Social Rights

The European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR) has published its decision on the complaints submitted by Sindacato Autonomo Comitato Nazionale Pompieri (CO.NA.PO.), on the situation of two groups of firefighters in Italy under the European Social Charter, namely those recruited before 1 January 2020 and still in active service, and those who retired before 1 January 2020.

In its complaints, CO.NA.PO alleged that certain measures adopted by the Government under Decree-Law No. 76/2020, in application of Law No. 183/2010, which aimed to reform labour market regulations and employment conditions, violated the rights of these firefighters as regards equal treatment in respect of salaries and pensions. In particular, CO.NA.PO. alleged violation of Articles 2§4 (the right to just conditions of work), 4§§1 and 2 (the right to a fair remuneration), 12 (the right to social security), and Article E (non-discrimination) read in conjunction with these provisions of the Charter

The ECSR adopted its decision on the merits on 10 September 2025, finding that the legislative measures introducing a harmonised salary regime for firefighters from 1 January 2020 addressed differences in remuneration between firefighters and police officers, and, despite a transitional period resulting in less favourable treatment for firefighters in service before 2020, pursued a legitimate aim, were based on objective and reasonable grounds, and were implemented through a structured legislative process that led to the removal of the differential treatment. The ECSR considered that the decision to implement the equalisation prospectively, without retroactive compensation, constituted a policy choice within the State’s margin of appreciation.

With regard to social security, the ECSR noted that the absence of compensatory measures for the period 2010-2020 reflected a legislative choice not to extend improved benefits retroactively and did not represent a restrictive evolution of the pension system or deprive workers of satisfactory protection. Furthermore, the ECSR found that these arrangements and the resulting differential treatment did not amount to discrimination within the meaning of the Charter.

Having examined the merits of the case, the ECSR concluded:

• by 14 votes to 1 that there is no violation of Article 1§2 of the Charter;
• by 14 votes to 1 that there is no violation of Article 12§3 alone or Article E read in conjunction with 12§3 of the Charter.

In accordance with Rule 35§1 of the Rules of the Committee, a separate dissenting opinion was appended to the decision.

 Text of the decision