In its judgment of 6 February 2025, the European Court of Human Rights found that the Italian State had violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with regard to the procedures governing access to business premises, on-site inspections, and the acquisition of accounting documents by the Italian Revenue Agency or the Financial Police.

The applicants – twelve companies and one individual – complained of the broad discretion conferred on the domestic authorities by the national legislation and of the lack of sufficient procedural safeguards capable of protecting them against any abuse or arbitrariness, and in particular that there had been no ex ante and/or ex post judicial or independent review of the contested measures. The contested measures, although authorized by domestic provisions (Articles 51 and 52 of Presidential Decree No. 633 of 26 October 1972 and Articles 32 and 33 of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 29 September 1973), were not subject to prior judicial review, unless the business premises also constituted a private dwelling.

The Court recalled that the protection afforded by Article 8 of the Convention extends, for entrepreneurs and professionals, to business headquarters and commercial or professional premises. In its view, the Italian legal framework fails to meet the requirement of the “quality of law,” insofar as it allows for inspections and the acquisition of documents based on internal authorisations that are poorly reasoned and not subject to any form of judicial or independent review. This right is not guaranteed, in fact, by the remedies available before the Taxpayer’s Ombudsman, nor by the possibility of filing a suit before a civil or tax court. The latter remedy is dependent on the inspection resulting in a formal tax assessment notification, which could be issued years after the inspection. In any case, the applicable domestic legislation lays down no conditions whatsoever for authorizing field audits in business or professional premises, and therefore, the Court found it implausible that an ex post challenge to an unlawful authorization could lead to the annulment of a tax assessment, except where no authorization was ever issued. Moreover, there was no assessment of the necessity or proportionality of the measures adopted, which constituted a significant interference with the private and professional life of the persons concerned.

In light of the systematic nature of the violations found, the Court called upon Italy to implement reforms capable of ensuring effective protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. To that end, it recommended the adoption of clear and specific criteria for authorizing inspections of business and professional premises, together with the guarantee of effective remedies against any infringement. The Court noted that most of the necessary measures are already present in domestic law, particularly in Articles 12 and 13 of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (Law No. 212 of 27 July 2000), but it stressed that the general principles set forth therein must be implemented through more detailed rules, and that national case law must be brought in line with those principles and with the standards established by the Court.

 

(Comment by Chiara Francioso)