Communicated on 26 April 2016
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 5257/13
Marco CICCARELLI
against Italy
lodged on 11 November 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marco Ciccarelli, is an Italian national, who was born in 1943 and lives in Rome.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner and administrator of limited company C.
In May 1974 company C. submitted its tax return for the year 1973, in which its tax liability was calculated at 6,770 Italian liras (ITL – approximately 3.50 Euros (EUR)). Company C. paid this sum to the Tax Office.
On 7 November 1977 the Tax Office assessed company C.’s liability for the year 1973 at ITL 403,916 (approximately EUR 208).
On 9 January 1978 the applicant contested this assessment before the Tax District Court (Commissione tributaria di primo grado). He alleged that even though company C. had received rents in the amount of ITL 2,700,000 (approximately EUR 1,394), this sum had been entirely reinvested, and could not be subject to any taxation.
In a judgment of 4 December 1980 the Tax District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. This decision was served on the Tax Office on 12 October 1981.
On 28 August 1984 the Tax office informed company C. that the unpaid taxes for the year 1973 plus interest amounted to ITL 1,097,286 (approximately EUR 566).
On 18 September 1984 the applicant challenged this claim before the Tax District Court. He observed that the judgment of 4 December 1980 had become final in 1981. Therefore, according to Article 17 § 2 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 29 September 1973, the tax authorities should have claimed the relevant sums before the end of 1982. However, company C. was only notified of the claim of ITL 1,097,286 in 1984, and thus out of time. The applicant furthermore requested the Tax Office to stay the execution of its claim pending the proceedings before the Tax District Court.
On 29 October 1984 the tax authorities informed company C. that its assets would be seized and sold at auction in order to recover the sum due.
In a judgment of 18 September 1985, filed with the registry on 13 November 1985, the Tax District Court upheld the applicant’s claim. It observed that the administration did not comply with the time-limit set out in Article 17 § 2 of Presidential Decree No. 602 of 1973 and was therefore estopped from claiming the unpaid taxes for the year 1973.
On 24 June 1986 the tax administration appealed against this judgment. It alleged that the Tax District Court had failed to take into account the extension of the relevant time-limits provided for by Law no. 516 of 7 August 1982.
In a memorial of 23 December 1986 the applicant pleaded that the administration’s appeal was out of time and was in any event devoid of foundation, as Law no. 516 of 1982 did not apply to the time-limit which was relevant in the present case.
In a judgment of 10 December 1987, the Tax Appeal Court (Commissione tributaria di secondo grado) rejected the administration’s appeal as being lodged out of time. It observed that the judgment of 18 September 1985 had been served on the administration on 22 April 1986, and that the appeal was lodged only on 24 June 1986, which was more than 60 days later.
On 20 January 1988 the tax administration informed the applicant that company C. was liable for the sum of ITL 1,097,286 and invited him to present his defence within 15 days.
On 24 February 1988 the Municipality of Rome informed the applicant that the assets of company C. would be sold at auction on 2 and 3 March 1988.
On 2 March 1988 the tax authorities seized some furniture in the headquarters of company C. However, the sale at auction of these items was postponed until 15 April 1988. According to the information provided by the applicant on 13 January 2016, at that date the seizure of the belongings of company C. had not been lifted.
At the applicant’s request, on 21 April 1988 the tax administration decided to stay the enforcement proceedings.
On 11 March 1988 the tax administration lodged an appeal against the judgment of 10 December 1987. It alleged that its appeal against the judgment served on 22 April 1986 had been lodged on 18 June 1986, thus complying with the legal 60 day time-limit.
In a memorial of 7 June 1988 the applicant challenged the administration’s argument. He noted that the administration’s appeal had been received by the registry of the Tax Appeal Court on 24 June 1986.
In a decision of 14 May 2012 the Latium branch of the Central Tax Court (Commissione tributaria centrale – sezione della Regione Lazio) declared that the tax proceedings against company C. were closed (il giudizio ... è estinto). The Central Tax Court noted that according to Article 3 § 2bis of Legal Decree No. 40 of 2010, it should dismiss all cases where the administration had lost in first and second instance and which had been pending for more than 10 years at the date of entry into force of the said law. The aim of the law was to ensure respect of the “reasonable time” requirement.
The applicant alleges that the decision of 14 May 2012 was served on him on 1 June 2012.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the tax authorities were able to seize the assets of company C., even though the competent national courts found that it owed no additional tax for the year 1973. He considers that the tax authorities’ actions were “devoid of reasonable foundation” and were contrary to the judicial decision making.
2. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have at his disposal any effective remedy before a national authority to vindicate his Convention rights.
QUESTIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT
1. Having regard to the applicant’s allegation that the seizure of some assets of company C., which took place in 1984 and 1988, has never been lifted, do the Government consider that the measures taken by the authorities to secure the payment of taxes have infringed the applicant’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1?
2. In particular, having regard to the duration of the seizure and to the fact that the case against the applicant’s company has been closed by the Latium branch of the Central Tax Court, do the Government consider that the authorities have struck a “fair balance” between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the applicant’s fundamental rights (see, for example, National & Provincial Building Society, the Leeds Permanent Building Society and the Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 80, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VII)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are invited to provide any relevant information and documents pertaining to the tax proceedings brought against the applicant’s company and notably concerning the seizure of its assets and furniture.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy