Irish MEP Challenges EU Commission Over Long-Running Discrimination Against Foreign Lecturers in Italy
Irish Member of the European Parliament (MEP) PLACEHOLDERa5ed12f43bf4c5d3 has posed a priority parliamentary question to EU Commissioner for Social Affairs, PLACEHOLDER945ac165e0c2d1c3, concerning the handling of infringement case C-519/23. The case focuses on Italy’s prolonged discrimination against foreign language lecturers, or Lettori, in its universities—a decades-long legal battle involving multiple rulings from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
A Rare Third Infringement Case
This case is particularly unusual as it represents a third phase in what is typically a two-step infringement process under EU law. The first phase addresses a Member State’s failure to comply with EU law, while the second focuses on enforcement and may impose fines. In the Lettori dispute, these phases correspond to cases PLACEHOLDERe36d86201bff3cb1 and PLACEHOLDER2de7184e6f933e79, culminating in a 2006 ruling against Italy for discriminatory practices.
Despite Italy’s failure to comply with CJEU decisions, confidentiality rules in infringement proceedings shielded it from the daily fines of €309,750 requested by the European Commission. Italy argued it had made appropriate settlements to the Lettori, but due to these confidentiality requirements, the Lettori were unable to review or challenge the evidence submitted.
An open letter from Rome-based union Asso.CEL.L notes that 18 years on, unresolved issues from the 2006 ruling remain a source of frustration. Paragraphs 43 and 45 of the judgment, which accepted Italy’s claims due to a lack of counterarguments from the Lettori, highlight the consequences of the confidentiality principle.
Ongoing Missteps by Italy
Following the 2006 ruling in case C-119/04, Italy introduced last-minute legislation to address Lettori claims on paper. However, it failed to deliver the promised settlements in practice. The current third infringement case arises from these unresolved settlements.
The Asso.CEL.L open letter emphasizes the importance of the Commission’s due diligence in the ongoing case, stating:
“University-by-university, lettore-by-lettore, the Commission must verify that the correct settlements required by EU law are being made to finally end this decades-long litigation.”
The Commission deserves credit for initiating this rare third phase of an infringement procedure. Yet for the Lettori, it is bittersweet. Had the confidentiality clause been lifted earlier, they might have contested Italy’s claims and demonstrated non-compliance, potentially leading to the imposition of fines and a swifter resolution.
Retrospective Legislation and Defiance of EU Law
A critical point raised by Mullooly and Asso.CEL.L is Italy’s use of retrospective legislation to reinterpret and undermine CJEU rulings. Italy’s so-called Gelmini Law, enacted in 2010—four years after the 2006 enforcement case—limits the financial settlements owed to Lettori to only the period up to 1994. This directly contradicts EU case law and undermines the authority of the CJEU.
The Interministerial Decree, which relies heavily on the Gelmini Law, has been criticized for its self-serving legal gymnastics. Repeated references to the Gelmini Law throughout the decree highlight how Italy has sought to rewrite the terms of compliance to suit its interests.
University responses to the EU proceedings vary starkly. The University of Milan acknowledged its liability to the Lettori and honored EU laws, while Rome’s La Sapienza University—the largest in
Leave a Reply