Troubling Questions on a Treaty Injustice That Won’t Go Away

The European Commission faces mounting pressure to explain its abrupt closure of the long-standing Lettori case to the European Parliament. Irish MEP Cynthia Ní Mhurchu has submitted a priority question to the Commission seeking clarification on this sudden decision. Co-signed by 12 other MEPs, the query follows an earlier question from March 2025 regarding the compatibility of an Italian law meant to resolve discrimination against Lettori with EU law, which Commissioner Roxana Mînzatu failed to address.

Legal History

The Lettori case, deeply covered by European Times, originated in 1987 with a reference for a preliminary ruling brought by Spanish national Pilar Allué against Università Degli Studi di Venezia. Although Allué won in the Court’s 1989 ruling, Italy’s misinterpretation led her to pursue a second successful case in 1993. Italy’s continued non-implementation prompted the Commission’s first infringement proceedings, with the Court ruling for the Commission in 2001. Case C-519/23, concerning Italy’s non-compliance with a 2006 infringement ruling, is tied to Ní Mhurchu’s priority question, representing a third unprecedented infringement case related to the same breach. This case was referred to the Court of Justice in August 2023.

Then Commissioner Nicholas Schmit explained to a question from seven Irish members of the last parliament that the Commission had referred the case to court because Italian legislation from May 2023 had not addressed the “payment of due arrears to the Lettori.” These arrears represent compensation for discriminatory conditions since initial employment.

On 17 July 2025, without informing Lettori representatives or making a public announcement, the Commission unexpectedly closed the case. Ní Mhurchu and the question’s co-signatories demand an explanation for the Commission’s reversal between 10 June 2025 and 17 July 2025.

Investigation of Commission Decisions

While Court of Justice rulings and parliamentary questions regarding the Lettori case are publicly accessible, investigative journalism into the Commission’s swift decision to close the case is hampered by the confidentiality of evidence from the infringing Member State, Italy. However, sufficient facts have emerged that raise concerns about the Commission’s handling. The Commission’s refusal to consider Lettori-provided census evidence—despite explicitly requesting it—and its uncritical acceptance of Italy’s data are particularly troubling. The Commission’s unwillingness to answer euro parliamentarians’ questions on critical legal issues further exacerbates these concerns.

Dealings with Lettori Unions

1. Asso.CEL.L and FLC CGIL’s census of discriminatory conditions in Italian universities influenced the Commission to initiate a third infringement procedure against Italy. The unions regularly updated the Commission on the census.

2. In December 2024, FLC CGIL informed Commissioner Mînzatu that most Italian universities had not paid settlements required by the Court’s C-119/04 ruling.

3. In February 2025, the Commission relayed Italy’s claim of completed payments for eligible former Lettori and asked FLC CGIL for contrary evidence within a month, despite Italy being already 18 months overdue.

4. The unions conducted a new census revealing 31 of 39 universities made no compensatory settlements. Results were sent to the Commission in March 2025.

5. In April 2025, Mario Nava of Employment and Social Affairs stated the Commission would forward census data to Italian authorities instead of examining it, a contradiction to its February letter.

6. On 28 April, FLC CGIL’s Gianna Fracassi reminded Nava of their expectation for the Commission to examine the census results. She emphasized the union’s support for sharing the data with Italy while objecting to Italy acting as the arbiter of Lettori evidence.

7. Despite disagreements over data aggregation and sharing consents, the Commission abruptly closed the case on 17 July, ignoring Lettori evidence and siding with Italy, who failed to comply with multiple Court rulings.

Dealings with the European Parliament

Irish MEPs strongly supported the Lettori, with eight co-signing Ní Mhurchu’s question. Previous questions in this parliament, all from Irish MEPs, went unanswered by the Commission, which neither acknowledged nor addressed critical legal points raised. Comparisons with responses from domestic parliaments reveal the Commission’s dismissive and disrespectful attitude.

Pending Irish Presidency of the Council of the European Union

In the latter half of 2026, Ireland will preside over the EU Council, presenting an opportunity for Irish Lettori to urge their government to prioritize Commission accountability to the European Parliament and EU citizens. Ensuring accountability to parliament mirrors the democratic principles of Member States, yet no effective parliamentary control exists over the EU’s Directorates-General. Like national civil services, they should be accountable to the European Parliament.