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 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 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 meaning 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
1
Rosangela GASTALDELLO
02/03/1962
Italian
Bassano del GrappaCourt of Bassano del Grappa judgment no. 39/10 deposited on 9 April 2010Court of Appeal of Venice judgment no. 788/13 deposited on 11 March 2014Court of Cassation judgment no. 29782/18 deposited on 19 November 2018
2
Battista CASSON
24/09/1950
Italian
Crosara
3
Donatella NARDINO
23/05/1958
Italian
Romano d’Ezzelino
4
Giuliana STEFANI
24/11/1945
Italian
Bassano del Grappa
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy