Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 95
March 2007
Spampinato v. Italy (dec.) - 23123/04
Decision 29.3.2007 [Section III]
Article 14
Discrimination
Obligation on taxpayer to allocate a portion of his income tax to specific beneficiaries without any right to reduce the share payable to each except in the case of the State: inadmissible
The applicant worked as a trainee lawyer. On his income-tax return he opted to allocate eight thousandths of the tax to the State. The relevant legislation provides that this proportion must be allocated to the State, to the Catholic church, or to one of the institutions representing the other five religions which had agreed to receive that contribution. Taxpayers are required to indicate their choice when they fill in their tax return. If no option is indicated, the corresponding sum is paid to the State, the Catholic church and the institutions representing the other five religions, in proportion to the choices made by all taxpayers. The portion of that income tax received by the State is earmarked for activities with a social purpose. However, the total amount of this portion is reduced every year by EUR 80,000,000 – a sum which the State is allowed to use freely according to its needs.
Inadmissible under Articles 9 and 14 – The Court was unable to share the applicant’s view that the choice of allocation of a portion of income tax necessarily obliged him to indicate his religious affiliation. Under the relevant law, taxpayers were able not to make any choice as to the allocation of the eight thousandths of their income tax. The provision in question did not entail any obligation to express one’s religious beliefs: manifestly ill-founded.
Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 14 of the Convention – The applicant complained that he was liable for a tax payment from which only certain specific recipients could benefit and that only the portion of income tax allocated to the State could be reduced. The levying of taxes constituted justified interference with the right of property. In such matters States parties enjoyed a wide margin of appreciation, which was particularly justified with regard to establishment of the delicate relations between the State and religions, given that there was no common European standard governing the financing of churches or religious movements, and that such questions were closely related to the history and traditions of each country. The tax law in question did not provide for a tax to be added to the ordinary income tax but only for a specific allocation of a percentage of that tax. This fell within the State’s margin of appreciation and could not as such be regarded as arbitrary. The tax in question could not be said to have imposed an excessive burden on the applicant or to have upset the “fair balance” that had to be struck between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights: manifestly ill-founded.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy