Published on 7 April 2026
 
FIRST SECTION
Applications nos. 16327/22 and 16988/22
Raffaele MASTRANTUONO against Italy
and Giulio DI DONATO against Italy
both lodged on 21 March 2022
communicated on 19 March 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the termination of the applicants’ pension benefits as former members of the Chamber of Deputies of the Parliament, ordered with effect from 9 July 2015 by the Presidency of the Chamber pursuant to Presidency Resolution No. 131 of 7 May 2015. In accordance with Article 1 § 1(b) of the Presidency Resolution, the applicants’ pension entitlements were terminated having regard to their conviction by a final judgment of 15 March 2004 imposing a term of imprisonment exceeding two years for an intentional offence punishable by a maximum custodial sentence of no less than six years (corruption).
The applicants challenged the measure before the competent judicial bodies of the Chamber of Deputies, namely the Consiglio di Giurisdizione at first instance and the Collegio d’Appello on appeal, which upheld the decision adopted by the Presidency of the Chamber.
The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, that the internal judicial bodies of the Chamber of Deputies which examined their case were composed exclusively of members of the Chamber, who were appointed by the President of the Chamber and were moreover required to adjudicate matters directly concerning them. They further complain that the decision to terminate their pension benefits amounts to a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, as it constitutes a disproportionate interference with their peaceful enjoyment of possessions. In the applicants’ view, the measure failed to strike a fair balance, as it resulted in the complete loss of their pension benefits on the basis of a retroactive amendment to the applicable regulatory framework and gave rise to a disparity of treatment compared with an analogous case within the Senate of the Republic.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1.  Was the tribunal which dealt with the applicants’ case independent and impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (Savino and Others v. Italy, nos. 17214/05 and 2 others, 28 April 2009)?
2.  Was the interference with the applicants’ peaceful enjoyment of possessions in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, was the interference necessary and proportionate to the aims pursued for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Stefanetti and Others v. Italy, nos. 21838/10 and 7 others, 15 April 2014; Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09 and 4 others, 31 May 2011)?
 
 
 
APPENDIX
 
List of applications:
 
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
16327/22
Mastrantuono v. Italy
21/03/2022
Raffaele MASTRANTUONO
1943
Naples
Italian
Antonio PAGLIANO
2.
16988/22
Di Donato
v. Italy
21/03/2022
Giulio DI DONATO
1947
Montopoli in Sabina
Italian
Antonio PAGLIANO