Published on 27 November 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 23059/15
Salvatore MAGLIONE and Others
against Italy
lodged on 30 April 2015
communicated on 6 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The present case concerns the application of retrospective legislation to pending national proceedings introduced by the applicants.
On 3 March 2011 the applicants instituted proceedings against the Campania region, requesting to be granted a social security allowance (so‑called citizenship income, reddito di cittadinanza), that the region had introduced with Regional Law no. 2 of 19 February 2004.
The applicants based their claim on the fact that they had been placed on the list of qualifying beneficiaries by the regional authorities. They argued that, according to domestic case-law (in particular, judgment no. 18480 of 2010 of the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court), all qualifying beneficiaries placed on the list had a right to receive the allowance.
On 15 March 2011 the Campania region enacted Regional Law no. 4 of 2011, defined as interpretative (di interpretazione autentica) of Regional Law no. 2 of 2004, which had been meanwhile repealed.
By judgment no. 23920 of 10 November 2014, the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court, dismissed the applicants’ claim, considering that Regional Law no. 4 of 2011 offered a new interpretation of Regional Law no. 2 of 2004 and that, in accordance with such interpretation, only the qualifying beneficiaries placed higher in the ranking list, and not all of them, had a right to receive the allowance.
The applicants complain that Law no. 4 of 15 March 2011, as interpreted by the Court of Cassation, constituted a legislative interference aimed at retrospectively influencing the relevant judicial determinations by reversing the former interpretation given to Law no. 2 of 2004 by domestic courts. They argue that the said interference breached their right to a fair trial as protected under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the applicants benefit from a fair trial in the determination of their civil rights and obligations in accordance with the principle of equality of arms, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
2. 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 Law no. 4 of 15 March 2011 (see ex multis, Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 9 others, § 57, ECHR 1999‑VII; Anagnostopoulos and Others v. Greece, no. 39374/98, §§ 17- 21, ECHR 2000-X; Agrati and Others v. Italy, nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, § 58, 7 June 2011; and Azienda Agricola Silverfunghi S.a.s. and Others v. Italy, nos. 48357/07 and 3 others, §§ 76 and 88-89, 24 June 2014)?
3. If so, was the interference based on compelling grounds of general interest (see Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium, 49812/09, §§ 92-93 and 107-108, 3 November 2022)?
APPENDIX
List of applicants:
No.
Applicant’s Name
Year of birth
Nationality
Place of residence
1.
Salvatore MAGLIONE
1946
Italian
Moiano
2.
Alfonso MASSARO
1966
Italian
Moiano
3.
Arcangelo MASSARO
1974
Italian
Moiano
4.
Naomi MECCARIELLO
1981
Italian
Moiano
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy