Order read at the hearing of February 6, 2024 (attached to judgment no. 73 of 2024)
ORDER
Having seen the documents relating to the proceedings concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 13 of Law no. 70 of March 20, 1975 (Provisions on the reorganization of public bodies and the employment relationship of dependent personnel), "insofar as it does not allow (in any way) consideration, in the calculation basis of seniority indemnity, of the so-called 'honorarium quota' pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 4, of the same law," brought before the Ordinary Court of Rome, Third Labor Section, by order of April 5, 2023, registered at no. 86 of the 2023 register of orders and published in the Official Gazette of the Republic no. 27, first special series, of the year 2023.
Having noted that the Federation of Parastatal Lawyers - FLEPAR intervened ad adiuvandum to request the upholding of the constitutional legitimacy questions;
that the intervener states that it is a non-profit federal association with a trade union character whose purpose is to protect the dignity, professional autonomy, legal status, and economic rights of the lawyers of the member associations, to be constantly present in negotiations with the Agency for the Negotiation Representation of Public Administrations (ARAN) and to have signed several national collective agreements;
that FLEPAR recalls that constitutional jurisprudence excludes that the interest of bodies representing collective or category interests connected to the statutory purposes of protecting their members can legitimize participation in constitutional legitimacy proceedings;
that the association, however, considers itself entitled to intervene as holder of an interest, different from that linked to trade union representation, "deeply shaped" by the provision under scrutiny and directly and immediately related to the relationship presented in the main proceedings;
that, in fact, the questions under scrutiny involve the definition of the scope reserved to collective bargaining on the economic treatment of employees of non-economic public bodies and, in particular, the question whether, pursuant to Article 13 of Law no. 70 of 1975, as interpreted by the jurisprudence of legitimacy, collective agreements can regulate only activity-based remuneration, or whether they are also entrusted with the regulation of end-of-service benefits;
that, therefore, as a result of a possible decision to uphold the appeal, the trade union agreements signed by FLEPAR pursuant to Article 26, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 70 of 1975 and Article 9 of Legislative Decree no. 90 of June 24, 2014 (Urgent measures for administrative simplification and transparency and for the efficiency of judicial offices), converted, with amendments, into Law no. 114 of August 11, 2014, "would also contribute to determining the deferred remuneration of lawyers employed by so-called 'parastatal' entities";
that, finally, a decision to uphold the appeal, according to FLEPAR, would also affect future collective bargaining and, in particular, the way in which the intervening association, as well as other trade unions, "will have to modulate its activity for the time to come."
Having considered that, according to constant constitutional jurisprudence – as enshrined in Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court – intervention in incidental proceedings by parties other than the parties to the main proceedings, the President of the Council of Ministers and the President of the Regional Government, is admissible only insofar as they claim to be holders of a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the substantive relationship brought before the court (ex aliis, order no. 271 of 2020; judgments no. 158 of 2020 with attached order read at the hearing of June 10, 2020 and no. 119 of 2020);
that such qualified interest exists when a "legal position capable of being immediately and irremediably prejudiced by the outcome of the incidental proceedings" is configured (judgments no. 159 of 2019 and no. 194 of 2018 with attached order read at the hearing of September 25, 2018; orders no. 191 of 2021 and no. 271 of 2020);
that, in particular, the impact on the intervener's subjective position must be an immediate and direct consequence of the effect that the decision of this Court produces on the substantive relationship subject to the a quo proceedings (judgments no. 46 of 2021 and no. 98 of 2019);
that the interest asserted by FLEPAR as the basis for its entitlement to intervene is not only not directly attributable to the subject matter of the main proceedings, but is also lacking in concreteness and timeliness;
that, in fact, according to the intervener, this interest would derive from the possibility that, if this Court, in upholding the constitutional legitimacy question, were to affirm that it is up to collective bargaining to regulate not only activity-based economic treatment, but also end-of-service benefits, FLEPAR itself would be called upon to participate in the conclusion of the trade union agreements responsible for this;
that equally extraneous to the subject matter of the a quo proceedings, and therefore irrelevant for the purposes of entitlement to intervene, is the circumstance that, in the event indicated above, the collective agreements containing provisions on fees pursuant to Article 26, fourth paragraph, of Law no. 70 of 1975 already concluded, in which the intervening association also participated, "would contribute to determining also the deferred remuneration of lawyers employed by the so-called 'parastatal' entities";
that, therefore, the intervention of FLEPAR must be declared inadmissible.
FOR THESE REASONS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares the intervention of the Federation of Parastatal Lawyers - FLEPAR inadmissible.
Signed: Augusto Antonio Barbera, President