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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s38957AC1 { width:108.56%; margin-left:6.85pt; border-collapse:collapse } .sE9B21630 { width:6.92%; 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 } .sA99F996B { width:44.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s76986622 { width:22.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE72A2AC3 { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sE168E426 { width:6.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB2F2AB51 { margin-left:28pt; padding-left:8pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sA25DFBE0 { width:44.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s346F4FF1 { width:22.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF1C834A { width:25.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3537C2D6 { font-weight:normal } .sE31B4500 { height:37.8pt } .sEFB62F38 { height:32pt } .s54EA93C { margin-left:31.34pt; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s19E96575 { height:33.05pt } .s1AD26575 { height:34.25pt } .sD8B17FBE { margin-left:31.34pt; text-align:center; padding-left:4.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .sE87BCA71 { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCA66547 { width:41.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s7898AFFC { width:25.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1EA20084 { width:24.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB8882FFD { width:8.62%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB49F962E { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sC048B712 { width:41.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sE140995B { width:25.88%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3FE4F745 { width:24.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }     Communicated on 27 August 2014   SECOND SECTION Application no. 26056/07 Rosario ADAMI and others against Italy lodged on 15 June 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 had been 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     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   Rosario ADAMI heir of Renato ADAMI 25/06/1943 Napoli   Giancarlo ADAMI heir of Renato ADAMI 07/04/1946 Napoli   Donatella ADAMI heir of Renato ADAMI 04/11/1955 Napoli   Roberto BOSSI heir of Ernesta ANTONELLI 20/11/1953 Sestri Levante (GE)   Concetta BORZACCHIELLO heir of Sergio DALL’AGLIO 07/06/1936 Napoli   Stefania DALL’AGLIO heir of Sergio DALL’AGLIO 20/04/1968 Napoli   Alessandro DALL’AGLIO heir of Sergio DALL’AGLIO 13/02/1965 Napoli   Valva Isabella D’AYALA heir of Claudio SAVARESE 10/06/1930 Napoli   Paolo SAVARESE heir of Claudio SAVARESE 28/10/1958 Napoli   Riccardo SAVARESE heir of Claudio SAVARESE 28/04/1960 Napoli   Caterina LECCESE heir of Cosimo TESTA 13/06/1921 Gaeta   Antonio TESTA heir of Cosimo TESTA 12/06/1959 Gaeta   Maria TESTA heir of Cosimo TESTA 07/12/1955 Gaeta   Giusta ORIONI heir of Ferdinando ZAMPI 23/09/1938 Cagliari   Luigi ZAMPI heir of Ferdinando ZAMPI 01/06/1967 Cagliari     Alessandro ZAMPI heir of Ferdinando ZAMPI 30/01/1969 Cagliari   Francesca ZAMPI heir of Ferdinando