CASSA NAZIONALE DI PREVIDENZA E ASSISTENZA FORENSE v. ITALY and 4 other applications

Doc ref: 15646/22 • ECHR ID: 001-221682

Document date: November 14, 2022

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

CASSA NAZIONALE DI PREVIDENZA E ASSISTENZA FORENSE v. ITALY and 4 other applications

Doc ref: 15646/22 • ECHR ID: 001-221682

Document date: November 14, 2022

Cited paragraphs only

Published on 5 December 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 15646/22 CASSA NAZIONALE DI PREVIDENZA E ASSISTENZA FORENSE against Italy and 4 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 14 November 2022

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 were eventually only partially transferred to the applicant, which therefore brought action for the remaining part of the credits. While the procedures were pending, Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012 was enacted: it waived responsibility for the State-owned debt collector agencies, it erased credits below 2 000 euros ( annullamento del credito ) and discharged higher credits ( annullamento del ruolo ) generated up until 31 December 1999.

The applicant invoked the violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention due to the automatic erasing of the receivables that generated consistent losses. It further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention claiming that the waving of State-owned agencies responsibilities established by Law no. 228 of 24 December 2012 hindered the equality of arms principle in the proceedings.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant institution 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 these cases: R.G. 31064/2018 of 15 September 2021 no. 25003/21; R.G. 6189/2019 of 29 September 2021 no. 26335/21; R.G. 8373/2019 of 29 September 2021 no, 26336/21; R.G. 2562/2021 of 11 February 2022 no. 4555/22; R.G. 5244/2021 of 18 February 2018 no. 5436/22; R.G. 2561/2021 of 1 March 2022 no. 6766/22; R.G. 2556/2021 of 1 March 2022 no. 6767/22)?

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 107-108, 3 November 2022)?

APPENDIX

No.

Application no.

Case name

Lodged on

Applicant’s name Year of Registration

Represented by

15646/22