Parliament’s Petitions Committee has become a key player in the battle to end discriminatory practices against foreign language lecturers in Italy reports Rory Watson*
The European Parliament is taking up the cudgels on behalf of several hundred foreign language lecturers in Italy as they continue their 20-year fight against discriminatory work practices. The institution’s petitions committee has taken the highly unusual step of keeping the campaign alive even though last July the European Court of Justice delivered a judgement, described by one MEP as “extraordinary”, which appeared to close the door on any European solution to their long-standing plight.
After four earlier ECJ rulings, several European Parliament resolutions and numerous complaints to the petitions committee, the Luxembourg-based judges agreed with the European Commission that Italy was in breach of EU law by failing to treat the lecturers, or lettori, on a par with their Italian counterparts. But, in a surprising move, they rejected the Commission’s request for the violation to be punished by a hefty fine, which is increasingly used as a strong incentive for governments to fall into line. The request had earlier been supported by the Court’s own Advocate-General, although he had advised the daily amount be lowered to 265,000 euro. The judges’ argument was that, on the basis of documentation supplied by the Italian government, measures had been taken to remedy the situation – a claim that the lettori vigorously deny.
Proinsias De Rossa, the Irish Labour MEP, who has followed the lettori’s fight for many years, considered the judgement to be an “extraordinary decision”, adding that “it was not a glorious day for the Court”. While being careful not to challenge the European Court of Justice’s decision – a move that would be way beyond its remit, let alone that of the Parliament itself – the petitions committee is trying to bring some political muscle towards a satisfactory settlement. Sir Robert Atkins, a former British Conservative minister, admitted he was “appalled” when he heard the facts of the case for the first time. “As a minister for ten years, I would not have tolerated this. It is an unacceptable state of affairs. We have limited powers where the Court is concerned, but as parliamentarians we can rattle some cages,” he said.
The MEPs began their rattling last November when the petitions committee heard from David Petrie, the chairman of the Association of Foreign Language Lecturers in Italy. He told them that, contrary to what the Court had been told, his colleagues had still not received the back payments and rights to which they were entitled. Unconvinced by the defence put forwarded by the official representing the Italian government and deeply concerned that the EU’s legal procedure had not settled the matter as they had hoped, the MEPs began looking for a political solution.
Marcin Libicki, the committee’s chairman, has written to Italy’s Permanent representation to the EU asking for meetings at official level to see whether a practical solution can be found. Some hope that the presence of Romano Prodi, a former Commission President as Prime Minister, and Emma Bonino, a former Commissioner, MEP and now Europe Minister, will increase the chances of a pragmatic outcome. Still waiting to hear for a reply from the Italians, De Rossa has warned that the issue will not go away. “If we have had no reply in a couple of months, we will call the Commission and the Italian government to the committee again to keep the pressure on.”David Martin, the Scottish Labour MEP who has been involved in the battle since almost the outset, points to wider implications of the long-running affair. “If your rights have been wronged and you cannot get justice, then it undermines the whole legal system,” he says. Petrie points to another aspect of the Court’s procedures. Only parties to the case can have access to the documents, so the lettori had no opportunity to argue that the information provided by Italy was incorrect.
“The ECJ judgement states that the Italian authorities produced tables showing that payments had been made to the lettori and that therefore the discrimination had ceased on the day of the Court’s examination of the facts. The Commission did not rebut the information supplied by the Italian authorities. We are not allowed to see the tables or documents. They are covered by secrecy rules. But, and this much we do know, the interested parties have not been paid. The Court has been misled,” he says.
A few days after the Court’s July ruling, Petrie wrote to its President, Vassilios Skouris, asking how it would be ascertained that the measures the Italian government said were in place “had achieved the declared objectives” of ending the discrimination. Earlier this month, still without a reply, he lodged a complaint of maladministration against the Court with the European Ombudsman on the “failure to acknowledge our correspondence and reply to the very serious substantive issue raised in our letters”.
*Rory Watson is a
Brussels based freelance
Journalist. He covers EU
affairs for the Times
and other publications