The taxpayer, invoking an alleged right to conscientious objection, declared that he had diverted part of the personal income tax (IRPEF) due on his declared income, withholding it from the Treasury and instead allocating it to the National Office for Civil Service and to a charitable organization. In support of his conduct, he relied on a claimed right to conscientious objection with respect to the financing of military expenditure and abortion-related expenditure. In his view, this right was protected under Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 24 of Law No. 196/2009 (which does not recognize a right to conscientious objection) and Law No. 230/1998 (governing conscientious objection to compulsory military service). The Italian Supreme Court (Court of Cassation) dismissed all the taxpayer’s grounds of appeal, upholding the decisions rendered by the lower courts.

The Court ruled out the need to make a preliminary reference under Article 267 TFEU, holding that there were no reasonable doubts of interpretation requiring the intervention of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Article 10 of the Charter protects freedom of thought, conscience and religion but leaves the regulation of conscientious objection to the Member States, while matters relating to national security and social policies concerning abortion fall within the broad discretion of the Member States. Outside the scope of such legislation, there is no room for the protection of personal convictions expressed in matters concerning national security, social policies for the protection of motherhood in its broadest sense, or, more generally, the provisions governing the State’s power to levy taxes.

The Court also declared inadmissible the constitutional challenge concerning Articles 36-bis of Presidential Decree No. 600 of 1973 and Articles 37–38 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973, insofar as those provisions allegedly failed to allow a tax refund or tax offset based on a claimed “tax conscientious objection” to military or abortion-related expenditure. The Court held that the challenged provisions merely implement the constitutional principles of universality, integrity and unity of the State budget, as well as the constitutional duty to contribute to public expenditure under Articles 2, 53 and 81 of the Italian Constitution. Accordingly, they cannot serve as the basis for an individual right to escape, in whole or in part, one’s tax obligations on grounds of conscience.

 

(Comment by Chiara Francioso)