CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 novembre 2022

.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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6E946AE4 { width:118.24%; border-collapse:collapse } .sA4C5DA9 { width:3.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s4E9F1256 { width:11.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sCAD54A5E { width:8.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sF5FFF54 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s31C34EAA { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s4214325C { width:13.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s821225E6 { width:3.92%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDCBB1D1A { width:11.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD40E70D5 { width:8.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s97DF9F40 { width:8.56%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1C0B717F { width:13.52%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s85023616 { width:13.54%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 December 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24550/22 Virginia Andreoli and Others against Italy lodged on 28 April 2022 communicated on 21 November 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the application of retrospective legislation, specifically Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 to pending national proceedings involving the applicants. The applicants were 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 was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicants lodged proceedings before the Lanciano District Court arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental to them. 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 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, 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 Rome Court of Appeal for determination of whether the transferred employees had suffered a substantial loss of salary solely as a result of the transfer. The Rome Court of Appeal 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 applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the legislative interference pending the proceedings which, in their view, infringed their right to a fair trial. They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the retroactive application of Article   1 §   218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 deprived them of their property insofar as this provision put an end to the dispute between them and the administration. 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 an 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, and 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.     The applicants are invited to submit a declaration concerning the status of enforcement of the domestic judgments on the merit in their regard. If a domestic judgment has been enforced in their regard, the applicants are invited to include in the declaration the following information: the number, the R.G. and the date of the judgment in their favour, the sums received, and possibly the sums subsequently recovered by the administration. The applicants are invited to provide all the relevant documents concerning the enforcement of the judgments and, where applicable, the recovery of the sums. APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Place of residence First instance judgment Second instance judgment First judgment of the Court of Cassation Referral to the Court of Appeal   Final order of the Court of Cassation 1. Virginia ANDREOLI 1954 Fossacesia Lanciano District Court, R.G. 92/04, 13/12/2004 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04, 30/05/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11067/09 (joint with other applications, the main one being R.G. 7605/09), 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 3413/13, 04/06/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 13904/16, 05/11/2021 2. Anna Maria DEL ROSARIO 1953 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 91/04, 13/12/2004   3. Marisa DI NUNZIO 1951 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 87/04, 13/12/2004 4. Nicola DI NUNZIO 1956 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 90/04, 13/12/2004 5. Valerio SCACCIA 1958 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 88/04, 13/12/2004 6. Maria Domenica VALENTE 1937 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 93/04, 13/12/2004 7. Anna Maria D’ELISEO 1957 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 449/02, 16/03/2004 L’Aquila District Court, R.G. 465/04, 06/06/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11034/09, 01/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 3411/13, 11/05/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11771/16, 08 /11/2021