Associazione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia Association of Foreign Lecturers in Italy
		"Equal citizens, equal rights, equal treatment"

ALLSI Documents

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

Petitions Committee Hearing
 
21 November 2006 – Brussels – Summary of Speeches
 
10.30 Petition number N. 689/1998

Mr. David Petrie – Chair – ALLSI – Petitioner 

Mr Chairman and members of the Petitions Committee,

The 20 year old long campaign for foreign lecturers or lettori to receive equality of treatment under single market rules remains unresolved.

In essence, the problem is that the Italian authorities automatically pay increments for years of service, to Italian teaching staff, while denying those increments to lettori.

The European Parliament has passed four Resolutions, largely because of the input from the Petitions Committee, the European Court of Justice has ruled on 5 lettori cases[i], and there are hundreds of lettori, in 25 universities litigating in the Italian courts.

We are depositing today, with the petitions Committee, a model (in Italian and English) which will be used by around 300 lettori to serve legal notice on 25[ii] universities informing them of intention to sue. (attachment 1)

We are also depositing a statement, with an English translation, from our lawyer Professor Picotti (dated 17 November 2006) written at the request of the European Commission, showing how we have been left high and dry without a remedy. (attachment 2) That way the Petitions Committee, can, if need be, look closely at the detail and I can concentrate today on getting everyone to focus on what stage we are at now.

The ECJ on 18 July 2006 declined to fine Italy. The Court was misled.

Now that’s a serious claim.

Lets’ focus on what the ECJ found.

I quote from par. 42 and 43 of the judgement:

42. In addition to the statements by the universities in question confirming that the acquired rights of former assistants had been fully recognised, the Italian Government produced detailed tables relating to how such recognition had been put into effect in each of those universities.

43     Admittedly, the payment declarations in the file were produced by the universities and not by the parties entitled and, in the case of the Eastern University Institute in Naples, payment was to be made at a date after the month in which the declaration itself was drawn up (October 2004).

My colleague, Dr Primhak, who has come here from Naples today to answer any questions, has never received any back payments from the Eastern University Institute in Naples– and is quite prepared to state so under oath.

Those tables, by the way, are covered by secrecy rules – they cannot be examined by us, the victims nor you members of the European Parliament.

Those secret tables directly affect Mrs Benita Wells, now retired from the State University of Milan. The Italian courts awarded her equivalence of salary with associate professor – but she has never received full arrears for that parameter for her 20 years service and, as a consequence, is now being paid a pension of 280 euros a month!

 I see from Romano Prodi’s 1999 book, “An Idea of Europe” that he favours stiff sanctions against member states found guilty of discrimination.

This is encouraging.

I hope, and I intend no irony here, that he will be equally stiff and rigorous in examining those files which were sent to the ECJ by the Berlusconi administration during Mr Prodi’s tenure as President of the Commission. And I hope he will see the wrong done to Mrs Wells, Dr. Primhak and at least 300 lettori in 25 universities and put that wrong right.

Commissioner Mandelson in a speech dated 20 July 2005 talks of benefits taken for granted EU citizens  – the freedom to work, study and retire anywhere in Europe.  “If, (he adds, in that speech) you want to have any chance of people listening to you, you have to start with where they are”.

We applaud this and we will advise Mrs Wells to write personally to Mr Mandelson and tell him where she “is” - in the hope that he can use his influence with the college of Commissioners, to get her and the other 300 odd lettori an effective remedy.

The Court was provided by the Italian Republic with information of Italy’s compliance which is, regrettably, inaccurate. The Court declined to impose sanctions.

Without those sanctions we risk being tied up in Italy’s legal labyrinth for another twenty years. The institutions of the European Union will have sanctioned and sealed a message: that equal treatment is a sham – an unenforceable right, because there’s no carrot and there’s no stick.

We hope this Parliament will play its part in having this injustice put right and we trust that, as in the past, the Petitions Committee will play an active role in bringing this matter to the attention of the Commission and the Council of Ministers for a satisfactory solution to what can only now be seen as a political problem in what you, Mr Chairman, described in your letter as “a representative petition of general importance”. 

