CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 1 avril 2025

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s42295588 { margin-top:40pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2680E62 { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 22 April 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39591/23 Vita MANISCALCHI against Italy lodged on 25 October 2023 communicated on 1 April 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged discrimination in relation to a special pension on account of the fact that the applicant was a non-State civil servant ( dipendente pubblico non statale ). The applicant is a former medical manager at the Health Administration of the Province in Trapani ( Azienda Sanitaria Provinciale , ASP), who was made redundant on 24 March 2006 because her serious mental illness was incompatible with her work. In July 2004 she had asked the ASP to ascertain if her illness was work-related and to grant her compensation, but the ASP refused it in April 2007. In July 2011 she challenged the ASP’s refusal and, on 16 July 2014, the employment tribunal acknowledged that her illness was indeed work-related. The applicant then requested the Italian welfare agency ( Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale , INPS) to grant her a special pension ( pensione privilegiata ordinaria ) which requires a declaration confirming that the illness is work-related but does not set an age-limit or require any contributions. This request was rejected by INPS in July 2018, because lodged out of time, according to Section 14 paragraph 1 of Law no.   274/1991, which sets a five-year time-limit from the cessation of the job. The applicant challenged the rejection before the First Instance Auditor Court, which, in 2021, acknowledged her right to the special pension. However, on 27 June 2023 the Appeal Auditor Court quashed that decision on the ground that the request had been lodged out of time because the applicant was not a “State employee” who can benefit from the suspension of the time-limit according to Section 169 of Law no. 1092/1973, but a “public employee”, who could not avail herself of such a suspension. The applicant, arguing that the two categories of civil servants are almost identical, complains of a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of her Convention rights, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention ( Clift v. the United Kingdom , no. 7205/07, § 66, 13 July 2010; Fábián v. Hungary [GC], no.   78117/13, §§ 60-64, 5 September 2017; Stec and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 65731/01 and 65900/01, § 51, ECHR 2005 ‑ X; Moskal v.   Poland , no. 10373/05, § 39, 15 September 2009; Andrejeva v. Latvia [GC], no.   55707/00, § 77, ECHR 2009; Savickis and Others v. Latvia [GC], no.   49270/11, § 121, 9 June 2022)? (a)     In particular, has the applicant as a non-State civil servant been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with State civil servants? (b)     If so, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim? And did it have a reasonable justification ( Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, § 61, ECHR 2010)?