FIRST SECTION
CASE OF CICERO AND OTHERS v. ITALY
(Applications nos. 29483/11 and 4 others
 – see list appended)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
Art 6 § 1 (civil) • Fair hearing • Application of new retrospective law to pending proceedings
Art 1 P1 • Peaceful enjoyment of possessions • Applicants’ remuneration adversely affected by the application of new retrospective law • Excessive and disproportionate burden

 
STRASBOURG
30 January 2020
FINAL
 
30/05/2020
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Cicero and Others v. Italy,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ksenija Turković, President,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Armen Harutyunyan,
 Pere Pastor Vilanova,
 Pauliine Koskelo,
 Jovan Ilievski,
 Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Abel Campos, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 7 January 2020,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
The case concerns the application of retrospective legislation to pending national proceedings commenced by the applicants. The applicants relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.1. THE FACTS
1. The applicants were represented by Mr G. Romano, a lawyer practising in Rome, Mr I. Sullam, a lawyer practising in Milan, and Mr P. Biondi, a lawyer practising in Benevento. 2. The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, State Attorney. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. The applicants had initially been employed by the local government authorities and were administrative assistants, workers, technical assistants, administrative officers, laboratory teaching assistants or general teaching assistants at a number of Italian State schools. 5. Their remuneration consisted of a basic salary plus other additional pay elements. 6. From 1 January 2000, under Article 8 of Law no. 124/99, the applicants were transferred to work for the Ministry of Education, Universities and Research (Ministero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della Ricerca), hereinafter “the Ministry”. 7. Unlike the remuneration scheme operated by the local government authorities, the salary for Ministry employees was calculated by reference to a basic salary only which, however, was to increase progressively over the years on the basis of length of service. 8. According to Article 8 § 2 of Law no. 124/99
“... the length of service of those employees with the local government authority and the right to retain their place of employment, for an initial period, where a post is available, shall be recognised for legal and financial purposes.”
9. The Ministry converted the salary paid by the local government authorities to the applicants at 31 December 1999 into a notional length of service with the new employer pursuant to an Inter‑Ministerial decree of 5 April 2001 which incorporated a memorandum of understanding between the Agency for the representation of the public authorities (Agenzia per la rappresentanza negoziale delle pubbliche amministrazioni, “ARAN”) and the relevant trade unions. 10. Having thus not obtained full recognition of their length of service with the local government authorities, the applicants lodged proceedings before the domestic courts arguing that the conversion of their salary into a notional length of service with the new employer upon transfer had been unlawful and detrimental. 11. They sought placement in the professional grade corresponding to their full length of service from the date of transfer, as well as determination of any compensation due to them. 12. Pending those proceedings at different levels of jurisdiction, it was enacted Article 1 § 218 of Law no. 266/2005 (“the Budget Law for the Year 2006”) which 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. 13. The domestic courts either allowed the Ministry’s appeal or dismissed the applicants’ claims on the basis of the new Article 1 § 218 of the Budget Law for the Year 2006 and the then recent Constitutional Court judgments nos. 234 of 2007 and 311 of 2009. 14. The detailed information relevant to each applicant is set out in the appendix. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
15. The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in the judgments Agrati and Others v. Italy (nos. 43549/08 and 2 others, 7 June 2011) and De Rosa and Others v. Italy (nos. 52888/08 and 13 others, 11 December 2012). THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS
16. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment. THE GOVERNMENT’S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
17. With reference to application no. 14186/12, the Government submitted that the applicants had failed to support adequately their allegation that they had a legitimate expectation pursuant to the principles set out in Agrati and Others v. Italy, cited above, and they had suffered an interference as a result of the application of the Budget Law for the Year 2006 to their pending proceedings. 18. Indeed, the Government notes that Ms Di Francescantonio introduced her claim before the domestic courts on 30 March 2006, after the enactment of the Budget Law for the Year 2006. 19. Likewise the Government observes that Mr Ficorella and Ms Cirelli did not provide any evidence to prove that their claims had been lodged with the domestic courts before the enactment of the Budget Law for the Year 2006. 20. The applicants did not reply to the Government’s objections. 21. The Court notes that, regard being had to the documents in its possession, Ms Cirelli lodged her claim with the court of Rome on 17 May 2005. Consequently, the Government’s preliminary objection in this regard must be rejected. 22. As to Mr Ficorella and Ms Di Francescantonio, the Court considers that it is not possible to establish on the evidence and on the facts that they lodged their claims with the domestic courts before the enactment of the Budget Law for the Year 2006. It follows that their complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION
23. The applicants complained that the interference caused by the enactment of the Budget Law for the Year 2006 with their pending proceedings, to which the State was a party, affected their right to a fair trial. 24. They rely on Article 6 of the Convention, which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...”
Admissibility
25. The Court notes that this complaint is neither manifestly ill-founded nor inadmissible on any other grounds listed in Article 35 of the Convention. It must therefore be declared admissible. MeritsThe parties’ submissions

(a)   The applicants
26. The applicants maintained that no compelling grounds of general interest justified such interference, other than mere financial reasons. The applicants noted that the “interpretative” law was enacted six years after the original law and in the absence of any divergent case-law. (b)   The Government
27. As a general remark, the Government pointed out that a number of changes in the domestic case-law had occurred after the applicants’ proceedings had been determined. 28. With regard to the specific circumstances of the present case the Government, referring to Constitutional Court judgment no. 311 of 2009, firstly inferred that the intention of the legislator could not have been to recognise the full length of service of the transferred employees as there was no financial provision in Law no. 124 of 1999 to cover such costs. Secondly the Government submitted that there was no absolute legitimate expectation of the interpretation advanced by the applicants because a different reading had already been endorsed by collective agreements in 2000. Thirdly, the Government suggested that at the time of the enactment of the Budget Law for the Year 2006, academic and judiciary discussion on the interpretation of Law no. 124 of 1999 was still open.

Outcome for Article 6: violation