 Prof. Roberto Baratta – Legal Counsellor – Italian Representation in Brussels
In reply to the Commission’s letter to the Italian State in October, on the still unresolved issues concerning the lettori after the ECJ ruling of 18/7/2006, Italy will reply within the times set by the letter. Meetings have already taken place in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Italian Council of Ministers to discuss and assess the situation. The current statement from the Italian State is therefore non-prejudicial to any government response.
The letter can be considered preliminary to eventual infringement proceedings.
Regarding the ruling of 18 July, paragraphs 36 and 37 assess the conditions of Law 63/2004  for the lettori and in paragraphs 38 and 39 the Court considers the law to be compatible with the obligations of the Treaty and in particular in recognising more favourable treatment. The Court and State recognises that there has been a tardy recognition of acquired rights. The Italian State maintains that all the lettori in the 6 universities have the right to have their careers reconstructed and this must be recognised. If there are universities which have not done so, in accordance with the law, then the remedy for the lettori concerned would lie within national jurisdiction and courts. It is true that some researchers/lettori have had more favourable treatment awarded in court – but the Commission’s letter concerning this issue does not refer to specific cases and the Italian government is unable to ascertain which cases are being referred to. We are waiting for a precise indication on the individuals concerned from the Commission and which Universities are involved. We have anyway asked the 6 universities to remedy this situation.
The Commission also asks for information on a decree law of March 2006. This decree was never published but was merely a draft law studied by the Council of Ministers in case the ECJ would have fined the Italian State. It is an internal act without any legal effect.
 
European Commission.
The Commission has done its utmost to ensure the acquired rights of the lettori are respected. The Commission was surprised and to some extent perplexed by the ECJ ruling. Unfortunately, no financial  penalties were set, contrary to the Advocate General’s opinion and the case the Commission brought.
Briefly, the Commission referred the case because it believed that the Italian State had failed to correctly implement the ECJ judgement of  2001 (Case C-212/99). It felt that the parameter of a part time researcher did not reflect the factual or contractual situation nor could the tasks of lettori be considered comparable to this parameter. The decree law was not sufficient to guarantee equal treatment. Issues of back payment, pension contributions etc were not tackled.
The ECJ took a fundamentally different approach and found that the decree law could be a correct framework, considering that the application of the parameter of part time researchers and 500 hours does not preclude more advantageous treatment.
The infringement procedure is still open.
The ruling can be used in national procedures and sanctions a global solution rather than a case by case approach.
The question of whether this law has been applied in practice is a question for the national courts to rule on and this is the solution that the ECJ seems to favour.
However there is one major difference from the past – now the Italian courts have a legal instrument at their disposal which includes more favourable treatment. In such cases 500 hours should not be applied.
The Commission will continueto support the lettori – obviously problems still remain.
 
Proinsias De Rossa MEP
 
I would like this Committee to write to the Italian Prime Minister and University Minister expressing deep concern over this issue. I would like the legal services of the Parliament to provide an opinion on possible actions that could be pursued.
I hope that members of the Committee will exert individual influence with EU governments to put pressure on the Italian state.

Sir Robert Atkins MEP 
This situation is totally unacceptable. It has gone past the point of no return. It has taken 20 years to rule on a legitimate point of law – Italy should be ashamed.
I ask this Commitee to agree on a specific timetable to be audited for both the Commission and Committee to check what is happening. If no solution is found within a month I ask the Chairman to write to the President of the European Parliament as a matter of urgency asking him to intervene with the Italian Prime Minister.
 
David Martin MEP
This case is a shame for both the EU and Italy. It throws the EU legal system into doubt. The Italian government has played for time and has continually treated citizens form other countries with no respect. I understand the frustation of the petitioners and I realsie that there will be a legal solution through the Italian courts. However, this case calls for a political solution which would be much more appropriate. Furthermore, informally, members of Mr Prodi’s cabinet, while he was President of the Commission, had assured me that had they been in government, the problem would have been solved immediately.
 
Marcin Libicki MEP, Chairman
I would like to ask Mr Petrie if he wishes the petition to be kept open and to conclude.
 
Mr Petrie.
I ask the Committee to keep the petition open and I wish to add that the question of access to supply teaching posts remained unresolved – despite a favourable ruling for the lettori in an ECJ judgement 9 years ago
 
Marcin Libicki, MEP Chairman
I shall write immediately to the President of the European Parliament requesting him to write to the Italian Prime Minister

Brussels, 21 November 2006

Updated 29 November 2006