SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application nos. 14830/07, 17913/07 and 24729/07
by Tiziana CELANO and Others
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
	Françoise Tulkens, President,
	Danutė Jočienė,
	David Thór Björgvinsson,
	Dragoljub Popović,
	András Sajó,
	Işıl Karakaş,
	Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 2 April 2007, 19 April 2007 and 4 June 2007 respectively,
Having regard to the partial decision of 5 October 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants (see attached table) are Italian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Mr M. de Stefano, a lawyer practising in Rome. The Italian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent Ms E. Spatafora, and their Co-Agent, Ms P. Accardo.
A.  The circumstances of the case
1. Background of the case
The applicants are all graduates in medicine and surgery. They have been undergoing a specialisation course “medici in formazione specialistica/ medici specializzandi”, on a scholarship for a number of years at the University of La Sapienza in Rome.
The details about the applicants’ registration dates and the length of their courses can be found in the attached table.
In accordance with section 39 of legislative decree no. 368 of 17 August 1999 (“Law no. 368”), they have been receiving remuneration of approximately 11,000 euros (EUR) per year for their academic work and practical work in hospitals. This amount remained the same throughout their years of service until 2006, notwithstanding that originally the law provided for adjustment according to inflation and a tri-annual revision. The latter had to be in accordance with a yet-to-be-enacted law on budget allocation (section 46 of Law no. 368) which was never enacted. Moreover, pay rises provided by the ordinary law had been blocked by the Government by means of various legal provisions. It was only through the “legge finanziaria” of 2006 that these pay rises were provided for, but only to take effect from the year 2006-2007. As a consequence the applicants, up to the year 2006, allegedly lost approximately 40-50% of what their salaries would have been if adjusted.
During their service the applicants were not covered by an obligatory insurance and were not registered with the Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale (“INPS”), an Italian welfare entity, the latter notwithstanding that they claimed that their right to registration and cover by INPS had been provided for by Law no. 368 and was to be managed by the University. The provisions applicable to a contract of work-training (formazione-lavoro) (see section 37 (1) of Law no. 368) were section 3 (6) of Law no. 726 of 1984 as amended by Law no. 863 of the same year and section 41 of Law no. 368, which expressly provided for the payment of contributions. Social security cover was also due to medici specializzandi as transpired from section 37 (6) of Law no. 368 (see Relevant domestic law for legal texts).
According to section 46 of Law no. 368, such social security cover would enter into force upon the enactment of the apposite legal provisions on budget allocation. However, for several years after the applicants took up their functions the relevant provisions were not enacted. Thus, they remained without social security cover for the entire period of service or up to 2006.
In 2006 by means of the “legge finanziaria”, Law no. 368 was amended, in that medici specializzandi were to be governed by contracts of specialist training “di formazione specialistica” and no longer contracts of work-training. This law expressly provided for the registration with the INPS of medici specializzandi, under the provisions applicable to all categories of self-employed. Section 41 of Law no. 368 was amended accordingly (see Relevant domestic law). However, social security cover for the medici specializzandi was provided for only with effect from the year 2006-2007. Thus, the applicants remained excluded from such benefits entirely or up to the said year, respectively.
2. Domestic proceedings
On 11 April 2005 the first three applicants (application no. 14830/07) and another seventy-three individuals in their position instituted proceedings before the Rome Labour Court claiming that they had been denied social security cover and “salary” adjustments as a result of the failure to enact the law containing the relevant budgetary provisions. Such an omission was also contrary to EU regulations on the matter.
By a judgment of 27 September 2006 filed with the relevant registry on 2 October 2006 their claims were rejected. The Rome Labour Court considered of relevance only the legislation in force at the time and not subsequent legislation. Distinguishing between medici in formazione specialistica and “medico strutturato”, it held that the relevant EU directive (Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications) left issues related to medici in formazione specialistica in a lacuna, the directive concentrating on reciprocal recognition of qualifications, freedom of movement of the profession and the coordination between States of the exercise of the medical profession. In particular, it did not provide specific criteria in relation to the principle of “appropriate remuneration”. In consequence it could not be said that the EU directive created a right in respect of specific salaries for medici in formazione specialistica. Neither was it possible to derive that right from sections 37 and 38 of Law no. 368, which aimed to transpose the said directive into national law. The limited time during which these provisions were in force before they were suspended by the same measures also suspending sections 39 and 41 did not allow for the creation of a substantive and actionable right on the part of the applicants. The stipulation of a contract of “annual training” could not allow medici specializzandi to acquire a right to remuneration adjustment and social security cover as provided in sections 39 and 41 of the said law which was suspended by express statutory norms, until the enactment of budgetary provisions. Neither did it appear that in the short time (a bit more than two months) before the latter suspension, the relevant decree “Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri” (DPCM), which would have defined the work-training contract’s scheme, had been adopted. Without this there could not be any activation of the norm. It follows that in the absence of the DPCM and relevant budgetary provisions, the failure of universities to stipulate “work-training” contracts could not give rise to any consequences, since Articles 37, 39 and 41 of the said law never became operational.
An appeal is still pending. However, the first, second and third applicants claim that in view of current jurisprudence (see relevant domestic law) it is unlikely that such proceedings will be successful. Similarly, all the remaining applicants have not undertaken any domestic proceedings for the same reasons.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Legislative decree no. 368 of 17 August 1999 (Law no. 368) at the relevant time.
In so far as relevant, the sections at issue read as follows:
Section 37
“1) On registration at the universities specialising in medicine and surgery, a doctor enters into a specific annual contract of work-training (formazione-lavoro), as provided for by this decree and the norms in force in this respect, in so far as there may be lacunae and in so far as compatible with the provisions of the present decree. A contract becomes binding exclusively on the achievement of the professional competencies inherent for the title of specialist, by the carrying out of formal didactic and assisting activities relevant to the achievement of the competencies provided by the academic regulations of the relevant schools in accordance with European Union guidelines. This contract does not guarantee access to roles in the National Health Service or the University or to any employment relations with such entities.
(2) The scheme type of the contract is defined by a decree “Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri” (“DPCM”) [...]
(4) The annual contract is renewable each year for a total of years equal to the duration of the specialisation course.
(6) In the event of early cancellation of a contract, the doctor has the right to receive the remuneration accumulated to the date of the cancellation and to benefit from the contributions relevant to the working period.”
Section 39 (2)
“The remuneration is determined, every three years, according to the decree mentioned in Article 35 (1), in so far as may be permitted by the funds provided for by section 6 (2) of Law no. 428 of 29 December 1990 (re funds allocated for the implementation of EU directives) and the quotas of the national health fund intended for this purpose.”

Section 41
 “(1) The remuneration is subject to the provisions of Article 4 of Law no. 476 of 13 August 1984 (scholarships are exempt from income tax).
(2) For welfare purposes, the employers’ contribution is 75% of the ordinary contribution for the health sector, which may be re-determined by ministerial decree [...], in accordance with the evolution of the welfare treatment of work-training contracts.”
Section 41 (2) as amended by the “legge finanziaria” 2005
“With effect from the academic year 2006-2007, contracts of specialist training are to be governed by ... [relevant provisions].”
Section 46
“(1) Any financial burdens arising from Title V of the said decree are to be covered by the resources provided for in .... [relevant law], the quotas of the national health fund due for the training of specialised doctors and any other resources made available by the apposite legislative provisions.
(2) Sections 39 and 41 will apply on the entry into force of the provisions mentioned in sub article 1; till then sections 6 of Law no. 257 of 8 August 1991 remains applicable.”
Sub-section (2) is a result of an amendment by section 8 (3) of Law no. 517 of 1999. In so far as relevant, section 6 of Law no. 257 of 8 August 1991, regarding scholarships, reads as follows:
“(1) Persons admitted to specialised schools as defined by the programme referred to in section 2 (2) in relation to full-time service, are entitled, for the entire duration of their course save any suspension periods, to a scholarship amounting to 21,500,000 Italian lire as determined for the year 1991. This amount is to be, as from 1 January 1992, annually increased by the rate of inflation and must be re-determined every three years by ministerial decree, in accordance with the minimum established salary improvements provided for by collective bargaining in respect of the medical staff employed by the National Health Service.
