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 } .sF4886D70 { height:45.75pt } .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 } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .s2901756B { height:57.05pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF3A36D70 { height:45.25pt } .s118B089D { height:80.2pt } .s1B946575 { height:34.45pt } .s95624627 { height:63.6pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 12 December 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7486/22 Donato CARUSI against Italy and 9 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, that are all represented by the lawyer G. Salvatore, 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 annexed 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 cases to the competent courts of appeal (see annexed table) 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 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. 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. 7486/22 Carusi v. Italy 27/01/2022 Donato CARUSI 1953 Ortona Chieti District Court, R.G. 683/04, 02/05/2005 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 928/05, 16/06/2008   Court of Cassation, R.G. 10360/09, 30/11/2011 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 1468/12, 19/05/2014 Court of Cassation, R.G. 13053/15, 11/08/2021 2. 12844/22 Capuzzi v. Italy 02/03/2022 Albertina CAPUZZI 1947 Casoli Lanciano District Court, R.G. 255/03, 09/08/2004   L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04, 30/05/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 7637/09 (joint to other applications, the main one being R.G. 7605/09), 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6335/13, 10/11/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 2596/9/16, 03/11/2021 3. 12847/22 Rapini v. Italy 02/03/2022 Giuseppina RAPINI 1948 Casoli 4. 14610/22 Lanci Romagnoli v. Italy 15/03/2022 Maria Teresa LANCI ROMAGNOLI 1952 Fossacesia Lanciano District Court, R.G. 405/2003, 13/12/2004 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04, 30/05/2006 Court of Cassation, R.G. 8980/2009 (joint to other applications, the main one being R.G. 7605/09), 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6335/13, 10/11/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11936/16, 17/11/2021 5. 35984/22 Ambrosi v. Italy 13/07/2022 Valerio Gabriele AMBROSI 1951 Chieti Lanciano District Court, R.G. 257/03, 09/08/2004 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04, 30/05/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 7605/09 and others, 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6339/13, 11/05/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11931/16, 23/03/2022 6. 36002/22 Carlucci v. Italy 14 July 2022 Nicola CARLUCCI 1952 Chieti Vasto District Court, R.G. 128/04, 12/11/2004 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04 and others, 30/05/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 7605/09 and others, 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6333/13, 22/05/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11942/16, 23/03/2022 7. 35298/22 Cianci v. Italy 07 July 2022 Teresa Caterina CIANCI 1954 Vasto Vasto District Court, R.G. 124/04, 12/11/2004   L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04 and others, 30/05/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 7605/09 and others, 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6328/13, 21/12/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11940/16, 23/03/2022 8. 36513/22 Flamminio v. Italy 13 July 2022 Carmine FLAMMINIO 1946 S. Vito Chietino Lanciano District Court, R.G. 256/03, 09/08/2004 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 987/04, 07/08/2006 Court of Cassation, R.G. 71/07 and 3086/07, 19/12/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 8035/13, 10/11/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11944/16, 23/03/2022 9. 37185/22 Di Virgilio v. Italy 15 July 2022 Sante DI VIRGILIO 1946 Chieti Chieti District Court, R.G. 1342/03, 17/01/ 2005 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 338/04, 06/08/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 10341/09, 01/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6331/13, 23/10/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11941/16, 23/03/2022 10. 37336/22 Scutti v. Italy 15 July 2022 Eltruda SCUTTI 1950 Lanciano Lanciano District Court, R.G. 414/03, 13/12/2004 L’Aquila Court of Appeal, R.G. 973/04 and others, 30/05/2008 Court of Cassation, R.G. 7605/09 and others, 02/10/2012 Rome Court of Appeal, R.G. 6325/13, 23/10/2015 Court of Cassation, R.G. 11938/16, 23/03/2022