You can quote an old TV commercial that says, “You like to win easily.” This is somewhat similar to what the state tried to do with public employees who had filed numerous appeals for salary increases related to the years 1990 to 1993. The judges were interpreting the rules by agreeing with the civil servants who appealed. Then came a law that “nullified” the provisions. Thus the matter reached the Constitutional Court, which instead decided that laws could not be enacted, among other things, retroactively, to resolve a dispute in which the administration was a party. A principle we can say about legal civilization. But what topic does the sentence address? To understand what we are talking about, we need to go back in time more than 30 years, to 1989, when a public sector union agreement decided on “seniority increases” for public sector employees: 300 thousand old liras for the first, second and third qualification of the functional field; 400,000 liras for the fourth, fifth, and sixth job training, and 500,000 liras for the seventh, eighth, and ninth job training.
State governments, reduction of directors: this is how super-experts can be appointed to be included in the “fourth” area
These increases are due to those who had acquired five years of professional experience by January 1, 1990.
Through budget maneuvering, he changed the cards on the table and tipped the balance in his favor. Under Law 388 of 2000, he gave his own “interpretation” for the extension of the presidential decree, essentially saying that everything was extended except the rule of increasing seniority for state employees. A reading completely annulled by the ruling of the Constitutional Court written by Judge Marco d'Alberti. A press release from the court explained that “the ruling first made it clear that monitoring the constitutionality of ex post facto laws becomes more stringent if legislative intervention affects provisions that are still under implementation, especially in the case where the person is involved in the process of public administration, where the legislator is prevented from dissolving specific disputes, under the law, thus determining the imbalance between the positions of the parties involved in the proceedings.” Furthermore, it was made clear in the reasons that “only compelling reasons of public interest can permit the intervention of the legislator in the ongoing proceedings” and that “the principles of the rule of law Due process requires addressing these reasons with the highest degree of accuracy (as a precautionary measure).
In the case in question, there were no overriding reasons of general importance to justify the law. In fact, the ruling states that the possibility of employees receiving the necessary length of service increase even during the new period (1991-1993) fully responds to the reasons for equality and fairness in the wage system. The ruling said: “If anything, it is that the disputed provision caused an unjustified disparity in wages to the detriment of public servants who, unlike what happened in relation to the three-year period 1988-1990, were unable to conduct a Most of their term of service is in the following three-year period 1991-1993. What will happen now? The unions are examining the device to understand whether it is also possible to recognize these increases for those who have not yet appealed. Their number could reach tens of thousands of people.
Read the full article
On Il Messaggero
“Coffee fan. Tv specialist. Social media aficionado. Zombie geek. Evil analyst. Web expert.”