Published on 27 February 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 51056/22
CASSA NAZIONALE DI PREVIDENZA E ASSISTENZA FORENSE FONDAZIONE DI DIRITTO PRIVATO
against Italy
lodged on 21 October 2022
communicated on 8 February 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant is the social security institution for Italian lawyers. It delegated to local State-owned agencies its right to collect receivables from its registered lawyers. The sums collected were eventually only partially transferred to the applicant which therefore brought an action for the remaining part of the credits. While the procedures were pending, Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012 (“the 2012 Law”) was enacted. It waived responsibility for the State-owned debt collector agencies, erased credits below 2,000 euros (annullamento del credito) and discharged higher credits (annullamento del ruolo) generated up until 31 December 1999.
Following the enactment of the 2012 Law, the court of first instance ruled that the 2012 Law was not applicable to the applicant’s receivables, given its private nature. The appeal court overturned the first instance ruling and the court of cassation confirmed the appeal decision deeming the 2012 Law applicable since the applicant was using state-owned agencies to collect its receivables.
The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the automatic erasing of the receivables has caused it substantial losses. It further claims, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the waving of the State-owned agencies’ responsibilities established by Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012 upset the equality of arms principle in the proceedings.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Does the applicant have standing to bring an application under Article 34 of the Convention?
In particular, could the applicant be regarded as a non-governmental organisation within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, having regard in particular to the criteria laid down in the Court’s case-law (see Radio France and Others v. France (dec.), no. 53984/00, § 26, ECHR 2003-X; JKP Vodovod Kraljevo v. Serbia (dec.), no. 57691/09, § 23, 16 October 2018; State holding company Luganksvugillya v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 23938/05, 27 January 2009)? The said criteria are namely the following:
(i) the applicant’s legal status;
(ii) the prerogatives conferred on it by that status;
(iii) the nature of the activity it pursues;
(iv) the context in which it is carried out and
(v) its degree of independence from the public authorities.
In addition, was the possibility to delegate collection of credits to State-owned agencies compatible with its possible nature of non-governmental organisation?
2. Following the application of Article 1 paragraphs 527 (annullamento del credito) and 528 (annullamento del ruolo) of Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012, did the applicant have at its disposal a domestic remedy to further collect its credits, namely before the ordinary courts (cf. the Court of Cassation judgments in cases no. 20484 of 24 June 2022 and no. 21031 of 1 July 2022)?
3. Did the application of Article 1 paragraphs 527 (annullamento del credito) and 528 (annullamento del ruolo) of Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012 constitute an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference 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 under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
4. Did the applicant benefit from a fair trial in the determination of its civil rights and obligations in the light of the application of Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012, in accordance with the principle of equality of arms as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?
If so, was the interference based on compelling grounds of general interest (see Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium, 49812/09, §§ 92-93 and 107-08, 3 November 2022)?