paolo RAIMONDO 1976 Portici Italian Elisabetta RISTORI 1974 Rome Italian Giuseppe ROSANO 1976 Grenoble Italian Raffaele RULLO 1974 Rome Italian Samantha SANNICANDRO 1973 Bari Italian Luca SEGRETI 1977 Vecchiano Italian Tania SEVERI 1969 Fara in Sabina Italian Domenico SFORZA 1973 Bari Italian Giuseppe SGARITO 1974 Palermo Italian Francesca SILVI 1971 Genazzano Italian Emilia MONTAGNA 1977 Milan Italian Vincenzo PANASITI 1975 Rome Italian Sergio Concetto PARISI 1969 Nizza di Sicilia Italian Rosa PERROTTA 1963 Rome Italian Monica PETROSINO 1974 Fisciano Italian Giada PIETROSI 1974 Palermo Italian Raffaella PINTO 1976 Rome Italian Fabio PIZZARDI CASELLA 1975 Vittoria Italian Daniela Maria POZZI 1974 Italian Alessandro Francesco PULVIRENTI 1972 Giarre Italian Gabriella LICITRA 1974 Pisa Italian Alessandro LISTRANI 1972 Milan Italian Vincenzo LOTESORIERE 1969 Mesagne Italian Francesco LUPIDI 1976 Viterbo Italian Stanislao MANGIATORDI 1965 Terlizzi Italian Paola MARRAS 1964 Sardara Italian Nunzia MASCIALE 1900 San Giovanni Rotondo Italian Laura MELONI 1973 Sassari Italian Giuseppe MENNEA 1972 Barletta Italian Agostino MESSINA 1975 Viagrande Italian Manuela SOMMANTICO 1971 Portici Italian Angelo SPINAZZOLA 1973 Castelleone Italian Alessandra TARTAGLIONE 1972 Rocca Priora Italian Fiammetta TODI 1976 Rome Italian Vittoria VACCARI 1970 Colleferro Italian Agostino VEGA 1964 Pomezia Italian Patrizio VICINI 1975 Grottaferrata Italian Francesca ZULLINO 1968 Lecce Italian Carlo RIENZI 11. 11405/20 Fazzio and Giobbe v. Italy 21/02/2020 Marta FAZZIO 1974 Rome Italian Monica GIOBBE 1975 Rome Italian Chiara BUSCEMI 12. 26819/20 Berardi v. Italy 29/06/2020 Stefano BERARDI 1972 Campobasso Italian Ennio CERIO 13. 30601/20 Bocci v. Italy 14/07/2020 Chiara BOCCI 1971 Orbetello Italian   14. 33255/20 Agai and Others v. Italy 30/07/2020 Jerin AGAI 1973 Bressanone Italian Monica MAFFEI 1963 Bologna Italian Raffaella ALBARELLO 1978 Bologna Italian Vincenzo ALLEGRI 1975 Bologna Italian Cristina AMADINI 1961 Bologna Italian Valentina AMBROSINI 1979 Bologna Italian Barbara AMORE 1973 Rimini Italian Lucia ANGELONI 1972 Bologna Italian Valentina Angela ANTONUCCI 1977 Bologna Italian Alessandro ARMARO 1981 Palermo Italian Giorgia ARNONE 1975 Bologna Italian Maria ASTORINO 1977 Grosseto Italian Filippo BABACCI 1976 Forlì Italian Chiara BAIAMONTE 1972 Ferrara Italian Barbara BENDANDI 1975 Imola Italian Alessandra BERNARDI 1974 San Giovanni in Persiceto Italian Matteo BERTINI 1976 Funo di Argelato Italian Carlotta BERZIOLI 1977 Bologna Italian Ilaria BETTOCCHI 1976 Bologna Italian Barbara BIGUCCI 1975 Riccione Italian Diego BIONDINI 1974 Modena Italian Federico BOARON 1974 Pianoro Italian Francesca BONAZZI 1975 San Lazzaro di Savena Italian Caterina BONICELLI 1978 Rimini Italian Daniela BONSANTO 1974 Treviso Italian Biancamaria BORTOLOTTI 1975 Bologna Italian Roberta