In the judgment in question, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the provisions governing access to financial records under domestic law regarding direct taxes and VAT were inconsistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is essentially because there is no requirement to provide a statement of reasons for the authorization order; furthermore, the legal system does not provide the audited party with judicial remedies that would allow them to obtain an ex post review of the measure infringing upon the individual interest protected by Article 8 of the ECHR. This interpretation is undoubtedly correct in light of current case law; however, if the domestic legal system were correctly interpreted and applied, it would be capable of eliminating the protection deficit identified by the European Court of Human Rights.
Con la sentenza in commento la Corte EDU ha riconosciuto la non conformità all’art. 8 CEDU della disciplina del potere di accesso ai rapporti finanziari prevista dal diritto interno in materia di imposte dirette e di iva. Questo essenzialmente perché non è previsto un ob-bligo di motivazione del provvedimento autorizzativo; inoltre, l’ordinamento non mette a disposizione del soggetto verificato strumenti giurisdizionali che gli permettano di ottenere un controllo ex post della misura lesiva dell’interesse individuale tutelato dall’art. 8 CEDU. Questa ricostruzione è indubbiamente corretta alla luce del diritto vivente; tuttavia, se il si-stema normativo interno venisse correttamente interpretato e applicato sarebbe in grado di eliminare il deficit di tutela riscontrato dalla Corte EDU.
Accessi bancari e tutela dell'amministrato: note a margine della sentenza della Corte EDU Ferrieri e Bonassina
Zaga'
2026-01-01
Abstract
In the judgment in question, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) found that the provisions governing access to financial records under domestic law regarding direct taxes and VAT were inconsistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This is essentially because there is no requirement to provide a statement of reasons for the authorization order; furthermore, the legal system does not provide the audited party with judicial remedies that would allow them to obtain an ex post review of the measure infringing upon the individual interest protected by Article 8 of the ECHR. This interpretation is undoubtedly correct in light of current case law; however, if the domestic legal system were correctly interpreted and applied, it would be capable of eliminating the protection deficit identified by the European Court of Human Rights.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.