ZAMPI 14/06/1970 Cagliari   Valeria ZAMPI heir of Ferdinando ZAMPI 13/01/1977 Cagliari   Barbara ZAMPI heir of Ferdinando ZAMPI 13/01/1977 Cagliari   Guido MAZZA Heir of Elena AVETA 12/07/1945 Pescara   Fernanda BERNONI heir of Gaetano DE FABRITIIS 21/09/1915 Tortoreto   Alessandro DE FABRITIIS heir of Gaetano DE FABRITIIS 28/06/1940 Tortoreto   Paolo DE FABRITIIS heir of Gaetano DE FABRITIIS 30/11/1954 Tortoreto   Annarosa DE FABRITIIS heir of Gaetano DE FABRITIIS 30/06/1957 Tortoreto   Renata MARINI heir of Giuseppe DI NOZZI 30/05/1924 Firenze   Rosaria DI NOZZI heir of Giuseppe DI NOZZI 07/09/1954 Firenze   Giovanna D’AGOSTINO heir of Francesco IACONIS 02/08/1927 Padova   Gianfranco IACONIS heir of Francesco IACONIS 01/01/1956 Padova   Nicola IACONIS heir of Francesco IACONIS 21/09/1951 Padova       TABLE II     N o . Firstname LASTNAME Birth date Place of residence 30 Francesco BERETTA 09/09/1925 Genova 31 Alfio BIONDI 12/02/1942 Roma 32 Brunetto BRUNELLI 20/10/1920 La Spezia 33 Salvatore CALDERONI 23/12/1935 Bari 34 Cataldo CAPANO 12/03/1939 Trani 35 Angelo CONSOLE 09/10/1940 Avellino 36 Vito Filippo DE SANTIS 25/11/1937 Pescara 37 Dario DI MATTIA 28/05/1928 Ancona 38 Pierluigi FERRATI 21/06/1931 Firenze 39 Tito Italo GRECO 30/03/1941 Rende 40 Iolanda MODOLO 14/11/1925 Trieste 41 Giuseppe PANTANO 12/11/1921 Taranto 42 Giovanni PRIVITERA 20/12/1929 Napoli 43 Rosanna RAGOZZINO 26/04/1951 Napoli 44 Carmine ROSSI 07/01/1922 Napoli 45 Stefano SODANO 14/05/1938 Montefiascone 46 Giorgio TERSIGNI 17/11/1931 Sora (Fr) 47 Mario TROTTA 14/11/1932 Matera 48 Francesco FALCO 27/02/1922 Napoli 49 Edda GHERSEVICH 19/02/1934 Cuveglio (Va) 50 Lidia IANNELLI 20/07/1924 Potenza 51 Grazia MARESCA 04/06/1924 Barletta 52 Mario Marco PASANISI 25/04/1940 Taranto 53 Luigi PERELLI 19/05/1930 Avellino 54 Carmen CARVELLI 06/12/1919 Roma 55 Giuseppina DE GENNARO 03/07/1922 Roma 56 Cosimo DE LUCA 05/02/1933 Codevigo (PD) 57 Marisa DE NAPOLI 19/06/1947 Casetl di Casio (BO) 58 Maria DE NICOLA 13/09/1925 Roma 59 Ercole FARRUGIA 23/06/1941 Roma 60 Egisto Mario GERINI 03/02/1933 Perugia 61 Athos PORCU 11/03/1937 Greve C. (FI) 62 Liliana SALVI 15/07/1926 Nettuno 63 Ugo SANTORO 21/11/1934 Roma 64 Gidemore VIAGGIO 01/11/1934 Roma 65 Anna Maria BADOLATO 27/11/1924 Roma 66 Maria Michele CIANI 04/04/1946 Ariccia 67 Bruna GIORDANO 21/10/1948 Roma 68 Lydia IUZZOLINO 26/08/1941 Roma 69 Filomena LIBERTINI 15/02/1937 Salerne 70 Lucia LIBERTINI 26/12/1941 Salerne 71 Maria MAURO 13/07/1946 Rome 72 Luigi MAZZITELLI 24/09/1934 Castelvolturno 73 Maria MICHELUTTI 05/02/1918 Verona 74 Elda MONTANARI 10/06/1923 Roma 75 Maria PETRACCONE 27/08/1941 Napoli 76 Mario PIAZZOLLA 18/01/1938 Roma 77 Marianna PODDA 21/07/1942 Nuoro 78 Jole Maria POL 13/10/1926 Lanuvio 79 Emilia RADDINO 14/09/1915 Verona 80 Aldo TANGO 01/12/1924 Naples 81 Grazia Maria SOLINAS 18/12/1931 Perouse 82 Luigi VECCHIONE 17/03/1937 Milano 83 Vincenzo GAETANIELLO 23/01/1933 Napoli 84 Elena PARRELLA 13/12/1935 Napoli 85 Anna Maria AIELLO, heir of Vincenzo LOI, who died on 20/06/01 07/09/1924 Napoli 86 Maria Iolanda DIONISO, heir of Nicola RAFFONE   06/02/1923 Roma 87 Giuseppina VALENTE, heir of Giuseppe BARONE 25/02/1920 Roma