Michael McNamara MEP
25 March 2025
Henry Rodgers teaches at “La Sapienza” University, Rome and has published extensively on the Lettori discrimination case
In an attempt to prevent a repeat of the miscarriage of justice which occurred in enforcement Case C-119/04 – Commission v Italy, a case taken for persistent discrimination against foreign language lecturers(Lettori)in Italian universities, Irish MEP Michael McNamara has placed a parliamentary question calling on the Commission to be especially vigilant in its scrutiny of the evidence submitted by Italy in pending infringement Case C-519/23. This latter case, taken because of Italy’s failure to implement the 2006 ruling in Case C-119/04, will come before the Court of Justice of the European Union(CJEU) for ruling later this year.
A barrister, who has worked at the OSCE and on human rights and democracy projects of the European Union and United Nations, MEP McNamara concludes his question to the Commission as follows:
“As a check on the evidence furnished by Italy in Case C-519/23, and to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate outcome in Case C-119/04, will the Commission check university-by-university with the Lettori to ensure that the correct settlements due under EU law have been made?”
The story of the Lettori’s battle against the discriminatory treatment they have endured for decades has been extensively covered by The European Times. Of the four Lettori cases tried before the CJEU in the line of litigation stretching back to the first Pilar Allué victory in 1989, Case C-119/04 was by far the most high- profile. This was because the Commission had called for the imposition of daily fines of €309,750 on Italy. Had these pecuniary penalties been imposed, they would have represented the first such fines for discrimination to be inflicted on a Member State in the history of the European Union.
It added to the high-profile of the case that it was heard before a Grand Chamber of 13 judges. As Italy had not ended its discriminatory treatment by the deadline given in the Commission’s reasoned opinion, the Court found it guilty of discrimination against Lettori for a fourth time.
After the prescribed date for compliance given in the reasoned opinion, Italy introduced last-minute legislation to make settlements to the Lettori for decades of workplace discrimination. On paper, the Court found the legislation to be compatible with EU law. The imposition of the daily fines then depended on whether the settlements provided for under the law had actually been made. In its depositions Italy maintained that the correct settlements had been made.
Ultimately the confidentiality requirement of infringement proceedings spared Italy the daily fines, as it precluded the Lettori from seeing and challenging the Italian evidence. The confidentiality condition, and its potential to work against the interests of complainants and to the advantage of the Member State in breach, is one of the subjects taken up in the recent open letter to President von der Leyen from Asso.CEL.L, a Lettori union headquartered in Rome.
Commenting on the ruling in Case C-119/04, the letter to President von der Leyen states that “over 18 years later, paragraphs 43 and 45 of the 2006 ruling still rankle with the Lettori and make for difficult reading.” In these two paragraphs the judges stated that as the Commission depositions contained no information from the Lettori to counter Italy’s claims that the correct settlements had been made, the Court could not impose the fines.
It is to the Commission’s credit that it opened the present and unprecedented third phase of an infringement procedure when it realized that the correct settlements under the last-minute law had not been made. But this is cold comfort for the Lettori. It automatically evokes the thought that had the confidentiality requirement not been in place, the Lettori could have seen Italy’s depositions and produced proof to the Court that that the correct settlements had in fact never been made. The imposition of daily fines of €309, 750 would then have swiftly ended a discrimination which persists to the present day.
This miscarriage of justice then is a glaring indictment of the confidentiality requirement. The moral for the conduct of the current infringement case is clearly set out in the Michael McNamara question: scrupulous checks by the Commission on a university-by-university basis are warranted so as to ensure that the correct settlements due to the Lettori under EU law are finally made.
Interministerial Decree Law No 688 of 24 May 2023 is the fourth in a series of legal measures enacted by Italy to purportedly implement the ruling in Case C-119/04. Last month the Commission wrote to Gianna Fracassi, Secretary-General of FLC CGIL, Italy’s largest trade union, notifying her that “according to the information received from the Italian authorities the implementation of the procedure initiated by Interministerial Decree No 688 of 24 May 2023 has ensured the reconstruction of careers of former lettori in compliance with the obligations arising from Union and national legislation.”
The letter went on to invite FLC CGIL to share with the Commission any evidence that the majority of former Lettori have not seen their career reconstructed. The Commission asked for explicit authorisation to share this eventual evidence with the Italian authorities.
“Given that the case C-519/23 is pending” the letter concluded, “we would appreciate if you could supply the Commission with your reply within a month from the receipt of this letter”.
In an immediate response to the Commission letter, Secretary-General Fracassi wrote: “For our part, in order to have a frame of reference for our response, we invite you to send us the information on the payment of arrears by universities that Italy sent you in October 2024.” While this is a reasonable response, the information requested was not supplied. It is feasible that Italy may have invoked the confidentiality requirement in infringement proceedings and refused to allow the Commission to pass on its correspondence.
Within the tight deadline given, FLC CGIL and Asso.CEL.L have conducted a national Census, the results of which conclusively show that, with a few exceptions, the settlements for reconstruction of career due under the ruling in Case C-119/04 have not been made. Of the few settlements made some are partial. Still others are circumscribed by domestic statute of limitations legislation, a state of affairs whereby Italy seeks to limit a right to parity of treatment it has withheld for decades to a period of a mere five years.
Kurt Rollin, who taught at University of Rome “La Sapienza”, Europe’s largest university, is Asso.Cel. L representative for retired Lettori. Commenting on MEP McNamara’s question to the Commission, Mr. Rollin said:
“The rules of procedure in infringement cases cannot take precedence over the justice the infringement procedure is meant to deliver. The confidentiality requirement has clearly damaged the interests of the Lettori and it continues to work to the advantage of Italy, the Member State in breach of its Treaty obligations.
Italy’s claim to the Commission that it has made the appropriate settlements for reconstruction of Lettori careers under EU law simply beggars beliefs. Neither I, nor my La Sapienza colleagues, have received such settlements. The recent Census results we have sent to the Commission show that, with a few exceptions, no such settlements have been made by the Italian universities.”
Mr. Rollin continued:
“The Commission has stated that parity of treatment is perhaps the most important right under community law, and an essential element of European citizenship. If the Lettori are to have Treaty justice, then the Commission must do as MEP Michael McNamara has requested and this time round check with the Lettori university-by-university to ensure that the correct settlements due under EU law have been made.”
Meanwhile in response to a priority question from Ciaran Mullooly MEP on ensuring the consistent enforcement of EU law for foreign-language lecturers in Italian universities, the Commission has declined to answer the question on the precedent value of the University of Milan Agreement, an agreement on acquired rights signed by the university rector and FLC CGIL. Also, in the context of infringement case C-519/23, it has ignored the uncomfortable question of the long-term enforcement by the University of Rome “La Sapienza” of an employment contract twice ruled discriminatory by the CJEU.
———-
First published in this link of The European Times.
