CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mars 2023

.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 } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s46D38187 { width:129.3%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB54929DD { width:13.4%; 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 } .s4493BBF7 { width:14.42%; 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 } .s67D5986A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .s1753EDC8 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s43A07E0F { width:13.4%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s1D97E42E { width:14.42%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sECAEFE96 { width:14.44%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 11 April 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 10314/22 Nadia PONCINA against Italy lodged on 10 February 2022 communicated on 20 March 2023 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 commenced by the applicant. The applicant, represented by the lawyer N. Zampieri, had initially been employed by the local government authorities. When she was transferred, under Article 8 of Law no. 124/1999, to work for the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research, her length of service with the local government authorities, her original employer, was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicant lodged proceedings before the national courts (see appended table for details) arguing that the conversion of her salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental. She sought placement in the professional grade corresponding to her full length of service from the date of the transfer as well as the determination of any compensation due to her. When those proceedings were pending, 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 national courts dismissed the applicant’s claims. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the legislative interference pending the proceedings which, in her view, infringed her right to a fair trial. She also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the retrospective application of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 deprived her of her property insofar as this provision put an end to the dispute between her and the administration. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her 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 her 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 applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of her 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 applicant?   The applicant is invited to submit within four weeks a declaration concerning the status of enforcement of the domestic judgments on the merit in her regard. If a domestic judgment has been enforced in her regard, the applicant is invited to include in the declaration the following information: the number, the R.G. and the date of the judgment in her favour, the sums received, and possibly the sums subsequently recovered by the administration. The applicant is invited to provide all the relevant documents concerning the enforcement of the judgments and, where applicable, the recovery of the sums. APPENDIX   Applicant’s Name Year of Birth Place of Residence First instance judgment (1 st set of proceedings) Judgment of the Constitutional Court (1 st set of proceedings) Judgment of the Court of Cassation (1 st set of proceedings) First instance judgment (2 nd set of proceedings) Second instance judgment (2 nd set of proceedings) Final order of the Court of Cassation (2 nd set of proceedings) Nadia PONCINA 1965 Chioggia Venice District Court R.G. 459/03 15/06/2004 Constitutional Court Judg. no. 311/2009 26/11/2009 Court of Cassation R.G. 18233/04 14/03/2012 Venice District Court R.G. 459/03 21/01/2005 Venice Court of Appeal R.G. 213/2005 05/03/2014 Court of Cassation R.G. 8066/2015 10/08/2021