Published on 18 December 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 35505/22
Maria SAUSA
against Italy
lodged on 8 July 2022
communicated on 27 November 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the reporting of the applicant, an agricultural entrepreneur, to the Bank of Italy’s Central Credit Register (Centrale dei rischi) on account of her delay in the payment of some interest debts towards a bank, and the subsequent inclusion in that register by the Bank of Italy of the applicant’s name and unpaid debt.
Pursuant to the relevant domestic provisions, banks and financial entities have a duty to report delayed payments. Although the inclusion in the register is made by the Bank of Italy, the responsibility for the accuracy of the data rests with the reporting entity. However, as recognised by the domestic authorities in the applicant’s case, the bank erroneously reported the entire amount of her debt (1,635,973 euros (EUR)), instead of the amount of the interests that she had failed to pay in due time (EUR 35,973).
In 2009 the applicant lodged a rectification request with the Bank of Italy, which was upheld by the latter.
In 2010 the applicant further instituted civil proceedings against the bank, arguing that it had reported an erroneous amount, and claiming compensation for the damages allegedly suffered. The Court of Appeal of Turin, on the basis of an expert assessment, acknowledged that the bank had erroneously reported a higher debt. However, the Court of Appeal excluded that the bank had an obligation of notifying the applicant of its intention to report her. Moreover, although it acknowledged that an incorrect reporting affects the concerned individual’s right to honour, image and professional reputation, it considered that the applicant had contributed by not paying her debt and had failed to discharge her burden of proof with regard to the damage suffered. It therefore dismissed her claim for compensation. On 8 March 2022 the Court of Cassation confirmed the judgment.
The applicant argues that her right to respect for her private life, namely her professional reputation, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, has been violated. In particular, she complains that the domestic legal framework imposes on private entities an obligation to automatically report unpaid debts but does not provide guarantees to prevent errors or abuses. Moreover, no individualised assessment of the debtors’ situation is made by the Bank of Italy before entering the debtor’s name in the register. Thus, there are no safeguards in place to ensure the accuracy of the data included in register.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the reporting of her unpaid debt to the Bank of Italy (see, mutatis mutandis, M.S. v. Sweden, no. 20837/92, § 35, 27 August 1997; and compare with Vukota-Bojić v. Switzerland, no. 61838/10, § 47, 18 October 2016) and of the inclusion of her full name, date of birth and amount of the debt in the Central Credit Register (see, in particular, M.N. and Others v. San Marino, no. 28005/12, § 51-53, 7 July 2015; Samoylova v. Russia, no. 49108/11, §§ 62-63, 14 December 2021; and L.B. v. Hungary [GC], no. 36345/16, §§ 102-06, 9 March 2023)?
2. If so, was the interference “in accordance with the law”, within the meaning the second paragraph of Article 8? In particular, did domestic law provide sufficient safeguards to guarantee the accuracy of the data reported by private entities and included by the Bank of Italy in the Central Credit Register, thereby preventing potential damages to the applicant’s reputation (see S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 99, ECHR 2008; Breyer v. Germany, no. 50001/12, § 83, 30 January 2020; see also, mutatis mutandis, L.B. v. Hungary, cited above, § 123, and the case-law cited therein)?
3. Was the interference “necessary in a democratic society” and proportionate, taking into account its automatic application in the absence of an individualised assessment of the applicant’s situation (see L.B. v. Hungary, cited above, § 124-25, with further references; see also, mutatis mutandis, Polyakh and Others v. Ukraine, nos. 58812/15 and 4 others, § 293, 17 October 2019)?
4. Have the State authorities complied with their positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to protect the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, by guaranteeing the accuracy of the reporting of unpaid debts by a private entity and the redress for damages allegedly caused by the latter (see the general principles in López Ribalda and Others v. Spain [GC], nos. 1874/13 and 8567/13, §§ 110-13, 17 October 2019)?
The applicant is requested to submit the Bank of Italy’s rectification decision.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy