ECHR: Italy must bring its legislation and practice into line with the Court’s findings on tax-related inspections and audits of business premises

In the case of Italgomme Pneumatici S.r.l. v. Italy (application no. 36617/18 and 12 other applications) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for home and correspondence) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The case concerned access to and the inspection of business premises, registered offices or premises used for professional activities.

The inspections involved the examination, copying and seizure (in some cases) of accounting records, company books, invoices and other mandatory accounting-related documents, as well as several different types of documents relevant for tax assessment purposes.

This was carried out by officers or agents from the Revenue Police (Guardia di Finanza) a militarised police force under the Ministry of Economy and Finance or from the Tax Authority (Agenzia delle Entrate) in order to assess the applicants’ compliance with their tax obligations.

The Court found in particular that, even though there was a general legal basis in Italian law for the measures in question, that law did not meet the “quality of law” requirement of Article 8 of the Convention.

Even taking into account the wide discretion that States held in this respect, the Court considered that the national legal framework gave the domestic authorities unlimited leeway as regards the scope of the measures and the way in which they could be implemented. Moreover, it did not provide sufficient procedural safeguards, as the legality, necessity and proportionality of the measures were not subject to sufficient review.

All in all, it had not provided the applicants with the minimum degree of protection to which they were entitled under the Convention.

Under Article 46 (binding force and enforcement of judgments) the Court found that general measures at national level were required.

It called upon Italy to bring its legislation and practice into line with the Court’s findings in this case.