FIRST SECTION
CASE OF PALAIA v. ITALY
(Application no. 23593/14)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Palaia v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Péter Paczolay, President,
 Raffaele Sabato,
 Davor Derenčinović, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 23593/14) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 10 March 2014 by an Italian national, Ms Filomena Palaia (“the applicant”), born in 1953 and living in Squinzano, who was represented by Ms L.L. Petrachi, a lawyer practising in Lecce;
the decision to give notice of the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning legislative interference with pending proceedings to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their former co-Agent, Ms M.G. Civinini, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 4 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The case concerns legislative intervention in the course of ongoing civil proceedings. 2. The applicant’s father, F.P., was a pensioner who, in accordance with the 1962 Italo-Swiss Convention on Social Security, had transferred to Italy the pension contributions he had paid in Switzerland in respect of work that he had performed there over several years. The Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“the INPS”) calculated his pension by employing a theoretical level of remuneration (retribuzione teorica) instead of his actual remuneration (retribuzione effettiva). This resulted in a readjustment on the basis of the existing ratio between the social security contributions paid in Switzerland (8%) and in Italy (32.7%). The calculation therefore had as its basis a notional salary which, according to the applicant, resulted in F.P.’s receiving a much lower pension than that which he should have received. 3. In 2005 F.P. lodged a claim with the Lecce District Court, contending that the INPS’s calculation methods were contrary to the spirit of the Italo-Swiss Convention. 4. While those proceedings were pending, Law no. 296 of 27 December 2006 (“Law no. 296/2006”) entered into force on 1 January 2007. Section 1, subsection 777, of that Law provided an authentic interpretation of the relevant legal framework, upholding the calculation methods used by the INPS. 5. In view of the entry into force of Law no. 296/2006, by a judgment of 1 December 2008 the Lecce District Court rejected F.P.’s claim. 6. Following an appeal by F.P., on 4 February 2013 the Lecce Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 1 December 2008 of the Lecce District Court. 7. On 25 May 2012, while proceedings were pending before the Lecce Court of Appeal, F.P. died. 8. The applicant did not appeal to the Court of Cassation in her capacity as F.P.’s heir, deeming this to be futile in the circumstances of the case. 9. The applicant complained that the enactment of Law no. 296/2006 had violated her right, as F.P.’s heir, to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 10. On 1 February 2018 notice of the application was given to the Government. 11. On 4 February 2019 F.P.’s widow, Ms Maria Petrarulo, and his two sons, Mr Mario Palaia and Mr Claudio Palaia, informed the Court that they were also heirs of F.P. and wished to take part in the proceedings instituted by the applicant.

Outcome for Article 6: violation