CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 août 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sB853CD33 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB70F11C9 { width:99.18%; margin-left:0.1pt; border-collapse:collapse } .s389B4756 { width:11.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s1F868F92 { width:43.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF33261A4 { width:16.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s9CE7A2EC { width:28.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB90A4095 { width:11.28%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD5689DDC { margin-left:15.01pt; text-align:right; padding-left:8pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sE440FC0E { width:43.34%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s894AA5EE { width:16.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9E7DF94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s8EE9C32F { width:28.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22155D7A { height:23.25pt } .sE3958EED { margin-left:21.68pt; text-align:right; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s55CF9F3B { width:99.28%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA30DBE26 { width:11.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDD52E33C { width:43.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s66A02243 { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s61127307 { width:11.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .s3A8C67E6 { width:43.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s82B0FB4B { width:18.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s98A8263B { height:20.5pt } .sD024500 { height:36.6pt } .s60F10776 { height:54.1pt } .s38F24627 { height:66.1pt } .sE61F0776 { height:50.7pt } .s9078C002 { width:26.3%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s8027329A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt; text-align:right; font-size:12pt } .s10A45C3E { border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; vertical-align:top } .s74DD812F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:7.1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s8DD1D08A { vertical-align:top } .s9538EC41 { height:0pt } .sDE257D95 { width:42.95pt } .sD66597DD { width:163pt } .s254CDAA6 { width:70.85pt } .s6E069AD3 { width:98.85pt } .s9334D7B5 { width:0.3pt }     Communicated on 27 August 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20035/07 Giuseppa AIELLO and others against Italy lodged on 4 May 2007 STATEMENT OF FACTS A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are all Italian nationals and are represented before the Court by Mr G. Ferraro, Mr   R. Mastroianni and Mr F. Ferraro, lawyers practising in Naples. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. A.     The circumstances of the case A detailed description of the background of the case is set out in Arras and Others v. Italy (no. 17972/07, §§ 7-25, 14 February 2012). A brief description of the relevant facts, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Background of the case The applicants or their ascendants or spouses (in the cases where the applicants are heirs of a deceased individual) are or were all pensioners (retired prior to 31 December 1990) and former employees of the Banco Di Napoli, a banking group which was originally a public entity and which was later privatised by means of Law no. 218/1990, the so called “Amato reform”, which suppressed exclusive pension regimes. Before the aforementioned privatisation, the applicants used to benefit from a more favourable equalisation mechanism ( meccanismo perequativo ) than that available to persons registered with the general compulsory insurance ( assicurazione generale obligatoria ), as their annual pension increase was calculated on the basis of the salary increases of working employees in equal grades of service ( perequazione aziendale ). In 1993 a number of former employees entered into a dispute with the Banco di Napoli about the application of certain provisions of two laws (Section 9 of Law no. 503/1992 and Section 3 of Law no. 421/1991), which the aforementioned bank had interpreted in the sense that the system of perequazione aziendale had been suppressed also in respect of those persons who were already retired at the date of 31 December 1990. The latter stand was taken notwithstanding that, according to the applicants, the Amato reform limited the suppression of perequazione aziendale solely to persons still employed and not persons already receiving a pension, as the latter had not been given the option of taking up other benefits as agreed by means of corporate collective bargaining. As a consequence, given the less substantial pension they were receiving, a number of pensioners (or their heirs) in the applicants’ position instituted civil proceedings requesting the courts to find that they had a right to retain the system of perequazione aziendale , and to order the Banco di Napoli to pay the sums it had failed to pay them. In 1994 the domestic courts upheld the claimants’ arguments, holding that the impugned amendments did not apply to persons who had retired on or before 31 December 1990. This interpretation became settled domestic case-law, also upheld by the plenary session of the Court of Cassation ( Sezione Unite ), which in 2001 found that, due to the enactment of other legislative amendments, the system of perequazione aziendale would have applied to the above-mentioned pensioners from 1 January 1994 (date when a general suspension of pension adjustments ceased) to 26 July 1996 (date when a new suspension of such adjustments started in respect of the Banco di Napoli). This interpretation continued to be followed by all the judges sitting in such cases. On 23 August 2004 section 1 paragraph 55 of Law no. 243/04 was enacted. It interpreted the relevant law to the effect that retired employees of the Banco di Napoli could no longer benefit from the system of perequazione aziendale and made it effective retroactively, with effect from 1992. Issues concerning the constitutionality of Law no. 243/04 were rejected by the Constitutional Court by a judgment filed in the registry on 7 November 2008, on the ground that the impugned law was an interpretative norm to the provisions of Law no. 503/92 which eradicated perequazione aziendale for all pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement. The impugned law had been reasonable because it aimed to achieve recognition of an equal and homogenous treatment of all pensioners under the current integrative regimes. It further considered that the legislator could enact interpretative laws, once they were based on one of the possible meanings of the original text, even if there had been consistent jurisprudence about the matter, and this did not affect the role of the Court of Cassation. 2.     The applicants’ domestic proceedings On 20 December 1993 the applicants or their predecessors instituted proceedings on the lines of the proceedings mentioned above, namely they argued that Laws nos. 503/92 and 421/92 safeguarded any more favorable treatment applicable to persons who had retired prior to 31 December 1990. Thus, they requested the Napoli Magistrate ( pretore ) (in his function of Labour judge) to find that they had a right to retain the system of perequazione aziendale as applied before the enactment of such laws and to order the Banco di Napoli to pay the sums it had failed to pay them. By a judgment no. 1978 of 1 February 1995 the Napoli Magistrate granted the applicants’ claims. On appeal, by a judgment no. 2075 of 10 June 2004, the Napoli District Court (Labour Section) upheld the applicants’ right to be covered by the system of perequazione aziendale , but referring to the highest judicial authorities’ jurisprudence on the matter, it found that they had such a right only for the period from 1 January 1994 (date when a general suspension of pension adjustments ceased) to 26 July 1996 (date when a new suspension of such adjustments started in respect of the Banco di Napoli). By a judgment no. 27020 of 19 September 2006, deposited in the relevant registry on 18 December 2006, the Court of Cassation reversed the lower courts’ judgments and found against the applicants, ordering the costs of the three court instances to be paid equally between the parties. It upheld the ground of appeal that the lower courts could not take account of Law no. 243/04, not yet into force at the time of their judgments, which was enacted to resolve the question whether Articles 9 and 11 of Law no. 503/92 applied only to employees still in service or also to retired pensioners, and provided that as from 1994 onwards only a perequazione legale (increase according to the standard of living) had to apply to “all” pensioners, irrespective of their date of retirement. It rejected a claim of unconstitutionality in so far as this interpretative law had retroactive effects impinging on the principle of legal and judicial certainty, along the lines of the Constitutional Court’s judgments on the matter. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice is set out in Arras and Others (cited above, §§ 25-31). COMPLAINT The applicants complained that Law no. 243/04 as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in its judgment of 7 November 2006, constituted a legislative interference with pending proceedings which was in breach of their fair trial rights under Article 6. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In respect of the applicants listed in Table I of the Annex, did the applicants’ predecessors who brought the original claims before the domestic courts die pending the outcome of those domestic proceedings? If so, did the applicants listed in Table I intervene in their stead in the domestic proceedings in their capacity of heirs? In that connection, can the applicants listed in Table I claim to be victims of a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?   