BORTOLOTTI 1972 Bologna Italian Carla BRINDISI 1977 Budrio Italian Nicoletta BRUNETTI 1970 Paris Italian Sonia CALDARELLI 1977 Porto San Giorgio Italian Morena CALLI 1977 Godo di Russi Italian Olivia CAMELI 1972 Bologne Italian Cristina CAMPIDELLI 1975 Garbagnate Milanese Italian Nicola CAMURRI 1977 Porto Mantovano Italian Silvia CAPPANERA 1975 Ancona Italian Alberta CAPPELLI 1975 Bologna Italian Michela CASORIA 1973 Bologna Italian Laura CASTIGLIONI 1976 Rimini Italian Marco CAVALLO 1976 Modica Italian Agnese CECCONI 1979 Milan Italian Laura CECCONI 1972 San Lazzaro di Savena Italian Bruno CHIAPPINI 1975 Pescara Italian Alessandra CHIARINI 1976 Ravenna Italian Paolo CILIBERTI 1979 Fermo Italian Serena COLUMBO 1975 Pescara Italian Enrico Maria CONGEDO 1975 Bologna Italian Francesca COPPOLA 1973 Bologna Italian Giulia CREMANTE 1977 Bologna Italian Alessandra D’ADDIO 1980 Ravenna Italian Erika DAL CHECCO 1975 Bologna Italian Giulia DI LORETO 1976 Forlì Italian Elisa DONINI 1976 Bologna Italian Silvia FANELLO 1975 Reggio nell’Emilia Italian Claudia FAVA 1974 Cesena Italian Marta FISCALETTI 1976 Bologna Italian Tommaso FOGACCI 1974 Santarcangelo di Romagna Italian Filippo FORTUNA 1979 Fano Italian Alessandro FRANCESCHELLI 1972 Bologna Italian Francesca FUSCO 1969 Sesto Fiorentino Italian Gianluca FUSCONI 1974 Bologna Italian Andrea GALVANI 1973 Misano Adriatico Italian Guido GAMBINI 1975 Bologna Italian Silvia GARUTI 1975 Bologna Italian Filippo GAZZOTTI 1974 Bologna Italian Monia GENNARI 1972 Bologna Italian Valentina GENTILE 1973 Pianoro Italian Daniela Maria GIARDINA 1974 Bologna Italian Federica GIOMMI 1977 Fano Italian Maddalena GIOVANNINI 1978 San Pietro in Casale Italian Cinzia GIULIANELLI 1973 Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna Italian Lorenzo GOTTARELLI 1974 Ravenna Italian Laura GRECO 1978 Bologna Italian Marcello GUIDI 1974 Bologna Italian Michele LA DONNA 1966 Dozza Italian Ettore LARACCA 1978 Paris Italian Sara LAZZARI 1979 Bologna Italian Simona LINARELLO 1974 Bologna Italian Sigrid LIOTTA 1974 Imola Italian Francesca LODATO 1975 Bologna Italian Maria LONGHI 1978 Urbino Italian Myriam LUONGO 1976 Pescara Italian Giorgia MAGAGNOLI 1970 Bologna Italian Giorgio MAGNANI 1972 Cento Italian Laura MALAIGIA 1972 Cesena Italian Dario MANGANARO 1978 Bologna Italian Samanta MANONI 1976 Montegiardino Italian Eugenia MARANELLA 1977 Penna Sant’Andrea Italian Leonardo MARCHESINI REGGIANI 1976 Bologna Italian Debora MARCHIORI 1977 Casalecchio di Reno Italian Elena MARRA 1979 Lecce Italian Mabel MARTELLI 1977 Ozzano dell’Emilia Italian Maura MASTRACOLA 1977 Porto San Giorgio Italian Federica MAZZANTI 1975 Bologna Italian Francesca MENCARELLI 1976 Molinella Italian Marina MERLI 1978 Ferrara Italian Elisa MIKUS 1977 Bologna Italian Loris MIRABILE 1973 Casalecchio di Reno Italian Maria Grazia MIRARCHI 1978 Bologna Italian Barbara