Italy’s disrespect for rule of law hurts all of EU

Friction between member states and EU law are not unusual.

The success of the European Union rests on a shared respect for the rule of law. Without that, it is nothing. When a country joins the Union, as Croatia has just done, it signs up to the body of EU law – the acquis communautaire – and it is that shared acquis that defines the relationship between member states that in many other respects differ from each other greatly – in history, tradition, culture and economy.

History teaches, however, that membership of this rules-based club brings with it disagreements over those rules. A defining condition of being in the EU appears to be that there will be clashes over the application of EU law. Member states argue among themselves over how EU law should be interpreted. They argue even more with the European Commission, which is supposed to be the guardian of the EU’s treaties. And sometimes the disputes become cases for adjudication at the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the arbiter of EU law.

Such disputes occur across a wide range of EU subject-matter. Croatia, almost immediately after its admission, finds itself in a struggle with the Commission over the scope of European arrest warrants. Meanwhile, Germany is testing EU law with its refusal to comply with rules on what coolants can be used in cars. Such frictions are not unusual.

However, the record of successive Italian governments in their treatment of foreign lecturers working in Italy’s universities – lettori – has gone beyond the bounds of normal friction. The lettori dispute, which is essentially about treating foreigners differently from Italian citizens, sets its own aberrant standards for what constitutes normal behaviour.

First, this is a case that has been dragging on for well nigh three decades. During that time, this newspaper has had to return to this case again and again. We do not apologise for doing so, even though the essential elements have barely changed: Italy’s prevarication and intransigence should not be rewarded with quiescence from everyone else.

Secondly, the plaintiffs have exhausted due process: having won a case at the ECJ, they found that Italy has failed to comply. It falls to the European Commission to ensure that Italy complies with ECJ rulings. Such failure to comply and failure to enforce constitute a grave threat to the EU’s legal structures.

Thirdly, the Italian authorities have resorted to extreme measures to thwart the plaintiffs. The Gelmini law of 2011 has been used not to refute or overturn the judgment of the ECJ and its effects, but to sidestep them entirely.

What has been missing in Italy for so long – and latterly in the EU institutions – is a proper appreciation of the significance of the lettori case. Fewer than 200 lecturers are involved, so this does not personally affect many EU citizens. The amount of money involved is not enormous, although it is big enough to matter to the individuals and to the cash-strapped universities. But that is not its true significance. After so many years of contempt by successive governments, this case has become a test of whether or not the rule of law applies in the EU.