FLC CGIL, the country’s largest trade union, challenges Italy’s claim to the European Commission that it has ended discrimination against non-national university lecturers (Lettori)
With a hearing before the Court of Justice pending in Case C-519/23, the third in a line of infringement cases taken by the European Commission against Italy for continuing discrimination against non-national lecturers(Lettori), the results of a national university-by-university Census contest Italy’s claim to Executive Vice-President and Commissioner responsible, Roxana Mînzatu, that it has ended its discriminatory treatment of Lettori.
Background
Though the ruling in the first infringement case issued in 2001, that case was taken for non-implementation of the rulings in two earlier Court of Justice cases taken and won by Spanish citizen, Pilar Allué , the first of which dates back to 1989. Thus, the line of litigation for parity of treatment precedes the present century and in duration now exceeds the length of the average university teaching career.
The claim that the discrimination against Lettori had ended was made in a letter of October 2024 to the Commission wherein Italy stated that it had made settlements to the Lettori for reconstruction of career under the terms of a Ministerial Decree of May 2023 and thus had complied with its Treaty obligations. Communicating the Italian position to FLC CGIL, Italy’s largest trade union, the Commission invited the union to furnish any available evidence demonstrating that “the majority of former lettori have not seen their career reconstructed.” Together with Asso.CEL.L ,a Rome-based Lettori association, FLC CGIL then undertook a national university-by-university Census to measure Italy’s compliance with the Court of Justice case law.
Census evidence of discrimination
From contacts in their national network, the unions were aware that the full settlements for reconstruction of career under EU law had only been made in a handful of universities, with the University of Milan as the standout example. There an agreement signed by the rector and FLC CGIL awarded settlements to the Lettori for an uninterrupted reconstruction of career from the date of first employment. To validate Italy’s position that the discrimination had been ended nationally settlements of similar duration would have to have been made in other Italian universities based on the parameter of either part-time researcher or more favourable terms won before the local courts, as prescribed in the second of the Court of Justice’s infringement rulings against Italy(Case C-119/04 ), for non-compliance with which the Commission has taken follow-on Case C-519/23.
The results of the national Census proved consistent with what the on-the- ground sources had indicated. In 31 of the 39 participating universities no settlements were made with Lettori to compensate for decades of discrimination treatment. Further in many of the universities where settlements were made these were for sums significantly less than those paid at the University of Milan as the universities invoked domestic statute of limitations provisions to reduce the number of years for which the Lettori were entitled to backdated settlements.
Aggregate university-by-university Census results were communicated to the Commission in March 2025. Confident in the accuracy of the data, both Asso.CEl. L and FLC CGIL consented to a Commission request that the results be shared with Italy. A request to see the Italian evidence had been refused by the Commission on the grounds that information from Member States is confidential in infringement proceedings.
Arbitration of the Census results
It had been the expectation of the unions that the Commission, in fulfilment of its role as Guardian of the Treaty, would attentively assess the information it had requested. Instead, the Commission merely passed the Census data on to Italy and informed FLC CGIL of Italy’s criticism of the aggregated nature of the results.
In its reply, FLC CGIL pointed out that the aggregated university-by-university Census statistics were based on individual Census returns which it was happy to give to the Commission to disprove the Italian position that it had ended discrimination against Lettori. While it had consented to the Commission’s request that Italy be forwarded the Census data, the union made clear that it did not consent to a situation whereby Italy would substitute the Commission as arbiter of Lettori evidence given its long record of non-compliance with the case law of the Court of Justice and its position as the defendant in the pending infringement case. The letter concluded that for justice to be done in the long-running Lettori case it was vital that the Census evidence of Italy’s non-compliance with EU law be considered by the Court of Justice.
A glaring miscarriage of justice
In the light of the glaring miscarriage of justice which occurred in the second of the Commission’s infringement cases against Italy, a case on which the Court of Justice ruled in 2006, the need for scrupulous checks on Italy’s evidence becomes apparent. Found guilty of discrimination on the expiry date for compliance with EU law given in that case, Italy was spared the recommended daily fines of €309,750 because the Commission depositions contained no information to refute its claims that it had made the settlements due to the Lettori under the terms of a last-minute law it had subsequently enacted.
Though the Commission opened unprecedented third infringement proceedings when it realized that the correct settlements under the last-minute Italian law had not in fact been made, this is scant 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 never been made. The imposition of the daily fines would then have swiftly ended a discrimination which persists to the present day.
“Conscience questions “to Executive Vice-President Mînzatu
What might reasonably be termed “conscience questions” on the conduct of the Lettori case have recently been placed to Executive Vice-President Mînzatu by Irish MEPs Michael McNamara and Cynthia Ní Mhurchú, both of whom are qualified barristers.
The McNamara question recalls the miscarriage of justice to which the confidentiality condition gave rise in the second of the Commission’s infringement cases. To prevent a repeat of such an injustice. MEP McNamara called on the Commission to this time “check university-by-university with the foreign language lecturers to ensure that the correct settlements due under EU law have been made.” Submitted on 14 March, the question remains unanswered at the time of going to press.
The Ni Mhurchu question focuses on a provision of Italy’s Ministerial Decree of May 2023, the legislation which purports to end discrimination against Lettori. This provision limits the number of years to which the non-national Lettori are entitled to backdated settlements for withheld parity of treatment in accordance with domestic statute of limitations legislation. Citing the Court of Justice finding in Case C-119/04 that “a Member State cannot plead provisions, practices or situations prevailing in its domestic legal order to justify failure to observe obligations arising under Community law”, MEP Ní Mhurchú asks the Commission to confirm that the prescription condition introduced in the ministerial decree is “an example of the type of domestic legal provision which the Court has ruled to be contrary to Community law”. The Commission declined to address this point of law in its reply.
A question to Italy’s Minister for Universities and Research
John Gilbert is National Lettori Coordinator for FLC CGIL. That his union, the country’s largest trade union, should compile evidence to show that Italy is discrimination against non-national university staff has obvious persuasive effect. Mr. Gilbert said:
“Under the terms of Legge europea, a law enacted in 2017, Italy committed to annually setting aside €8,7 05million euro to finance the settlements due to Lettori. The funds set aside now amount to a total of €78,345,000. Though we are denied access to Italy’s letter of October 2024 to the Commission under the confidentiality condition, we know from our representatives in the universities nationally, and from our Census returns, that only in a few universities have the Lettori received the settlements due.”
Meanwhile in the Camera dei Deputati in Rome, Elisabetta Piccolotti, a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Culture, Science and Education, has placed a question on this very point to Minister for Universities and Research, Anna Maria Bernini. The question asks for a precise account of how the monies set aside under Legge europea have been spent. The eventual reply should release information which is confidential under the Commission’s infringement proceedings. The Lettori are confident that the reply will show that only a fraction of the monies purportedly set aside to compensate for discriminatory treatment has actually been spent.
