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.
CARUSI v. ITALY and 9 other applications
Doc ref: 7486/22;12844/22;12847/22;14610/22;35298/22;35984/22;36002/22;36513/22;37185/22;37336/22 • ECHR ID: 001-221873
Document date: November 21, 2022
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 9
CARUSI v. ITALY and 9 other applications
Doc ref: 7486/22;12844/22;12847/22;14610/22;35298/22;35984/22;36002/22;36513/22;37185/22;37336/22 • ECHR ID: 001-221873
Document date: November 21, 2022
Cited paragraphs only
Published on 12 December 2022
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 7486/22 Donato CARUSI against Italy and 9 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, that are all represented by the lawyer G. Salvatore, 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 annexed 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 cases to the competent courts of appeal (see annexed table) 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 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 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 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. 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.
APPENDIX
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.
7486/22
Carusi v. Italy
27/01/2022
Donato CARUSI 1953 Ortona
Chieti District Court,
R.G. 683/04,
02/05/2005
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 928/05,
16/06/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 10360/09,
30/11/2011
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 1468/12,
19/05/2014
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 13053/15,
11/08/2021
2.
12844/22
Capuzzi v. Italy
02/03/2022
Albertina CAPUZZI 1947 Casoli
Lanciano District Court,
R.G. 255/03,
09/08/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04,
30/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 7637/09 (joint to other applications, the main one being R.G. 7605/09),
02/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6335/13,
10/11/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 2596/9/16,
03/11/2021
3.
12847/22
Rapini v. Italy
02/03/2022
Giuseppina RAPINI 1948 Casoli
4.
14610/22
Lanci Romagnoli v. Italy
15/03/2022
Maria Teresa LANCI ROMAGNOLI 1952 Fossacesia
Lanciano District Court,
R.G. 405/2003,
13/12/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04,
30/05/2006
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 8980/2009 (joint to other applications, the main one being R.G. 7605/09),
02/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6335/13,
10/11/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11936/16,
17/11/2021
5.
35984/22
Ambrosi v. Italy
13/07/2022
Valerio Gabriele AMBROSI
1951Chieti
Lanciano District Court,
R.G. 257/03,
09/08/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04,
30/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 7605/09 and others,
02/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6339/13,
11/05/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11931/16,
23/03/2022
6.
36002/22
Carlucci v. Italy
14 July 2022
Nicola CARLUCCI
1952Chieti
Vasto District Court,
R.G. 128/04,
12/11/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04 and others,
30/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 7605/09 and others,
02/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6333/13,
22/05/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11942/16,
23/03/2022
7.
35298/22
Cianci v. Italy
07 July 2022
Teresa Caterina CIANCI
1954Vasto
Vasto District Court,
R.G. 124/04,
12/11/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04 and others,
30/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 7605/09 and others,
02/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6328/13,
21/12/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11940/16,
23/03/2022
8.
36513/22
Flamminio v. Italy
13 July 2022
Carmine FLAMMINIO
1946S. Vito Chietino
Lanciano District Court,
R.G. 256/03,
09/08/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 987/04,
07/08/2006
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 71/07 and 3086/07,
19/12/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 8035/13,
10/11/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11944/16,
23/03/2022
9.
37185/22
Di Virgilio v. Italy
15 July 2022
Sante DI VIRGILIO
1946Chieti
Chieti District Court,
R.G. 1342/03,
17/01/ 2005
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 338/04,
06/08/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 10341/09,
01/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6331/13,
23/10/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11941/16,
23/03/2022
10.
37336/22
Scutti v. Italy
15 July 2022
Eltruda SCUTTI
1950Lanciano
Lanciano District Court,
R.G. 414/03,
13/12/2004
L’Aquila Court of Appeal,
R.G. 973/04 and others,
30/05/2008
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 7605/09 and others,
02/10/2012
Rome Court of Appeal,
R.G. 6325/13,
23/10/2015
Court of Cassation,
R.G. 11938/16,
23/03/2022
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