(2) The scholarship is to be paid by rate every two months, by the relevant specialised school as recognised in terms of section 7. In respect of persons who have not successfully passed their annual examination by the end of the autumn session, the payment of the scholarship shall cease from the start of the month following their definite failure to succeed the examination.
(3) Division and allocation of funds as established by Law no. 428 of 29 December 1990 is to be provided for by ministerial decree on the basis of the decree referred to in section 2 (2).
(4) (Provision related to foreign students)
(5) Section 6 (2) of Law no. 428 of 29 December 1990 (re funds allocated for the implementation of EU directives) shall apply.”
However, the increments provided for by section 6 of Law no. 257 of 8 August 1991 were blocked by a series of legislative decrees and by-laws, dated 1992, 1995 and 2002.
2. Work-training contracts
At the relevant time a work-training contract was governed by the provisions of section 3 (6) of legislative decree no. 726 of 1984, as amended by Law no. 863 of 1984, which read as follows:
“For persons employed under a work-training contract, the employers’ contribution is a fixed rate corresponding to that for apprentices according to Law no. 25 of 19 January 1955 and its successive amendments, bearing in mind the employees’ contribution as provided for the majority of employees.”
The relevant amendment provided for a reduction in the welfare contributions vis-à-vis that of normal subordinate employees, equating it to that of apprentices.
3. Remuneration adjustments
In the judgment Commission v. Italy, case 49/86 of 7 July 1987, the European Court of Justice (“the ECJ”) held that Italy had failed to transpose the relevant directives in so far as it had failed to provide for “appropriate remuneration” of medici in formazione specialistica.
Subsequently, in 1990 the relevant directives were transposed into Italian law, namely Law no. 428 of 1990 (see above), which provided for the detailed conditions relevant to funding in the sector. Its section 6 (2) provided that adjustments should be integrated annually.
According to section 6 of Law no. 257 of August 1991 (see above) the scholarship amounted to EUR 11,000 per year, it was to be annually increased by the inflation rate and re-determined triennially, by ministerial decree, in accordance with the minimum established salary increases provided by the collective bargaining of the National Health Service’s medical staff. Subsequently, this was amended by Law no. 368 of 17 August 1999, sections 37-38 (see above). By Law no. 266 of 23 December 2005 (“legge finanziaria”) scholarship awards were raised and social security cover was introduced as from 1 November 2006.
Up to the enactment of the relevant budgetary provisions in accordance with Law no. 368, the law applicable in relation to budgetary adjustments was section 6 of Law no. 257 of 8 August 1991. However, by means of a series of legislative measures, the possibility of such pay rises had been blocked.
In this respect the Constitutional Court judgment of 23 December 1997 – Bartolomei c. Univ. studi Genova e altri – held that the legislative blocking of automatic adjustment of scholarships for medici specializzandi had been legitimate. The measures adapted the plaintiff’s situation to a common principle present in the public and private sector, namely the counteraction of the increase in the cost of living by contractual flexibility. Thus, the exceptional exclusion of scholarships from adjustments according to the rate of inflation, for a limited period of time, was not unreasonable or discriminatory. It was part and parcel of a complex group of norms in the health sector aiming to impede, for the same period of time, all pay rises arising from automatic salary increments.
4. European Union Directive
The Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
Article 24
1. Member States shall ensure that the training leading to a diploma, certificate or other evidence of formal qualifications in specialised medicine, meets the following requirements at least:
 (a) it shall entail the successful completion of six years’ study within the framework of the training course referred to in Article 23, (...)
