CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mai 2011

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 141 May 2011 Maggio and Others v. Italy - 46286/09, 52851/08, 53727/08 et al. Judgment 31.5.2011 [Section II] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Introduction of legislation effectively deciding outcome of pending litigation against the State: violation   Facts – The applicants, who were Italian nationals, lived and worked for many years in Switzerland before retiring to Italy. On their return to Italy the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare body, decided to re-adjust their pension claims to take into account the low contributions they had paid while working in Switzerland (where contributions came to 8% of salary, as opposed to 32.7% in Italy). The applicants brought proceedings to contest this method of calculating their pension rights, but their claims were dismissed following the introduction of Law no.   296 of December 2006, which effectively endorsed the INPS’ interpretation of the relevant legislation. Under this method the first applicant received approximately 60% of the pension he would have received without the re-adjustment being made in respect of his Swiss contributions. In their applications to the European Court, the applicants complained that Law no.   296/2006 had modified the method used to calculate their pension calculations retrospectively while the proceedings to decide their claims were still pending before the domestic courts. The first applicant further alleged that this legislative intervention had discriminated against him, as a claimant whose proceedings were not yet finalised, as opposed to others whose more favourable pension treatment had already been liquidated before the entry into force of the new law. He also complained under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 of the reduction in his pension as a result of the new law. Law – Article 6 § 1: The principle of the rule of law and the notion of a fair trial enshrined in Article   6 preclude, except for compelling public-interest reasons, interference by the legislature with the administration of justice designed to influence the judicial determination of a dispute. Any reasons adduced to justify such measures are to be treated with the greatest possible degree of circumspection. The enactment of Law no.   296/2006 had had the effect of definitively modifying the outcome of the pending litigation, to which the State was a party, by endorsing the State's position to the applicants’ detriment. The Court therefore had to determine whether there was any compelling general interest capable of justifying the measure. Financial considerations could not by themselves warrant the legislature substituting itself for the courts in order to settle disputes. Nor could the professed aim of reinforcing the INPS’ interpretation of the law serve as justification when such interpretation was subjective and partial and had been rejected by a majority of the domestic courts, including the Court of Cassation. Lastly, while re-establishing an equilibrium in the pension system by removing any advantages enjoyed by individuals who had worked in Switzerland and paid lower contributions was a reason of general interest, the Court was not persuaded that it was compelling enough to overcome the dangers inherent in the use of retrospective legislation. In conclusion, there had been no compelling reason to justify the State’s decisive intervention in the outcome of proceedings to which it was a party. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The first applicant had lost considerably less than half his pension. This constituted a reasonable and commensurate reduction rather than the total deprivation of his entitlement. Furthermore, since he had paid lower contributions when working in Switzerland than he would have had to pay in Italy, he had had the opportunity to enjoy more substantial earnings at the time. The reduction had only had the effect of equalizing a state of affairs and avoiding unjustified advantages (resulting from the decision to retire in Italy) for the first applicant and other persons in his position. Against this background, bearing in mind the State’s wide margin of appreciation in regulating the pension system and the fact that the first applicant had lost only part of his pension, he had not had to bear an individual and excessive burden. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 14 in conjunction with Article   6: In creating a scheme of benefits it was sometimes necessary to use cut-off points that applied to large groups of people and which might to a certain extent appear arbitrary. That was an inevitable consequence of introducing new regulations to replace previous schemes. Bearing in mind the wide margin of appreciation afforded to States in this sphere, the cut-off date under Law no.   296/2006 could be deemed reasonably and objectively justified. The fact that that date arose out of legislation enacted while the first applicant’s proceedings were still pending did not alter that conclusion for the purposes of Article   14. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 20,000 to the first applicant and EUR 50,000 each to the other applicants in respect of pecuniary damage; EUR 12,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes