LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
DE LUCA v. ITALY and 13 other applications
Doc ref: 59159/21, 59189/21, 59199/21, 59229/21, 59237/21, 59242/21, 59263/21, 61002/21, 61012/21, 10524/22, ... • ECHR ID: 001-221871
Document date: November 21, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 10
DE LUCA v. ITALY and 13 other applications
Doc ref: 59159/21, 59189/21, 59199/21, 59229/21, 59237/21, 59242/21, 59263/21, 61002/21, 61012/21, 10524/22, ... • ECHR ID: 001-221871
Document date: November 21, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
Published on 12 December 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 59159/21 Maria Elia DE LUCA against Italy and 13 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 21 November 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the application of retrospective legislation, specifically Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 to pending national proceedings involving the applicants.
The applicants, who are all represented by the lawyer I. Sullam, were 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 was not fully recognised for financial and legal purposes. The applicants lodged proceedings before the national district courts (see appended table) arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental to them. 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 on appeal, 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 courts 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 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 appellate courts ruled that the applicants had not suffered a substantial loss of salary. The applicants appealed against these judgments and the Court of Cassation upheld the appellate courts’ findings and conclusions.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the legislative interference pending the proceedings which, in their view, infringed their right to a fair trial. They also complain under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the retroactive application of Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 of 23 December 2005 deprived them of their property insofar as this provision put an end to the dispute between them and the administration.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
In particular, was there an 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, and 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 her 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 applicant?
3. The applicants are invited to submit a declaration concerning the status of enforcement of the domestic judgments on the merit in their regard. If a domestic judgment has been enforced in their regard, the applicants are invited to include in the declaration the following information: the number, the R.G. and the date of the judgment in their favour, the sums received, and possibly the sums subsequently recovered by the administration. The applicants are invited to provide all the relevant documents concerning the enforcement of the judgments and, where applicable, the recovery of the sums.
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence
First instance judgment
Second instance judgment
First judgment of the Court of Cassation
Referral to the Court of Appeal
Final order of the Court of Cassation
1.
59159/21
De Luca v. Italy
26/11/2021
Maria Elia DE LUCA 1958 Limbiate
Monza District Court,
R.G. 2506/04,
19/09/2005
Milano Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1367/04 and others,
15/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 12455/09 (joint with other applications, the main one being R.G. 7001/09),
23/03/2013
Milano Court of Appeal,
R.G. 444/14,
23/03/2016
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 9332/17,
27/05/2021
2.
59242/21
Strozzi v. Italy
26/11/2021
Nunziatina STROZZI 1967 Milan
3.
59189/21
Penati v. Italy
26/11/2021
Luigi PENATI 1959 Monza
Monza District Court,
R.G. 2511/04,
19/09/2005
4.
59199/21
Basilico v. Italy
26/11/2021
Mauro BASILICO 1960 Gravedona ed Uniti
5.
59229/21
Molteni v. Italy
26/11/2021
Maria Luisa MOLTENI 1963 Varedo
6.
59237/21
Negretti v. Italy
26/11/2021
Nicoletta NEGRETTI 1965 Bovisio Masciago
7.
59263/21
Grandesso v. Italy
26/11/2021
Angela Antonietta GRANDESSO 1958 Monza
8.
61002/21
Curti v. Italy
30/11/2021
Aristide CURTI 1959 Lodi
Lodi District Court,
R.G. 86/05,
05/07/2005
Milano Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1776/04 and others,
15/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 12457/09 (joint with other applications, the main one being R.G. 4427/09),
04/04/2013
Milano Court of Appeal,
R.G. 538/14,
23/03/2016
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 9302/17,
31/05/2021
9.
61012/21
Barbieri v. Italy
30/11/2021
Cinzia BARBIERI 1962 Zibido San Giacomo
Milano District Court,
R.G. 626/05,
25/05/2005
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 12456/09 (joint with other applications, the main one being R.G. 4427/09),
04/04/2013
10.
10524/22
Orlandi v. Italy
09/02/2022
Maria Loreta ORLANDI 1955 Avezzano
Avezzano District Court,
R.G. 233/02,
30/06/2005
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1002/05,
21/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 21964/20,
28/11/2011
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1553/201,
21/05/2014
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 15967/15,
10/08/2021
11.
10615/22
Mazza v. Italy
09/02/2022
Simonetta MAZZA 1962 Teramo
Teramo District Court,
R.G. 1425/05,
24/03/2006
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 881/06,
17/10/2007
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 1226/08,
28/11/2011
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1492/12,
03/12/2013
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 1648/15,
11/08/2021
12.
31126/22
Di Giandomenico v. Italy
14/06/2022
Antonio DI GIANDOMENICO
1951Teramo
Teramo District Court,
R.G. 1841/03,
21/10/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04,
30/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 7605/09 and others,
02/10/2012
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6218/13,
10/11/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 26888/16,
15/12/2021
13.
31268/22
Di Rocco v. Italy
14/06/2022
Pietrangelo DI ROCCO
1946Teramo
14.
31321/22
D’Annunzio v. Italy
14/06/2022
Pina D’ANNUNZIO
1959Teramo
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
