Background

1. The complainants, along with several other Italian citizens, complained to the European Commission in 2018, alleging that the working conditions of honorary judges in Italy are contrary to EU law. The Commission added these infringement complaints to the assessment^[1] that was underway of whether the relevant Italian legislation complies with the EU Directive on fixed term work^[2] and on working time^[3]. Due to the high number of complaints received on this issue, the Commission chose to keep the complainants informed about the developments in the case by making an ’information notice on multiple complaints’ available on its website^[4].

2. The Commission had, in 2016, informed the Italian authorities that it intended to open a formal procedure against Italy on this matter, by sending a ‘letter of formal notice’. The Commission asked the Italian authorities to inform it, as soon as possible, of any developments that could avoid it having to open an infringement procedure.

3. In the years that followed, many Italian citizens petitioned the European Parliament about the working conditions of honorary judges in Italy^[5]. In February 2018, the Commission informed Parliament that its investigations were ongoing. In its reply to Parliament, the Commission mentioned that Italy had adopted new legislation on honorary judges in summer 2017^[6].

4. As the Commission had not yet sent a letter of formal notice to Italy in April 2019, the complainants turned to the Ombudsman arguing that it is taking the Commission too long to open a formal procedure against Italy.

The inquiry

5. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how the Commission is dealing with the complaints about the working conditions of honorary judges in Italy.

6. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman’s inquiry team alerted the Commission to the fact that the information notice on multiple complaints was not up to date. The Commission then updated the notice.

The European Ombudsman’s findings

7. The Ombudsman welcomes the steps taken by the Commission to update the notice on multiple complaints on its website and to thereby keep the complainants informed about the developments in this case.

8. The information notice on the website clearly explains on which legal issues the Commission still needs to get clarifications before finalising its assessment. Specifically, the Commission is awaiting two judgements from the Court of Justice before deciding whether to launch an infringement procedure^[7]. The court cases are clearly linked to the legal issues at stake in the proceedings^[8].

9. The first of the court cases was lodged in August 2017, that is, one year after the Commission communicated to Italy that it intended to open an infringement procedure. During this period, Italy also adopted new legislation on honorary magistrates.

10. The primary purpose of the infringement procedure is to ensure that Member States give effect to EU law. Should a Member State amend its legislation in a way that complies with EU law, thus putting an end to any possible infringement, the Commission will terminate the infringement procedure. As a consequence, it is reasonable for the Commission not to open an infringement procedure right away, when a Member States is expected to adopt new legislation.

11. As such, the Commission has provided sufficient explanations in this case as to why it has not yet launched infringement proceedings.

12. In the light of the above, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration by the Commission.^[9]

 

Emily O'Reilly

European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 22/10/2019

 

[1] In the context of proceedings NIF 2016/4081.

[2] In particular, with Clause 5 (1) of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which forms part of the annex of Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE, and CEEP, OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

[3] Directive 2003/88/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time.

[4] https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/information-notice-complaint-update-chap-2015-1071_en.pdf

[5] See petitions 1328/2017, 1376/2015 and 757/2017.

[6] Legislative Decree No 116 of 13 July 2017 on the ‘Systematic reform of the honorary judiciary and other previsions on justices of the peace, and transitional regulations for serving honorary magistrates, in compliance with Law No 57 of 28 April 2016.

[7] Cases Di Girolamo, C‐618/18, and UX, C‐658/18.

[8] See, in this respect, paragraph 8 of the decision of the European Ombudsman setting out suggestions following her strategic inquiry OI/5/2016/AB on timeliness and transparency in the European Commission’s handling of infringement complaints: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/decision/en/83646

[9] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with Article 11 of the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions