N. 864/09 REG.DEC.
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Council of State in the courts, (Fifth Chamber)
ITALIAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
The Council of State in the courts, (Fifth Chamber)
gives the following
DECISION
on appeal No 9398/00 Reg Gen., proposed by Mr. Silverio Mazzella, represented and defended by the lawyer. Adriano box and at the same address for service in Rome, Viale Regina Margherita 290;
AGAINST
the town of Formia, in the person of the mayor in office, actually represented and defended by the lawyer. Giampiero Amorelli and at the same address for service in Rome, Via dei Mille No 41 / A;
for the reform of the Judgement No 19 April 2000 210 of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, a branch of Latin America, made between the parties.
Since the action with its annexes;
Since the act of incorporation of the City appealed in court;
Views memories from Parties in support of their defenses;
view of the collegiate order May 13 to August 20 2008 n. 3975, by which the trial was to declare the death of The defender appealed;
Since the resumption of the appeal of the appellant;
In view of appearance with new counsel and the response of Formia,
Given all the acts of the case;
At the public hearing on November 7, 2008, speaker advisor Angelica Dell'Utri Costagliola, heard the parties to the Attorney Casella and you Pafundi, the latter by proxy Att. Amorelli;
The facts and law considered in the following: FACT
Since the action with its annexes;
Since the act of incorporation of the City appealed in court;
Views memories from Parties in support of their defenses;
view of the collegiate order May 13 to August 20 2008 n. 3975, by which the trial was to declare the death of The defender appealed;
Since the resumption of the appeal of the appellant;
In view of appearance with new counsel and the response of Formia,
Given all the acts of the case;
At the public hearing on November 7, 2008, speaker advisor Angelica Dell'Utri Costagliola, heard the parties to the Attorney Casella and you Pafundi, the latter by proxy Att. Amorelli;
The facts and law considered in the following: FACT
By application of appeal served on 27 September to 4 October 2000 and filed on 25 following Mr. Mazzella Silverio explained that by decision of 7 September 1989 n . 531 Council of State, Section V, confirms the decision No 15 April 1988 250 of the TAR Lazio, Latina section, had been established the existence of civil service by 21 June 1969 between the same Mr. Mazzella, set the Conciliation and Formia, as to claims to property, was declared the prescription of those from 1969 to 1972 of el'inammissibilità those up to 30 June 1978, while for the period after the said Municipality was ordered to pay the wage difference, interest and currency appreciation. By another decision July 23, 1994 No Section 808 of the same V it was considered that the obligation arising from the lead to the award judged by the legal length of 21 June 1969. Despite having been proven by the existence of res judicata of employment relationship with the town of Formia and although that district used the activity with continuity and exclusivity of the appellant in the period from that date (legal effect) to 20 September 1978 (economic effect) he did not receive treatment Economic corresponding to that of developed city, but lower amounts based on annual contracts. He therefore suggested before the Lazio Regional Administrative Court, section of Latin, action of unjust enrichment and requested that the Board should pay, as compensation pursuant to art. 2041 cc, the pay disparity to gross social security contributions increased for currency appreciation and legitimate interests. Il TAR ha però respinto tale ricorso con sentenza 19 aprile 2000 n. 210, gravata in questa sede.
A sostengo dell’appello ha dedotto:
1.- Il TAR ha ritenuto che l’azione non sarebbe esperibile per la stessa pretesa dichiarata prescritta e inammissibile, aggiungendo che in ogni caso mancherebbe la prova della diminuzione patrimoniale.
2.- In tal modo il TAR non ha tenuto presente la diversità tra le due azioni e, nel contempo, che la prova della diminuzione patrimoniale è stata fornita con l’espresso riferimento allo stipendio che il ricorrente ha percepito per le stesse funzioni nell’ambito dello stesso rapporto d’impiego nel periodo non prescritto.
3.- La sentenza is unfair and wrong for the applicant's conviction to pay the costs. The
Formia was established in court and requested the rejection of the appeal as inadmissible inadmissible or unfounded for the expiration of the limitation period provided for in art. 2948, No 4) DC, or in the alternative to in art. 2946 cc.
scheduled a hearing on May 13, 2008, the constitution of the Domiciliary defender said the death of the same defender, so the process was stopped by order of May 13 to August 20 2008 n. 3975/08. Already document served and filed June 26, 2008 July 22 following Mr. Mazzella ha riassunto il giudizio.
In data 5 settembre 2008 il Comune di Formia si è costituito in giudizio con nuovo difensore e con memoria del successivo 22 ottobre 2008 ha svolto controdeduzioni ed ha riproposto le eccezioni di giudicato e di prescrizione implicitamente assorbite dal TAR.
All’odierna udienza pubblica l’appello è stato posto in decisione.
A sostengo dell’appello ha dedotto:
1.- Il TAR ha ritenuto che l’azione non sarebbe esperibile per la stessa pretesa dichiarata prescritta e inammissibile, aggiungendo che in ogni caso mancherebbe la prova della diminuzione patrimoniale.
2.- In tal modo il TAR non ha tenuto presente la diversità tra le due azioni e, nel contempo, che la prova della diminuzione patrimoniale è stata fornita con l’espresso riferimento allo stipendio che il ricorrente ha percepito per le stesse funzioni nell’ambito dello stesso rapporto d’impiego nel periodo non prescritto.
3.- La sentenza is unfair and wrong for the applicant's conviction to pay the costs. The
Formia was established in court and requested the rejection of the appeal as inadmissible inadmissible or unfounded for the expiration of the limitation period provided for in art. 2948, No 4) DC, or in the alternative to in art. 2946 cc.
scheduled a hearing on May 13, 2008, the constitution of the Domiciliary defender said the death of the same defender, so the process was stopped by order of May 13 to August 20 2008 n. 3975/08. Already document served and filed June 26, 2008 July 22 following Mr. Mazzella ha riassunto il giudizio.
In data 5 settembre 2008 il Comune di Formia si è costituito in giudizio con nuovo difensore e con memoria del successivo 22 ottobre 2008 ha svolto controdeduzioni ed ha riproposto le eccezioni di giudicato e di prescrizione implicitamente assorbite dal TAR.
All’odierna udienza pubblica l’appello è stato posto in decisione.
D I R I T T O
Com’è esposto nella narrativa che precede, la questione sottoposta all’esame della Sezione concerne differenze retributive, rivendicate dall’attuale appellante signor Silverio Mazzella mediante l’azione di arricchimento senza causa di cui all’art. 2041 cod. civ., aumentate appreciation for and interest relating to the period from June 21, 1969 (commencement of legal employment relationship with the City of forms such as municipal messenger, whose existence has been confirmed by 7 September 1989 Decision No 531 of this section) to September 30 1978 (economic effect of the ratio), during which he represents have not received his salary corresponding to that of non-tenured municipal employee with similar qualifications and duties, but remains below the following annual contracts.
The same appellant states that similar property claims, advanced in the ascertainment of the ratio of direct employment in the employ of Formia, were declared partly inadmissible and partly prescribed.
The Court of First Instance found the experienced action of unjust enrichment is not feasible, since excluded from abstract possibility to satisfy the claims in question with a specific action, in reality unsuccessfully performed, as well as unfounded, the absence of evidence of effective Capital reduction suffered.
Here Mr. Mazzella complains, as regards the first point, that the TAR has ignored for that period, as has been recognized, however, the legal title that would not now entitled to the same action (for recovery of back wages), but the new and separate action sussidiaria ex art. 2041 cod. civ., avendo comunque la pubblica amministrazione utilizzato le proprie prestazioni senza corrispondergli la retribuzione dovuta al dipendente comunale con le stesse funzioni. E, in ordine al secondo profilo, di aver invece fornito la prova predetta mediante l’espresso riferimento al documentato stipendio che egli ha poi percepito per le stesse funzioni, nell’ambito dello stesso rapporto e con riguardo al periodo non prescritto.
L’appello è infondato poiché la pronuncia appellata merita piena conferma.
Ai sensi dell’art. 2042 cod. civ., l’azione di arricchimento senza causa prevista dall’articolo precedente ha "carattere sussidiario", ossia "non è feasible when the injured person may have another action to get the injury compensation.
As well evidenced by the TAR, the assessment of the possibility of making the same claim otherwise must take place in the abstract, namely that it must be ascertained that there was no typical of other remedies, available to order, such as to remove the injury to that question.
In this case there is no doubt that the legislation might be available to Mr. Mazzella a typical action in terms of remuneration of labor services rendered in favor public administration, so that he has made use, albeit with negative results, so the new action era sicuramente inammissibile.
Oltretutto, la svolta domanda era da ritenersi in ogni caso infondata in relazione all’omessa dimostrazione di un impoverimento subito per effetto dell’arricchimento dell’altro soggetto, impoverimento che è altra cosa rispetto al mancato incremento patrimoniale (cfr. Cons. St., sez. V, 3 ottobre 2002 n. 5209, nonché sez. IV, 6 agosto 2005 n. 4171 e Sez. 5 dicembre 2006 n. 7118).
Non senza dire che l’azione in parola era comunque prescritta per l’inutile decorso di ben oltre un decennio, come a suo tempo eccepito dal resistente Comune di Formia e da esso ribadito in questa sede, tenuto conto che la domanda giudiziale idonea ad interrompere la prescrizione è only one in which the plaintiff sought legal protection of the law of limitation where it is, with the result that his claim to seek the fulfillment of an obligation arising from the law (which is that at the time made by Mr. Mazzella for the public acknowledgment of the employment relationship and their differences in pay) is not to stop taking action for unjust enrichment further experiments with reference to the same factual situation (see Cass., sec. III, 29 March 2005 No 6570 and sec. a., February 4, 1997 No 1049).
The appellant also challenges the sentence appealed the ruling of the order for costs. In this respect, notes that, of course, in the appeal proceeding, the decision of the court of first instance on an order to pay the costs and trade unions only when those expenses were charged to a prevailing party, or when its ruling appears manifestly unreasonable, and not when, as here, the conviction was prepared on the basis of submissions (see, among many others, Cons. St., sect. IV, 15 July 2008 No 3564).
In conclusion, the appeal must be dismissed. However, reasons of equity between the parties to advise the compensation of the costs of this degree.
The same appellant states that similar property claims, advanced in the ascertainment of the ratio of direct employment in the employ of Formia, were declared partly inadmissible and partly prescribed.
The Court of First Instance found the experienced action of unjust enrichment is not feasible, since excluded from abstract possibility to satisfy the claims in question with a specific action, in reality unsuccessfully performed, as well as unfounded, the absence of evidence of effective Capital reduction suffered.
Here Mr. Mazzella complains, as regards the first point, that the TAR has ignored for that period, as has been recognized, however, the legal title that would not now entitled to the same action (for recovery of back wages), but the new and separate action sussidiaria ex art. 2041 cod. civ., avendo comunque la pubblica amministrazione utilizzato le proprie prestazioni senza corrispondergli la retribuzione dovuta al dipendente comunale con le stesse funzioni. E, in ordine al secondo profilo, di aver invece fornito la prova predetta mediante l’espresso riferimento al documentato stipendio che egli ha poi percepito per le stesse funzioni, nell’ambito dello stesso rapporto e con riguardo al periodo non prescritto.
L’appello è infondato poiché la pronuncia appellata merita piena conferma.
Ai sensi dell’art. 2042 cod. civ., l’azione di arricchimento senza causa prevista dall’articolo precedente ha "carattere sussidiario", ossia "non è feasible when the injured person may have another action to get the injury compensation.
As well evidenced by the TAR, the assessment of the possibility of making the same claim otherwise must take place in the abstract, namely that it must be ascertained that there was no typical of other remedies, available to order, such as to remove the injury to that question.
In this case there is no doubt that the legislation might be available to Mr. Mazzella a typical action in terms of remuneration of labor services rendered in favor public administration, so that he has made use, albeit with negative results, so the new action era sicuramente inammissibile.
Oltretutto, la svolta domanda era da ritenersi in ogni caso infondata in relazione all’omessa dimostrazione di un impoverimento subito per effetto dell’arricchimento dell’altro soggetto, impoverimento che è altra cosa rispetto al mancato incremento patrimoniale (cfr. Cons. St., sez. V, 3 ottobre 2002 n. 5209, nonché sez. IV, 6 agosto 2005 n. 4171 e Sez. 5 dicembre 2006 n. 7118).
Non senza dire che l’azione in parola era comunque prescritta per l’inutile decorso di ben oltre un decennio, come a suo tempo eccepito dal resistente Comune di Formia e da esso ribadito in questa sede, tenuto conto che la domanda giudiziale idonea ad interrompere la prescrizione è only one in which the plaintiff sought legal protection of the law of limitation where it is, with the result that his claim to seek the fulfillment of an obligation arising from the law (which is that at the time made by Mr. Mazzella for the public acknowledgment of the employment relationship and their differences in pay) is not to stop taking action for unjust enrichment further experiments with reference to the same factual situation (see Cass., sec. III, 29 March 2005 No 6570 and sec. a., February 4, 1997 No 1049).
The appellant also challenges the sentence appealed the ruling of the order for costs. In this respect, notes that, of course, in the appeal proceeding, the decision of the court of first instance on an order to pay the costs and trade unions only when those expenses were charged to a prevailing party, or when its ruling appears manifestly unreasonable, and not when, as here, the conviction was prepared on the basis of submissions (see, among many others, Cons. St., sect. IV, 15 July 2008 No 3564).
In conclusion, the appeal must be dismissed. However, reasons of equity between the parties to advise the compensation of the costs of this degree.
PQM
The Council of State in the courts, Sezione Quinta, respinge l’appello in epigrafe.
Spese compensate.
Ordina che la presente decisione sia eseguita dall'autorità amministrativa.
Così deciso in Roma nella camera di consiglio del 7 novembre 2008 con l’intervento dei magistrati:
Raffaele Iannotta Presidente
Cesare Lamberti Consigliere
Claudio Marchitiello Consigliere
Marzio Branca Consigliere
Angelica Dell’Utri Costagliola Consigliere, estensore
L’ESTENSORE IL PRESIDENTE
Angelica Dell’Utri Costagliola Raffaele Iannotta
DEPOSITATA IN SEGRETERIA
17/02/2009
Spese compensate.
Ordina che la presente decisione sia eseguita dall'autorità amministrativa.
Così deciso in Roma nella camera di consiglio del 7 novembre 2008 con l’intervento dei magistrati:
Raffaele Iannotta Presidente
Cesare Lamberti Consigliere
Claudio Marchitiello Consigliere
Marzio Branca Consigliere
Angelica Dell’Utri Costagliola Consigliere, estensore
L’ESTENSORE IL PRESIDENTE
Angelica Dell’Utri Costagliola Raffaele Iannotta
DEPOSITATA IN SEGRETERIA
17/02/2009
0 comments:
Post a Comment