2. Did the applicants mentioned in Tables I and II of the Annex have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was there interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute? If so, was the interference based on compelling grounds of general interest? Lastly, was the interference compatible with the principles of legal certainty (see Arras and Others v. Italy , no. 17972/07, 14 February 2012)?     Appendix TABLE I     N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Place of residence   Massimo BRANDIGI heir of Osvaldo BRANDIGI 08/05/1947 Firenze   Stefano BRANDIGI heir of Osvaldo BRANDIGI 09/01/1952 Firenze   Carlo CIAMARONE heir of Rocco CIAMARONE 18/06/1954 Pescara   Paolo CIAMARONE heir of Rocco CIAMARONE 12/09/1950 Pescara   Cabiria BRANDIMARTE heir of Rocco CIAMARONE 21/02/1921 Pescara   Angela BOTTA heir of Chiara CIOMPI 01/03/1938 Napoli   Antonella COSTA heir of Giovanni COSTA 14/05/1963 Foggia   Giuseppe COSTA heir of Giovanni COSTA 29/03/1958 Foggia   Pierluigi COSTA heir of Giovanni COSTA 02/09/1964 Foggia   Maria Antonietta BATTAGLINI heir of Giovanni COSTA 09/04/1937 Foggia   Marisa BOSI heir of Silvio DE ROSE 12/02/1932 Marradi (FI)   Maria DE ROSE heir of Silvio DE ROSE 10/12/1959 Cosenza   Ottavio DE ROSE heir of Silvio DE ROSE 08/08/1964 Cosenza   Giorgia FALANGA heir of Lorenzo FALANGA 19/01/1963 Napoli   Maria Grazia FENU heir of Lorenzo FALANGA 27/03/1939 Napoli   Rossana LANDI heir of Velia FORLANI 01/01/1932 Pescara   Margherita DI GIGLIO, heir of Mauro Antonio DI GIGLIO 10/11/1959 Napoli   Rosanna DI GIGLIO, heir of Mauro Antonio DI GIGLIO 23/03/1964 Torre del Greco   Carmine DI GIGLIO, heir of Mauro Antonio DI GIGLIO 27/01/1967 Fiumicino (RO)   Claudio DI NOIA, heir of Giovanni DI NOIA 17/05/1949 Milano   Maria Donata DI NOIA, heir of Giovanni DI NOIA 06/03/1955 Milano   Massimo DI NOIA, heir of Giovanni DI NOIA 12/02/1948 Milano   Raffaele DI NOIA, heir of Giovanni DI NOIA 22/04/1952 Milano   Amalia TAVEGGIA, heir of Giovanni DI NOIA 10/04/1919 Milano   Carlo GABRIELE, heir of Renato GABRIELE 12/11/1962 Caserta   Olimpia GABRIELE, heir of Renato GABRIELE 25/08/1961 Caserta   Maria Rosara AVETA, heir of Renato GABRIELE 03/02/1935 Caserta     TABLE II   N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Place of residence   Giuseppa AIELLO 05/08/1928 Milano   Luisa ANSELMO 09/07/1927 Milano   Tommaso BASTI 24/03/1923 Pescara   Osvaldo BATTIMIELLO 06/11/1925 Milano   Romano BERGAMI 10/06/1936 Bologna   Luigi BIANCO 24/09/1934 Genova   Sandra BOLDRER 17/03/1954 Bolzano   Franco BOLOGNA 15/03/1920 Alassio   Paolo BOMBARDI 10/08/1939 Genova   Maria BONICA 23/09/1924 Napoli   Sergio BUTTA’ 21/02/1939 Telese Terme   Livio CALCINAI 21/11/1920 Molino del Piano   Renza CALLIARI 17/08/1955 Taio (TN)   Assunta CANTONE 08/09/1922 Napoli   Antonio CARACCIOLO 29/01/1917 Milano   Antonietta CASAZZA 20/10/1928 Castrolibero   Nicola CASCIELLO 13/10/1937 Battipaglia   Rocco CASONE 22/03/1932 Acquaviva di Fonti   Wanda CATALINI 16/03/1947 Napoli   Igino CATANZARITI 31/05/1938 Lecce   Elisabetta CERESA 21/09/1946 Ercolano   Angelo CESARI 10/01/1919 Genova   Malio CHIARIELLO 06/07/1942 Gallipoli   Antonio Donatello CHINICO’ 22/10/1948 Rossano   Rosa CIAMPITTI 14/03/1922 Nola   Anna CIBELLI 14/09/1920 S. Nicola la Strada   Caterina CINO 01/03/1948 Caserta   Giuseppe COMPAGNONE 04/11/1931 Benevento   Caterina COSCIA 28/11/1925 Torre del Greco   Eleonora COSENTINO 20/12/1952 Salerno   Mario D’ALIA 25/07/1936 Terracina   Aida D’APUZZO 09/04/1936 Gragnano   Maria DE FINA 07/04/1951 Potenza   Bruno DE GREGORIIS 05/06/1926 Sulmona   Antonino DE GREGORIO 27/09/1939 Genova   Giovanna DE JATTA 20/07/1948 Conversano   Vincenzo DEL GRIPPO 20/03/1931 Salerno   Ciro DE LUCA 07/04/1938 Pagani   Eduardo DE STASIO 08/09/1935 Marano   Carmela DE STEFANO 04/03/1947 S. Nicola La Strada   Vittorio ELLERO 18/01/1938 Arese   Rosa ESPOSITO 04/11/1933 Napoli   Mattia FAIELLA 06/02/1939 Nocera Inferiore   Silvia FILIPPI 15/08/1943 Portici   Remo DI GIOVANNI 21/08/1922 Pescara   Giancarlo DI IORIO 04/09/1940 Chieti   Pasquale DI RAIMONDO 15/04/1935 Roseto degli Abruzzi   Gustavo DI RUGGIERO 14/03/1940 Trani   Olmitella DI TARANTO 01/01/1932 Foggia   Mafalda GALANTE 04/12/1922 Pescara   Angelo GALIMBERTI 01/11/1930 Lido di Venezia   Giuseppe GAMBINO 18/11/1935 Scafati   Diana Lucia GIANCANE 09/03/1944 Lecce   Pia BOY heir of Giorgio BUONERBA, dead on 4/05/2008 08/03/1921 Atripalda   Carla BUONERBA heir of Giorgio BUONERBA, died on 4/05/2008 03/02/1949 Atripalda   Maurizio Antonio BUONERBA heir of Giorgio BUONERBA, who died on 4/05/2008 09/07/1958 Atripalda   Fabrizio CALDARAZZO heir of Guido CALDARAZZO, who died on 4/07/2008 26/06/1978 Savona   Maria ROCCOCELLI heir of Guido CALDARAZZO, who died on 4/07/2008 12/01/1933 Savona   Lucio CARBONE On his own behalf and as heir of Luigi CARBONE, who died on 15/05/2009 02/03/1940 Milano   Paolo CARBONE heir of Luigi CARBONE, who died on 15/05/2009 22/07/1943 Bologna     Alfonso CARBONE heir of Luigi CARBONE, who died on 15/05/2009 03/09/1938 Alessandria   Giorgio CARBONE heir of Luigi CARBONE, who died on 15/05/2009 29/07/1946 Napoli