Communicated on 7 November 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 28426/19 Rosangela GASTALDELLO and Others against Italy lodged on 17 May 2019

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 applicants.

The applicants had initially been employed by the local government authorities. When they were transfer red, 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 Court of Bassano del Grappa on 10 June 2005 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, 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 judgment before the Court of Appeal of Venice. In the course of the last 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 a number of cases similar to the present case to the competent courts of appeal 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 Venice ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against those judgments and the Court of Cassation upheld the Court of Appeal ’ s findings and conclusions.

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)?

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 m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, considering the enactment of Article 1, § 218, Law no. 266/2005?

If so, did the interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicants?

APPENDIX

No.

Applicant ’ s Name

Birth date

Nationality

Place of residence

Proceedings

1Rosangela GASTALDELLO

02/03/1962

Italian

Bassano del Grappa

2Battista CASSON

24/09/1950

Italian

Crosara

3Donatella NARDINO

23/05/1958

Italian

Romano d ’ Ezzelino

4Giuliana STEFANI

24/11/1945

Italian

Bassano del Grappa