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 } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 December 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 60920/21 Antonio BORTOLONI against Italy and 27 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 21 November 2022 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 involving the applicants. The applicants, who are all represented by the lawyer N. Zampieri, 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 national district courts (see appended table), 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 on 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 courts 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 competent courts of appeal for determination of whether the transferred employees had suffered a substantial loss of salary solely as a result of the transfer. The appellate courts ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against these judgments and the Court of Cassation upheld the appellate courts’ 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. 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.     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 in 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.   4.     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.   5.     With regards to the applications nos. 60920/21 and 1017/22, the applicants are invited to produce a copy of the first instance judgments.     APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant 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. 60920/21 Bortoloni v. Italy 30/11/2021 Antonio BORTOLONI 1946 Rovigo n/a Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 477/07, 18/12/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 6978/09 and 10623/09, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 645/13, 29/01/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17198/15, 03/06/2021 2. 61122/21 Ruzzier v. Italy 06/12/2021 Sergio RUZZIER 1957 Trieste Trieste District Court, R.G. 274/04, 09/02/2005 Trieste Court of Appeal, R.G. 51/05, 07/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 18386/08, 20/12/2012 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 1195/13, 02/01/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 3371/16, 07/06/2021 3. 61170/21 Bacci v. Italy 06/12/2021 Flavio BACCI 1954 Trieste Trieste District Court, R.G. 273/04, 09/02/2005 4. 1017/22 Marsiglio v. Italy 21/12/2021 Maria Raffaella MARSIGLIO 1957 Torrebelvicino n/a Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 831/05, 07/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19965/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 644/13, 01/122014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17184/15, 23/06/2021 5. 1019/22 Cusin v. Italy 21/12/2021 Chiara CUSIN 1965 Stanghella Rovigo District Court, R.G.C.L. 553/03, 21/07/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 1022/05, 25/03/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 16728/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 642/13, 20/11/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17178/15, 23/06/2021 6. 1022/22 Valente v. Italy 21/12/2021 Anita VALENTE 1965 Bolzano Vicentino Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1192/04, 04/08/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 768/05, 769/05 and 772/05, 14/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19937/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 633/13, 20/10/2017 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17186/15, 22/06/2021 7. 1595/22 Ruzza v. Italy 28/12/2021 Anna Carmela RUZZA 1946 Rosolina Rovigo District Court, R.G. 82/04, 12/10/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 158/06, 159/06 and 160/06, 25/02/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 16709/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 654/13, 24/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17188/15, 22/06/2021 8. 2290/22 Viale v. Italy 23/12/2021 Marisa VIALE 1961 Rovigo Rovigo District Court, R.G. 752/03, 12/10/2005 9. 2299/22 Dalla Vecchia v. Italy 21/12/2021 Maria Maddalena DALLA VECCHIA 1953 Schio Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1210/04, 04/08/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 828/05, 26/11/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19964/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna District Court, R.G. 630/13, 20/10/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 14164/15, 22/06/2021 10. 2815/22 Dalla Vecchia v. Italy 22/12/2021 Virginia DALLA VECCHIA 1956 Schio Vicenza District Court, R.G. 16/04, 10/05/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 458/05, 19/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 28486/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna District Court, R.G. 631/13, 22/10/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 17181/15, 23/06/2021 11. 