MONDARDINI 1978 Cesena Italian Fausta MONTESI 1978 Lanciano Italian Laura MOSCA 1975 Modena Italian Pietro Antonio MOTTA 1969 Scicli Italian Alessandro MURAGLIA 1975 Verona Italian Nicola MURIGLIO 1968 Castel San Pietro Terme Italian Andrea MUSSONI 1978 Rimini Italian Ilaria NALDI 1977 Castel San Pietro Terme Italian Cristina NANNI 1975 Bologna Italian Anastasia NERI 1969 Russi Italian Elisabetta NOBILI 1972 Bologna Italian Massimo ONORATO 1966 Chiaravalle Italian Valerio ORSINI 1977 Ascoli Piceno Italian Laura PAGLIARA 1976 Lecce Italian Maria Chiara PAJNO 1978 Rome Italian Francesca PALANDRI 1977 Bologna Italian Gaia PANTIERI 1975 Forlì Italian Cristina PAPAYANNIDIS 1980 Bologna Italian Pietro Antonio PAPILI 1978 Pianoro Italian Laura PASQUINI 1974 Bologna Italian Gabriella PELUSI 1975 Rimini Italian Barbara PERENZE 1973 Forlì Italian Giulia PERRONE 1978 Milan Italian Elisa PERSICI 1975 Bologna Italian Raffaella PIERINI 1972 Pesaro Italian Elena PRATI 1979 Cesena Italian Silvia PREDIERI 1973 Ozzano dell’Emilia Italian Chiara PRESTI 1978 Castel Maggiore Italian Francesca Rita PULVIRENTI 1974 Castelfranco Emilia Italian Sara QUERCIA 1978 San Lazzaro di Savena Italian Alessio RAIMONDI 1976 Porretta Terme Italian Matteo RENZULLI 1978 Bologna Italian Davide RICCI 1977 Bologna Italian Lorenzo RIMONDINI 1970 Bologna Italian Matteo ROMAGNOLI 1975 Bologna Italian Luca RONCI 1973 Rimini Italian Eugenio ROSSI 1979 Bologna Italian Alessandro RUSSO 1975 Bologna Italian Maria SARMA 1976 Bologna Greek Angela SCARANO 1974 Francavilla Fontana Italian Mirella SCIPIONE 1976 Copertino Italian Riccardo SELLERI 1974 Bologna Italian Enrico SEVERINI 1976 Bologna Italian Giada SIBAHI 1976 Ferrara Italian Mariantonella SIMONE 1975 Vasto Italian Francesca SPERANDI 1975 Bologna Italian Vincenzo SPIGONARDO 1975 Bologna Italian Luca SPINARDI 1979 Bologna Italian Michelangelo STANZANI MASERATI 1975 Bologna Italian Michela TABANELLI 1974 Bologna Italian Giovanni Roberto TEDESCO 1973 Girifalco Italian Benedetta TOSCANO 1977 Rimini Italian Orsola TRANI 1963 Grottaglie Italian Gilda Vittoria TREBINI 1978 Torino Italian Matteo VERSARI 1975 Rimini Italian Monica VIOLA 1973 Bologna Italian Giada VOLTA 1975 Bologna Italian Sara ZANZANI 1976 Rimini Italian Alessandra ZUCCALÀ 1975 Rimini Italian Elisabetta ZUCCHINI 1975 Ferrara Italian Maria Chiara COLONNELLI 1977 Bromley Italian Francesca D’ADDIO 1975 Seregno Italian Lorenzo GARAGNANI 1977 London Italian Francesco SANGUEDOLCE 1976 Barcelona Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 15. 