CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sB7A3531E { margin-left:23pt; padding-left:13pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt }   Published on 19 April 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 4906/21 Provino MAGRO against Italy and 42 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the application of retrospective legislation, specifically Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 to pending national proceedings commenced by the applicants. The applicants had initially been employed by the local government authorities. When they were transferred, under Article 8 of Law no.   124/1999, to work for the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, their length of service with the local government authorities, their original employer, was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicants lodged proceedings before the Tribunal of Rovigo on 31 January 2003 and the Tribunal of Treviso on 4 April 2003 arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental. They sought placement in the professional grade corresponding to their full length of service from the date of the transfer as well as the determination of any compensation due to them. When those proceedings were pending before the Court of Appeal of Venice, Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23   December 2005 entered into force. This provision intended to give effect to what the legislator claimed to be the original intention of the Parliament when adopting Article 8 of Law no. 124/1999. Relying on that interpretative law the domestic court dismissed the applicants’ claims. The applicants challenged the judgments before the Court of Cassation. In the course of the proceedings, following the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 6 September 2011 in Scattolon , C-108/10, the Court of Cassation remitted the case to the Court of Appeal of Brescia for determination of whether the transferred employees had suffered a substantial loss of salary solely as a result of the transfer. The Court of Appeal of Brescia ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against this judgment and the Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal’s findings and conclusions. The Court of Cassation refused to refer a question of constitutionality of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005, stating that the matter had already been assessed by the Constitutional Court in its judgment no. 311 of 2009. According to the Court of Cassation, in particular, there was no reason to refer a new question of the constitutionality of the contested provision, even though the Constitutional Court had decided before the issuance of the judgments Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011, and Cicero and Others v.   Italy , nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, 30 January 2020, since the Constitutional Court had recognised the existence of overriding reasons relating to the public interest which justified retrospective application of the contested law and had established that the power to make such assessment rested with the Constitutional Court itself. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants 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 on account of the retrospective application to their case of Article   1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 (see Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos.   43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011; Cicero and Others v. Italy , nos.   29483/11 and 4 others, 30 January 2020 )? If so, was that interference based on compelling grounds of general interest? 2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1, considering the enactment of Article 1 § 218 of Law no.   266/2005? If so, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants? 3.     Having regard to the refusal of the Court of Cassation to refer a question of constitutionality of the contested law on the basis that the Constitutional Court had already decided a similar matter in its judgment no. 311 of 2009, even though this judgment (i) was issued before the publication of the Court’s judgments Agrati and Others v. Italy , nos.   43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011, and Cicero and Others v. Italy , nos. 29483/11 and 4 others, 30 January 2020, and (ii) declared ill-founded the question of constitutionality and, therefore, did not preclude the referral of new questions of constitutionality on the same provision, especially when the development of the case-law of the Court provided for new arguments to consider a question of constitutionality not manifestly ill-founded, the Government are requested to clarify under which conditions the domestic legal system requests national judges to bring the interpretation of the Convention’s provisions offered by the development of the case-law of the Court to the attention of the Constitutional Court.   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Proceeding 1. 4906/21 Magro v. Italy Provino MAGRO 1947 Trevise Tribunal of Treviso, judgments no. 82/04 and no. 382/04 deposited respectively on 16 March 2004 and 11 October 2004 Court of Appeal of Venice judgment no. 252/08 deposited on 2 January 2009 Court of Cassation judgment no. 4317/13 deposited on 21 February 2013 Court of Appeal of Brescia judgment no. 334/14 deposited on 15 July 2014 Court of Cassation judgment no. 14892/20 deposited on 13 July 2020   2. 4909/21 Alaimo v. Italy Mascia ALAIMO 1966 Asolo 3. 4911/21 Lovisotto v. Italy Antonella LOVISOTTO 1960 Mareno di Piave 4. 4912/21 Mario v. Italy Donatella MARIO 1963 Conegliano 5. 5033/21 Cia v. Italy Augusta CIA 1941 Oderzo 6. 5034/21 Pasquot v. Italy Pierluigi PASQUOT 1959 Conegliano 7. 5035/21 Foschini v. Italy Paola FOSCHINI 1952 Zero Bianco 8. 5036/21 Tonello v. Italy Patrizia TONELLO 1964 Oderzo 9. 5037/21 Bernardon v. Italy Renata BERNARDON 1949 Trevise 10. 5038/21 Gazzola v. Italy Bruno GAZZOLA 1949 Trevise 11. 5039/21 Rado v. Italy Luciana RADO 1955 Oderzo 12. 5040/21 Schiavon v. Italy Paola SCHIAVON 1949 Mogliano Veneto 13. 5041/21 D’Ambrosi v. Italy Graziella D’AMBROSI 1942 Paese 14. 5042/21 Forner v. Italy Lina FORNER 1953 Asolo 15. 5170/21 Bellotto v. Italy Paolo BELLOTTO 1954 Trévise 16. 5171/21 Piccolo v. Italy Annalisa PICCOLO 1965 See representative’s address 17. 5172/21 Cimitan v. Italy Gianna CIMITAN 1966 San Paolo di Piave 18. 5173/21 Cappellazzo v. Italy Maria CAPPELLAZZO 1951 Trevise 19. 5174/21 Bellese v. Italy Erminia BELLESE 1948 Ormelle 20. 5175/21 Girotto v. Italy Maria Grazia GIROTTO 1964 Paese 21. 5932/21 Mazziotti v. Italy Luisa MAZZIOTTI 1944 Trevise 22. 5935/21 Durante v. Italy Raffaele DURANTE 1952 Villorba 23. 5938/21 Da Deppo v. Italy Vanna DA DEPPO 1942 Trevise 24. 5943/21 Carpene v. Italy Pierina CARPENE 1947 Revine Lago 25. 5948/21 Tognon v. Italy Galliano TOGNON 1943 Castelfranco Veneto 26. 5958/21 Botta v. Italy Maria Pia BOTTA 1944 Oderzo 27. 6156/21 Zorzi v. Italy Maria ZORZI 1943 Trevise 28. 6157/21 Botteon v. Italy Donatella BOTTEON 1960 Oderzo 29. 6160/21 Dam v. Italy Renata DAM 1952 Conegliano 30. 6176/21 Mattiacci v. Italy Franca MATTIACCI 1951 Casier 31. 6209/21 Merlo v. Italy Attilio MERLO 1957 Vittorio Veneto 32. 6218/21 Da Rodda v. Italy Donatella DA RODDA 1962 Revine Lago 33. 6223/21 Urso v. Italy Milena URSO 1947 Cornuda 34. 6226/21 Masutti v. Italy Paola MASUTTI 1963 Anzano di Cappella Maggiore 35. 6262/21 Codogno v. Italy Maurizio CODOGNO 1954 San Vendemmiano 36. 6263/21 Bordignon v. Italy Anna BORDIGNON 1962 Postomia 37. 6264/21 Casagrande v. Italy Paolo CASAGRANDE 1957 Trevise 38. 6266/21 Rossi Mori v. Italy Antonio ROSSI MORI 1960 Arquà Polesine Tribunal of Rovigo, judgment no. 520/04 deposited on 30 August 2004 Court of Appeal of Venice judgment no. 261/08 deposited on 9 December 2008 Court of Cassation judgment no. 4556/13 deposited on 22 February 2013 Court of Appeal of Brescia judgment no. 334/14 deposited on 15 July 2014 Court of Cassation judgment no. 14892/20 deposited on 13 July 2020   39. 6267/21 Ceotto v. Italy Francesco CEOTTO 1944 Vittorio Veneto Tribunal of Treviso, judgments no. 82/04 and no. 382/04 deposited respectively on 16 March 2004 and 11 October 2004 Court of Appeal of Venice judgment no. 252/08 deposited on 2 January 2009 Court of Cassation judgment no. 4317/13 deposited on 21 February 2013 Court of Appeal of Brescia judgment no. 334/14 deposited on 15 July 2014 Court of Cassation judgment no. 14892/20 deposited on 13 July 2020 40. 6273/21 Benetton v. Italy Angelo BENETTON 1947 Villorba 41. 6993/21 Gobbo v. Italy Lucia GOBBO 1961 Zero Branco 42. 7209/21 Vazzoler v. Italy Fabio VAZZOLER 1949 Trevise 43. 7265/21 Sartor v. Italy Dorina SARTOR 1953 Zero Branco