3605/22 Bena’ v. Italy 22/12/2021 Lucia BENA’ 1952 Rovigo Rovigo District Court, R.G. 547/03, 03/05/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 468/05, 469/05, 473/05, 474/05 and 475/05, 05/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 16732/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 639/13, 22/10/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 14165/15, 22/06/2021 12. 3671/22 Berto v. Italy 22/12/2021 Giancarlo BERTO 1955 Rovigo Rovigo District Court, R.G. 548/03, 03/05/2005 13. 10328/22 Nibrandt v. Italy 10/02/2022 Xenia NIBRANDT 1948 Trieste Trieste District Court, R.G. 83/02, 04/05/2004 Trieste Court of Appeal, R.G. 157/04, 02/09/2006 Court of Cassation, R.G. 15035/07 and 23369/07, 13/12/2012 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 1129/13 and 1152/13, 02/01/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 6628/15, 10/08/2021 14. 10343/22 Licen v. Italy 11/02/2022 Roberto LICEN 1948 San Canzian d’Isonzo Gorizia District Court, R.G. 231/02, 25/11/2003 Trieste Court of Appeal, R.G. 160/04, 02/09/2006 Court of Cassation, R.G. 23366/07, 17/12/2012 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 1166/13, 08/01/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 3949/16, 11/08/2021 15. 10348/22 Novelli v. Italy 11/02/2022 Flavio NOVELLI 1945 Ronchi dei Legionari Gorizia District Court, R.G. 230/02, 25/11/2003 16. 10353/22 Scopel v. Italy 11/02/2022 Livio SCOPEL 1950 Seren del Grappa Belluno District Court, R.G. 224/04, 13/06/2005 Venezia Court of Appeal, R.G. 869/05, 871/05, 872/05, 907/05, 908/05, 909/05, 19/11/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 29918/08, 17/12/2012 Trieste Court of Appeal, R.G. 443/13, 30/12/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 3115/16, 11/08/2021 17. 10485/22 Casagrande v. Italy 11/02/2022 Luigina CASAGRANDE 1948 Seren del Grappa Belluno District Court, R.G. 22/04, 13/06/2005 18. 24348/22 Fiorindo v. Italy 06/05/2022 Domenica FIORINDO 1951 Eraclea Venice District Court, R.G. 2028/04, 03/11/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 1099/05, 28-31/06, 03/01/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19436/08-6977/09, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 655/13, 24/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 6041/16, 08/11/2021 19. 24447/22 Mazzocchetti v. Italy 06/05/2022 Luciana MAZZOCCHETTI 1953 Torre di Fine Venice District Court, R.G. 2004/04, 03/11/2005 20. 24434/22 Lionello v. Italy 28/04/2022 Maria LIONELLO 1956 Montegalda Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1271/03, 02/12/2004 Venezia Court of Appeal, R.G. 65-69/05, 76-79/05, 30/11/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19950/08, 29740/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 651/13, 23/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 5052/16, 28/10/2021   21. 25005/22 Toniolo v. Italy 28/04/2022 Agnese TONIOLO 1948 Nove Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1282/03, 02/12/2004 22. 25208/22 Filippis v. Italy 28/04/2022 Paola FILIPPIS 1962 Noventa Vicentina Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1269/03, 02/12/2004 23. 25497/22 Bruscato v. Italy 28/04/2022 Donatella BRUSCATO 1975 Arcugnano Vicenza District Court, R.G. 15/04, 02/12/2004 24. 24663/22 Manente v. Italy 28/04/2022 Manente MANENTE 1967 Spinea Venice District Court, R.G. 1868/04, 04 /11/2005 Venice Court of Appeal, R.G. 20/06, 21/06, 37/06, 40/06, 52-58/06, 20/02/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19971/08, 5814/09, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 653/13, 23/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 5842/16, 08/10/2021 25. 25493/22 Bizzo v. Italy 28/04/2022 Fabia BIZZO 1952 Campagnia Lupia Venice District Court, R.G. 1834/04, 04/11/2005 26. 24708/22 Dall’Armellina v. Italy 28/04/2022 Roberto DALL’ARMELLINA 1951 Poiana Maggiore Vicenza District Court, R.G. 1186/04, 02/09/2005 Venezia Court of Appeal, R.G. 773/05, 774/05, 775/05, 05/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19957/08, 13/07/2012 Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 647/13, 09/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 5061/16, 29/10/2021 27. 24918/22 Coin v. Italy 28/04/2022 Margherita COIN 1948 Mirano Venezia District Court, R.N. 2053/03, 10/01/2005 Venezia Court of Appeal, R.G. 185/05, 186/05, 188/05, 189/05, 190/05, 212/05, 228/05, 04/12/2007 Court of Cassation, R.G. 19966/08, 13/07/2012   Bologna Court of Appeal, R.G. 649/13, 23/02/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 5058/16, 28/10/2021 28. 25496/22 Gambalunga v. Italy 28/04/2022 Silvana GAMBALUNGA 1949 Mirano Venezia District Court, R.N. 597/03, 18/01/2005