 (b) it shall comprise theoretical and practical instruction;
(c) it shall be a full-time course supervised by the competent authorities or bodies pursuant to point 1 of Annex I;
(d) it shall be in a university centre, in a teaching hospital or, where appropriate, in a health establishment approved for this purpose by the competent authorities or bodies;
(e) it shall involve the personal participation of the doctor training to be a specialist in the activity and in the responsibilities of the establishments concerned.
ANNEX I - Characteristics of the full-time and part-time training of specialists as referred to in Articles 24 (1) (c) and 25
1. Full-time training of specialists
Such training shall be carried out in specific posts recognized by the competent authority.
It shall involve participation in all the medical activities of the department where the training is carried out, including on-call duties, so that the trainee specialist devotes to this practical and theoretical training all his professional activity throughout the duration of the standard working week and throughout the year according to provisions agreed by the competent authorities. Accordingly these posts shall be subject to appropriate remuneration.
2. Part-time training of specialists
(...) Appropriate remuneration shall consequently be attached to such part-time training.
5. Relevant domestic case-law
(a) Antonella Barbara and 55 others – judgment of the Milan Labour Court of 8 November 2007
In relation to the matter at issue in the present applications, the Milan Labour Court held that Law no. 368, in so far as it stipulated an annual contract of training, was not operative at the relevant time, it having become so only in 2006/2007 by means of the legge finanziaria. The application of section 37 of the said law had been suspended by means of section 8 (3) of Law no. 517 of 1999. The latter provision amended section 46 of Law no. 368, establishing that its provisions will apply only on the entry into force of legislative budgetary measures (which before 2005 had not been introduced). Up to that future date, Law no. 257 of 1991 was applicable, which provided for the payment of a scholarship for medici specializzandi. It held that, as acknowledged by the ECJ, the relevant EU Directive did not indicate a definition of appropriate remuneration, nor did it establish criteria for the calculation of such remuneration. Thus, there was no unconditional obligation on the State in this respect. Moreover, the said directive did not oblige member States to stipulate contracts of subordinate work with specialising doctors, as the same objective could be achieved by means of other forms of contract and the relevant remuneration through different methods. In consequence, national law was not in contradiction with the EU directive.
The plaintiffs were covered by Law no. 257 and as previously stated by the Constitutional Court the functions undertaken by medici specializzandi did not constitute subordinate labour.
As to the adjustments of the scholarship award (section 6 of Law no. 257) Law no. 384 of 1992 and successive laws blocked any adjustments. This matter had been examined by the Constitutional Court - judgment of 23 December 1997 – Bartolomei c. Univ. studi Genova e altri, which found it to be legitimate (see above).
(b) Ardizzone Claudio and 24 others – judgment of the Messina Labour Court of 10 December 2007
In relation to the same subject matter at issue in the present applications, the Messina Labour Court rejected the complaints on the basis that the EU directive was generic as to what constituted appropriate remuneration. Moreover, such rights could not have arisen from domestic constitutional criteria, as the function at issue did not equate to subordinate labour, it being a different relationship connected to training.
(c) Unnamed judgment of the Court of Cassation, in its full composition, (Sezioni Unite), of 16 December 2008
In relation to the same subject matter at issue in the present applications, the Court of Cassation rejected the claims of the medici specializzandi for adjustment of their remuneration for the period between 1998 and 2002.
(d) Unnamed judgment of the Perugia Tribunal of 21 January 2010
In relation to the same subject matter at issue in the present applications, the Perugia Tribunal found in favour of the plaintiffs in the applicants’ position.
(e) Unnamed judgment of the Turin Tribunal of 24 September 2010
In relation to the same subject matter at issue in the present applications, the Turin Tribunal found in favour of the plaintiffs in the applicants’ position. It noted that the Constitutional Court judgment of 23 December 1997 had held that the exceptional exclusion of scholarships from adjustments according to the rate of inflation was not unreasonable or discriminatory, only on the basis that it had been in place for a limited period of time. This was not so in the present case.
COMPLAINTS
Invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14, the applicants complain that by means of a subsequent law they were denied their right to the adjustment of their ‘salary’ scales and their social security cover as provided by law for a number of years and that this was discriminatory. Indeed medici specializzandi enrolled in or after 1999 were subject to harsher pay conditions vis-à-vis those enrolled from 2006 onwards, and the former had no social security cover.
THE LAW
The applicants claimed that on the basis of the law as it stood they had a legitimate expectation to have their pay adjusted according to the increase in the cost of living and that they would be covered by social security. The failure of the authorities to enact the relevant legislation making this possible had thus breached their property rights. Moreover, the fact that medici specializzandi who were in the relevant courses before 2006-2007 had been denied these benefits constituted discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis others who enrolled in the subsequent years. They relied on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 alone and in conjunction with Article 14, which read as follows:
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.”
Article 14
“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

The Government submitted that the applications had to be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, since proceedings were either pending or had never been undertaken by the applicants.
To date there had not been a consolidated jurisprudence unfavourable to the applicants’ claims, but only a large number of pending proceedings. The few judgments delivered could not provide any foreseeable outcomes. Indeed, the judgment of 24 September 2010 of the Turin Tribunal found in favour of the claimants in the applicants’ position. It highlighted that the Constitutional Court judgment of 23 December 1997 (relied on by the applicants to reaffirm their claim that they could not have a successful outcome) had held that the exceptional exclusion of scholarships from adjustments according to the rate of inflation, was not unreasonable or discriminatory, but only on the basis that it had been in place for a limited period of time, which was not so in the present case. The same was upheld in a judgment of the Perugia Tribunal dated 21 January 2010.
Moreover, the Government did not exclude the possibility of a tribunal requesting a preliminary reference to the ECJ in this respect. They opined that the subsidiarity principle excluded the Court from interpreting national law which was still evolving at the domestic level, particularly when the question at issue formed part of the European Union legal framework.
On the basis of the Court’s case-law, the applicants considered that at the time of the introduction of their application the available remedies had had no prospects of success and they could not therefore have been expected to undertake proceedings. At the moment of the introduction of the applications, all the Italian courts had rejected claims, such as those made by the applicants, on the basis of the Constitutional Court judgment of 1997. One such example was the first-instance judgment of the Rome Tribunal in the cases of the first three applicants, Mr Celano, Mr Bertini and Mr Costantino. After that judgment the Rome Tribunal reiterated its findings in a number of cases and on 16 December 2008 the Court of Cassation, sitting in its full composition, again rejected such claims. It was only recently, in 2010, that the courts had found in favour of the claims of persons in the same situation as that of the applicants. However, the cases cited by the Government were first-instance judgments and therefore not yet final. Lastly, the applicants submitted that if they were made to lodge their complaints now before the domestic courts, for the years antecedent to 2006, these would be rejected as time-barred, as there is a prescriptive period of five years.
The Court reiterates that the purpose of the exhaustion rule is to afford the Contracting States the opportunity of preventing or putting right the violations alleged against them before those allegations are submitted to it (see, among many other authorities, Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, § 74, ECHR 1999-V). That rule is based on the assumption, reflected in Article 13 of the Convention – with which it has close affinity – that there is an effective remedy available in respect of the alleged breach in the domestic system (ibid.). In this way, it is an important aspect of the principle that the machinery of protection established by the Convention is subsidiary to the national systems safeguarding human rights (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 65, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, and Aksoy v. Turkey, 18 December 1996, § 51, Reports 1996-VI).
Nevertheless, the only remedies which Article 35 of the Convention requires to be exhausted are those that relate to the breaches alleged and at the same time are available and sufficient. The existence of such remedies must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but also in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness (see Akdivar and Others, cited above, § 66, and Dalia v. France, 19 February 1998, § 38, Reports 1998-I). In addition, according to the “generally recognised principles of international law”, there may be special circumstances which absolve the applicant from the obligation to exhaust the domestic remedies at his disposal (see Selmouni, cited above, § 75). However, the Court points out that the existence of mere doubts as to the prospects of success of a particular remedy which is not obviously futile is not a valid reason for failing to exhaust domestic remedies (see Brusco v. Italy (dec.), no. 69789/01, ECHR 2001‑IX). The issue whether domestic remedies have been exhausted shall normally be determined by reference to the date when the application was lodged with the Court. This rule is however subject to exceptions which might be justified by the specific circumstances of each case (see, for example, Baumann v. France, no. 33592/96, § 47, 22 May 2001; Nogolica v. Croatia (dec.), no. 77784/01, ECHR 2002-VIII; and Mariën v. Belgium (dec.), no. 46046/99, 24 June 2004).
The Court observes that at the time when the applicants introduced their applications before the Court (2007), there had not been one final judgment delivered by the Italian highest court, namely the Court of Cassation, confirming the rejection of the claims made by medici specializzandi. The first judgment delivered in this sense, and rejecting such claims, was that of 16 December 2008 by the Court of Cassation, sitting as a full court. Thus, at the time when the applicants wished to complain about the alleged violations there was not sufficient evidence indicating that the available remedies had no reasonable prospects of success. Moreover, as established by the Government, subsequent decisions have been contradictory, and the courts have recently granted the claims at issue, although none of them has to date been confirmed by a final judgment. In this light, the implications of the Constitutional Court judgment of 1997 cannot be considered as resolving in the determination of future disputes. Moreover, the Court notes that, had it been clear that there were no prospects of success as of 1997, the applicants should immediately have lodged an application to the Court, and in any event, not later than the last day on which they did not receive the relevant treatment, in order to comply with the six-month rule.
Bearing in mind the above, the Court considers that there is no evidence enabling it to hold that at the date when the applications were lodged with the Court, the remedies available in the Italian domestic system would not have had any prospects of success.
Lastly, as to the applicants’ argument that such claims would now be time-barred, the Court observes that, the applicants had an opportunity to obtain redress for their grievances at national level. Therefore, in principle, it was for them to avail themselves of that opportunity. Their own risk-based choice to set aside any such remedies and immediately attempt an application before the Court cannot, thus, preclude them from being the subjects of formal requirements and prescribed time-limits in domestic law.
It follows that the applications must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
	 Françoise Elens-Passos	Françoise Tulkens	Deputy Section Registrar	Presidente

List of applicants and relevant details

Applic no.	Applicant’s name	Lives in	DOB	Started course on	course years	
						
14830/07	Celano Tiziana	Ciro Marina	17.02.69	2000-2001	4	
	Bertini Luca	Roma	29.12.75	2001-2002	4	
	Costantino Enio	Verona	19.11.72	1999-2000	5	
17913/07	De Stefano Alessia	Roma	14.03.75	2003-2004	4	
	Trevisi Manuela	Roma	01.06.78	2004-2005	4	
	Zangaro Stefania	Roma	13.07.72	2004-2005	4	
	Manzari Anna	Martina franca	14.06.78	2003-2004	4	
	Buffo Silvia	Roma	14.02.73	2003-2004	4	
	Ruberto Gaia	Roma	28.09.80	2005-2006	4	
	Soletti Laura	Roma	28.08.75	2002-2003	7	
	Di Bari Virginia	Roma	12.12.74	2004-2005	4	
	Granata David	Roma	17.04.75	2003-2004	5	
	Tango Francesca	Roma	22.07.74	2002-2003	5	
24729/07	Ambrosini Allessandro	Roma	19.08.71	2004-2005	4	
	Cimillo Manuela	Roma	08.05.80	2005-2006	4	
	Fares Maria Katia	Ascoli Piceno	15.08.75	2003-2004	4	
	Frasca Mirko	Roma	29.11.76	2004-2005	4	
	Maggi Barbara	Roma	25.11.77	2004-2005	4	
	Mastrangelo Mario	Salerno	26.05.78	2004-2005	4	
	Matteucci Maria Luisa	Viterbo	04.10.76	2003-2004	4	
	Paolemili Marco	Roma	24.06.80	2005-2006	4	
	Pierconti Silvia	Roma	04.11.77	2003-2004	4	
	Tetti Martina	Roma	11.02.79	2005-2006	4