33567/20 Alberghina and Others v. Italy 30/07/2020 Filippo ALBERGHINA 1979 Niscemi Italian Emanuele AMODIO 1979 Palermo Italian Filippo BONO 1977 Palermo Italian Marco BRESCIANI 1973 Castellammare del Golfo Italian Antonella CAMPISI 1973 Caccamo Italian Pietro CARADONNA 1973 Mazara del Vallo Italian Laura DAMIANI 1979 Niscemi Italian Fabrizio DAVID 1975 Palermo Italian Vito DITTA 1967 Paceco Italian Giuseppe GIGLIA 1976 Caltanissetta Italian Maria IMPASTATO 1974 Chivasso Italian Claudio LA SCOLA 1976 Rimini Italian Giovanni LEONE 1976 Padua Italian Alessandra LO CASCIO 1977 Palermo Italian Giovan Battista LO PIPARO 1979 Nicosia Italian Giuseppe LOSI 1972 Scandicci Italian Gabriele LUPICA 1959 Gela Italian Riccardo MANDRACCHIA 1979 Favara Italian Serena MERAVIGLIA 1977 Palermo Italian Maria MESSINA 1977 Mazara del Vallo Italian Clara MOSA 1976 Palermo Italian Filippo NARESE 1980 Agrigento Italian Stefano ORLANDO 1958 Misilmeri Italian Giancarlo PANCUCCI 1977 Agrigento Italian Carmen RAMONDETTA 1971 Modica Italian Giuseppa RUDISI 1966 Palermo Italian Leonardo RUSSO 1974 Agrigento Italian Paola SANFILIPPO 1976 Caltanissetta Italian Francesco SCARPA 1973 Palermo Italian Daniele SPECIALE 1953 Milan Italian Michele SPICOLA 1974 San Biagio Platani Italian Adele TAIBBI 1977 Palermo Italian Serena TROPIA 1974 Palermo Italian Lidia URSO 1976 Erice Italian Arturo VACCARI 1974 Palermo Italian Francesca VERDERAME 1976 Palermo Italian Ernesto VINCIGUERRA 1977 Palermo Italian Giuseppina ZABBARA 1976 Ribera Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 16. 34047/20 Sapienza v. Italy 30/07/2020 Salvatore SAPIENZA 1975 Palermo Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 17. 34554/20 Martorana v. Italy 30/07/2020 Guido MARTORANA 1973 Palermo Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 18. 34586/20 Giliberto v. Italy 30/07/2020 Giovanni Luca GILIBERTO 1972 Borgarello Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 19. 34840/20 Pomara v. Italy 30/07/2020 Giuseppe POMARA 1975 Lascari Italian Giuseppe PINELLI 20. 49917/20 Amadio and Others v. Italy 03/11/2020 Luca AMADIO 1977 Feltre Italian Cinzia ANDRIGO 1975 Camposampiero Italian Maurizio Santi ARAGONA 1975 Lunebourg Italian Francesco BARBARO 1975 Teolo Italian Mara BARBAZZA 1975 Sarmede Italian Francesca BARBON 1975 Legnaro Italian Manuela BEDA 1970 Noventa Padovana Italian Caterina BERNARDI 1973 Rosà Italian Carla BETTINI 1969 Vigodarzere Italian Giovanni BETTO 1972 Casalserugo Italian Michela BEVILACQUA 1977 Padua Italian Luca BONANNI 1975 Padua Italian Elisa BONELLO 1977 Verona Italian Valeria BORILE 1975 Noventa Vicentina Italian Emanuela BRIGO 1972 Dueville Italian Sara CALAMELLI 1975 Mestre Italian Carlo CALZAVARA 1958 Chirignago Italian Daniele CANOVA 1976 Cassola Italian Rosa CARMELLO 1973 Mogliano Veneto Italian Cristina CECCHETTO 1977 Padua Italian Stefano CHECCACCI CARBONI 1977 San Martino di Lupari Italian Francesco Antonio CIARLEGLIO 1975 Trento Italian Laura CICCARIELLO 1976 Merano Italian Alessia COMACCHIO 1973 Albignasego Italian Paola CONFORTIN 1974 Castelfranco Veneto Italian Geeta Giulia COSTA 1976 Padua Italian Andrea COSTACURTA 1976 Padua Italian Umberto CUCCHINI 1974 Bassano del