Communicated on 21 January 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 24626/10 Roberto FERRILLI against Italy lodged on 16 April 2010

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns issues related to the alleged interference by the State in the administration of justice and in the peaceful enjoyment of pension rights by the applicant, a former employee of an air navigation company. The interference in question is alleged to have arisen in the context of application of Law no. 244/2007, reducing pensions of air navigation personnel .

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Were the proceedings for determination of the amount of the applicant ’ s pension fair, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

In particular, was Article 2, paragraph 503, of Law no. 244/2007, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in judgments no. 22156 of 20 October 2009 and no. 11907 of 28 May 2014, applied retrospectively, so that it constituted an interference by the legislature which could influence the judicial determination of the dispute?

If so, was the interference based on compelling grounds of general interest?

Lastly, was the interference compatible with the principles of legal certainty?

2. Has there been interference with the applicant ’ s peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

In particular, was the amount of capitalisation of the applicant ’ s pension a result of the new method of calculation (as envisaged in Article 2, paragraph 503, of Law no. 244/2007, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation in judgments no. 22156 of 20 October 2009 and no. 11907 of 28 May 2014)? Did this method deprive the applicant of part of the pension to which he would have been entitled if the coefficient for capitalisation in use by the Istituto Nazionale Previdenza Sociale (INPS) had been applied at the time of his retirement, in compliance with Law no. 859/65 provisions, as interpreted previously?

If so, was that interference provided for by law?

Was that interference in the public interest and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the m eaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?

Did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant?