Search
document

MAGRO v. ITALY and 42 other applications

Doc ref: 4906/21, 4909/21, 4911/21, 4912/21, 5033/21, 5034/21, 5035/21, 5036/21, 5037/21, 5038/21, 5039/21, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-209602

Document date: March 30, 2021

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 14

MAGRO v. ITALY and 42 other applications

Doc ref: 4906/21, 4909/21, 4911/21, 4912/21, 5033/21, 5034/21, 5035/21, 5036/21, 5037/21, 5038/21, 5039/21, 5... • ECHR ID: 001-209602

Document date: March 30, 2021

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 19 April 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 4906/21 Provino MAGRO against Italy and 42 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 30 March 2021

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application s concern 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 applicants.

The applicants had initially been 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, their original employer, was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicants lodged proceedings before the Tribunal of Rovigo on 31 January 2003 and the Tribunal of Treviso on 4 April 2003 arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental. 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 before the Court of Appeal of Venice, 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 court 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 Court of Appeal of Brescia for determination of whether the transferred employees had suffered a substantial loss of salary solely as a result of the transfer. The Court of Appeal of Brescia ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against this judgment and the Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal ’ s 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.

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 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; 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 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.

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence

Proceeding

4906/21

Magro v. Italy

Provino MAGRO 1947 Trevise

4909/21

Alaimo v. Italy

Mascia ALAIMO 1966 Asolo

4911/21

Lovisotto v. Italy

Antonella LOVISOTTO 1960 Mareno di Piave

4912/21

Mario v. Italy

Donatella MARIO 1963 Conegliano

5033/21

Cia v. Italy

Augusta CIA 1941 Oderzo

5034/21

Pasquot v. Italy

Pierluigi PASQUOT 1959 Conegliano

5035/21

Foschini v. Italy

Paola FOSCHINI 1952 Zero Bianco

5036/21

Tonello v. Italy

Patrizia TONELLO 1964 Oderzo

5037/21

Bernardon v. Italy

Renata BERNARDON 1949 Trevise

10.

5038/21

Gazzola v. Italy

Bruno GAZZOLA 1949 Trevise

11.

5039/21

Rado v. Italy

Luciana RADO 1955 Oderzo

12.

5040/21

Schiavon v. Italy

Paola SCHIAVON 1949 Mogliano Veneto

13.

5041/21

D ’ Ambrosi v. Italy

Graziella D ’ AMBROSI 1942 Paese

14.

5042/21

Forner v. Italy

Lina FORNER 1953 Asolo

15.

5170/21

Bellotto v. Italy

Paolo BELLOTTO 1954 Trévise

16.

5171/21

Piccolo v. Italy

Annalisa PICCOLO 1965 See representative ’ s address

17.

5172/21

Cimitan v. Italy

Gianna CIMITAN 1966 San Paolo di Piave

18.

5173/21

Cappellazzo v. Italy

Maria CAPPELLAZZO 1951 Trevise

19.

5174/21

Bellese v. Italy

Erminia BELLESE 1948 Ormelle

20.

5175/21

Girotto v. Italy

Maria Grazia GIROTTO 1964 Paese

21.

5932/21

Mazziotti v. Italy

Luisa MAZZIOTTI 1944 Trevise

22.

5935/21

Durante v. Italy

Raffaele DURANTE 1952 Villorba

23.

5938/21

Da Deppo v. Italy

Vanna DA DEPPO 1942 Trevise

24.

5943/21

Carpene v. Italy

Pierina CARPENE 1947 Revine Lago

25.

5948/21

Tognon v. Italy

Galliano TOGNON 1943 Castelfranco Veneto

26.

5958/21

Botta v. Italy

Maria Pia BOTTA 1944 Oderzo

27.

6156/21

Zorzi v. Italy

Maria ZORZI 1943 Trevise

28.

6157/21

Botteon v. Italy

Donatella BOTTEON 1960 Oderzo

29.

6160/21

Dam v. Italy

Renata DAM 1952 Conegliano

30.

6176/21

Mattiacci v. Italy

Franca MATTIACCI 1951 Casier

31.

6209/21

Merlo v. Italy

Attilio MERLO 1957 Vittorio Veneto

32.

6218/21

Da Rodda v. Italy

Donatella DA RODDA 1962 Revine Lago

33.

6223/21

Urso v. Italy

Milena URSO 1947 Cornuda

34.

6226/21

Masutti v. Italy

Paola MASUTTI 1963 Anzano di Cappella Maggiore

35.

6262/21

Codogno v. Italy

Maurizio CODOGNO 1954 San Vendemmiano

36.

6263/21

Bordignon v. Italy

Anna BORDIGNON 1962 Postomia

37.

6264/21

Casagrande v. Italy

Paolo CASAGRANDE 1957 Trevise

38.

6266/21

Rossi Mori v. Italy

Antonio ROSSI MORI 1960 Arquà Polesine

39.

6267/21

Ceotto v. Italy

Francesco CEOTTO 1944 Vittorio Veneto

40.

6273/21

Benetton v. Italy

Angelo BENETTON 1947 Villorba

41.

6993/21

Gobbo v. Italy

Lucia GOBBO 1961 Zero Branco

42.

7209/21

Vazzoler v. Italy

Fabio VAZZOLER 1949 Trevise

43.

7265/21

Sartor v. Italy

Dorina SARTOR 1953 Zero Branco

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant