Ord. Constitutional Court November 5, 2007, No 377
Taxes - Tax Collection - Compilation of the folder of payment - the collection obligations on dealers to indicate the name of the person of the procedure - alleged breach of the principles of equality and good performance of public administration - Exclusion - manifestly unfounded
Summary: E 'manifestly unfounded, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 7, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Law of 27 July 2000, no 212, censored, in regard to Article 3, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution, as it provides that the acts of dealers in the collection "absolutely must indicate" - among others - in charge of the proceedings. Indeed, Article. 7 of Law No 212 of 2000 applies to tax procedures (in addition to the tax authorities) of the dealers of the collection, as private individuals who are competent to exercise di funzioni pubbliche, e tali procedimenti comprendono sia i cosiddetti «procedimenti di massa» (che culminano, cioè, in provvedimenti di contenuto omogeneo o standardizzato nei confronti di innumerevoli destinatari), sia quelli di natura non discrezionale. Inoltre, l'obbligo imposto ai concessionari di indicare nelle cartelle di pagamento il responsabile del procedimento, ha lo scopo di assicurare la trasparenza dell'attività amministrativa, la piena informazione del cittadino (anche ai fini di eventuali azioni nei confronti del responsabile) e la garanzia del diritto di difesa, che sono altrettanti aspetti del buon andamento e dell'imparzialità della pubblica amministrazione sanciti dall'art. 97, primo comma, Cost. - In relazione applicability of the tax proceedings of the General Law on Administrative Procedure No. 241 of 1990 even before the entry into force of Law No 212 of 2000 on the status of taxpayer rights, see, above, Ordinance No. 117/2000.
pronunciation
(...)
Order in judging the constitutionality of Article. 7, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Law of 27 July 2000, no 212 (Provisions relating to statutory rights of the taxpayer), promoted by order of 11 January 2006 by the Veneto Regional Tax Commission on the appeal brought by Joseph against the City of Faedo and Chiampo altro, iscritta al n. 363 del registro ordinanze 2007 e pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica n. 20, prima serie speciale, dell'anno 2007.Visto l'atto di intervento del Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri; udito nella camera di consiglio del 10 ottobre 2007 il Giudice relatore Sabino Cassese.
Ritenuto che la Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia ha sollevato questione di legittimità costituzionale dell'art. 7, comma 2, lettera a), della legge 27 luglio 2000, n. 212 (Disposizioni in materia di statuto dei diritti del contribuente) (erroneamente indicata, nel dispositivo dell'ordinanza di rimessione, con il n. 112), nella parte in cui prevede che gli atti dei concessionari della riscossione «devono tassativamente state '- amongst others - the person responsible for the proceedings in relation to Articles 3, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution;
- that the issue arose in the trial of appeal against the decision of the Provincial Tax Commission of Vicenza, which dismissing the appeal of Joseph Faedo folder against the payment (notified on 8 May 2003) enrollment on a role ICI due to the City of Chiampo;
- which, according to the Commission's regional court, the question of constitutionality is relevant to the decision, since, in case of declaration of unconstitutionality, it "should accept the appeal, with absorption of any complaint;
- which, the court noted that Article. 7 of Law No 212, 2000 (as, indeed, the entire statutory rights of the taxpayer) follows on the Law of 7 August 1990 241 (New rules of administrative procedure and right of access to administrative documents), which explains "why they were obliged to follow the rules on the process not only the offices of financial administration in the strict sense but also in a surge protective nature, the body responsible for the collection;
- which, however, continued the court, complained that provisions such as' procedural activity that is befitting good offices of public administration in the strict sense are required to carry out the purpose of issuing a measure designed to affect the legal position of the recipient, while, on the contrary, the work done by the dealers of the collection to form the folder does not seem much like an actual procedure (such activities, indeed are not open to participation, not public interests are compared with each other, and with those of which they bear the tax payers there is no margin of appreciation from the office, etc..) ';
- which, according the court, dealers' activities may give rise, at most, a "process of mass', 'characterized by the element in an almost absolute technical organization and uniformity of operations "as part of 'transfuse the content of the roles of revenue received by the Agency in individual folders for individual taxpayers, with no possibility of appreciation, the more discretionary in nature;
- which, therefore, the court concluded, it seems excessive and not very useful leaned to the obligations that dealers appear to "end in themselves, even considering that the folders include the caveat that they can request information about the contents of the folder itself ', which is why the art. 7, paragraph 2, letter a), the last part, in contrast, first, by art. 3, first paragraph of the Constitution, because it treats similarly certainly different activities and situations, which are those attributable to the tax and those, is the responsibility of the concessionaire and, secondly, "with art. 97 of the Constitution and the principle of sound public administration established there, as well as by art. 1 of Law No 241 of 1990, which constitutes development, where states that the activities of public administration is based on the principle [sic: the principles] of efficiency, economy and effectiveness;
- that is, in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers , the Attorney General of the State, arguing that the question would be inadmissible for lack of absolute importance;
- Which, according to the Attorney General, any declaration of unconstitutionality of the rule would achieve the opposite effect to that shown by the national court (the acceptance of the appeal), because, by removes the requirement that the responsible procedure, indicated that the lack or inadequacy of such information would no longer be subject to "a duty punishable by a declaration of illegality" of the folder of payment.
Given that the principal claim relates to the legality or otherwise of the folder of payment, because - according to one of the complaints brought by the appellant - it does not contain a statement, required by law, the "responsible the procedure '(intended as the responsible head of the procedure that puts the debt collector, not the procedure, culminating in the delivery of the role of debt collector, which takes place in the financial administration);
- that - apart from the fact that any declaration of unconstitutionality of the contested Article. 7 of Law No 212 of 2000 would result in the rejection and not, as contended by the court, the acceptance of the plea of \u200b\u200bappeal filed by the taxpayer (since there would be no requirement to indicate in your payment, the head of the procedure) - the question is clearly unfounded;
- which, in fact, every administrative decision is the result of a proceeding, even the most meager and basic, requiring, at least, acts of service and advertising;
- Article. 7 of Law No 212 of 2000 applies to tax procedures (in addition to the tax authorities) of the dealers of the collection, as private individuals who are competent to exercise public functions, and that such procedures include both those which the court defined as "procedures mass "(which culminate, namely, homogeneous content or standardized measures against several recipients) and those non-discretionary
- that the obligation of dealers to indicate the person responsible for payment in the folders of the proceedings, far from being a useless performance, is designed to ensure transparency of administration, the full information of the citizens (including for purposes of any action against the responsible party) and the guarantee of the right of defense, which have many aspects of good public administration and the impartiality of predicates art. 97, first paragraph of the Constitution (see, now, art. 1, paragraph 1, of Law No. 241 of 1990, as amended by Act Feb. 11, 2005, No. 15, on "Changes and additions to the Law of 7 August 1990, No. 241, concerning general rules on administrative action ");
- which, moreover, since any time prior to the entry into force of Law 212 of 2000 on the status of taxpayer rights, the Court considered the applicability of the tax proceedings of the General Law on Administrative Procedure No. 241, 1990 (Ordinance No. 117 of 2000 on the obligation to state reasons for payment of the folder). Having regard to Articles
. 26, second paragraph, of Law March 11, 1953, No 87, and 9, paragraph 2, of the supplementary rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court. For these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares manifestly unfounded, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 7, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Law of 27 July 2000, no 212 (Provisions relating to statutory rights of the taxpayer) raised by the Regional Tax Commission of Venice, in regard to Article 3, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution, by the order in the epigraph. (...)
(...)
Order in judging the constitutionality of Article. 7, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Law of 27 July 2000, no 212 (Provisions relating to statutory rights of the taxpayer), promoted by order of 11 January 2006 by the Veneto Regional Tax Commission on the appeal brought by Joseph against the City of Faedo and Chiampo altro, iscritta al n. 363 del registro ordinanze 2007 e pubblicata nella Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica n. 20, prima serie speciale, dell'anno 2007.Visto l'atto di intervento del Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri; udito nella camera di consiglio del 10 ottobre 2007 il Giudice relatore Sabino Cassese.
Ritenuto che la Commissione tributaria regionale di Venezia ha sollevato questione di legittimità costituzionale dell'art. 7, comma 2, lettera a), della legge 27 luglio 2000, n. 212 (Disposizioni in materia di statuto dei diritti del contribuente) (erroneamente indicata, nel dispositivo dell'ordinanza di rimessione, con il n. 112), nella parte in cui prevede che gli atti dei concessionari della riscossione «devono tassativamente state '- amongst others - the person responsible for the proceedings in relation to Articles 3, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution;
- that the issue arose in the trial of appeal against the decision of the Provincial Tax Commission of Vicenza, which dismissing the appeal of Joseph Faedo folder against the payment (notified on 8 May 2003) enrollment on a role ICI due to the City of Chiampo;
- which, according to the Commission's regional court, the question of constitutionality is relevant to the decision, since, in case of declaration of unconstitutionality, it "should accept the appeal, with absorption of any complaint;
- which, the court noted that Article. 7 of Law No 212, 2000 (as, indeed, the entire statutory rights of the taxpayer) follows on the Law of 7 August 1990 241 (New rules of administrative procedure and right of access to administrative documents), which explains "why they were obliged to follow the rules on the process not only the offices of financial administration in the strict sense but also in a surge protective nature, the body responsible for the collection;
- which, however, continued the court, complained that provisions such as' procedural activity that is befitting good offices of public administration in the strict sense are required to carry out the purpose of issuing a measure designed to affect the legal position of the recipient, while, on the contrary, the work done by the dealers of the collection to form the folder does not seem much like an actual procedure (such activities, indeed are not open to participation, not public interests are compared with each other, and with those of which they bear the tax payers there is no margin of appreciation from the office, etc..) ';
- which, according the court, dealers' activities may give rise, at most, a "process of mass', 'characterized by the element in an almost absolute technical organization and uniformity of operations "as part of 'transfuse the content of the roles of revenue received by the Agency in individual folders for individual taxpayers, with no possibility of appreciation, the more discretionary in nature;
- which, therefore, the court concluded, it seems excessive and not very useful leaned to the obligations that dealers appear to "end in themselves, even considering that the folders include the caveat that they can request information about the contents of the folder itself ', which is why the art. 7, paragraph 2, letter a), the last part, in contrast, first, by art. 3, first paragraph of the Constitution, because it treats similarly certainly different activities and situations, which are those attributable to the tax and those, is the responsibility of the concessionaire and, secondly, "with art. 97 of the Constitution and the principle of sound public administration established there, as well as by art. 1 of Law No 241 of 1990, which constitutes development, where states that the activities of public administration is based on the principle [sic: the principles] of efficiency, economy and effectiveness;
- that is, in the Presidency of the Council of Ministers , the Attorney General of the State, arguing that the question would be inadmissible for lack of absolute importance;
- Which, according to the Attorney General, any declaration of unconstitutionality of the rule would achieve the opposite effect to that shown by the national court (the acceptance of the appeal), because, by removes the requirement that the responsible procedure, indicated that the lack or inadequacy of such information would no longer be subject to "a duty punishable by a declaration of illegality" of the folder of payment.
Given that the principal claim relates to the legality or otherwise of the folder of payment, because - according to one of the complaints brought by the appellant - it does not contain a statement, required by law, the "responsible the procedure '(intended as the responsible head of the procedure that puts the debt collector, not the procedure, culminating in the delivery of the role of debt collector, which takes place in the financial administration);
- that - apart from the fact that any declaration of unconstitutionality of the contested Article. 7 of Law No 212 of 2000 would result in the rejection and not, as contended by the court, the acceptance of the plea of \u200b\u200bappeal filed by the taxpayer (since there would be no requirement to indicate in your payment, the head of the procedure) - the question is clearly unfounded;
- which, in fact, every administrative decision is the result of a proceeding, even the most meager and basic, requiring, at least, acts of service and advertising;
- Article. 7 of Law No 212 of 2000 applies to tax procedures (in addition to the tax authorities) of the dealers of the collection, as private individuals who are competent to exercise public functions, and that such procedures include both those which the court defined as "procedures mass "(which culminate, namely, homogeneous content or standardized measures against several recipients) and those non-discretionary
- that the obligation of dealers to indicate the person responsible for payment in the folders of the proceedings, far from being a useless performance, is designed to ensure transparency of administration, the full information of the citizens (including for purposes of any action against the responsible party) and the guarantee of the right of defense, which have many aspects of good public administration and the impartiality of predicates art. 97, first paragraph of the Constitution (see, now, art. 1, paragraph 1, of Law No. 241 of 1990, as amended by Act Feb. 11, 2005, No. 15, on "Changes and additions to the Law of 7 August 1990, No. 241, concerning general rules on administrative action ");
- which, moreover, since any time prior to the entry into force of Law 212 of 2000 on the status of taxpayer rights, the Court considered the applicability of the tax proceedings of the General Law on Administrative Procedure No. 241, 1990 (Ordinance No. 117 of 2000 on the obligation to state reasons for payment of the folder). Having regard to Articles
. 26, second paragraph, of Law March 11, 1953, No 87, and 9, paragraph 2, of the supplementary rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court. For these reasons
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
declares manifestly unfounded, the question of the constitutionality of Article. 7, paragraph 2, letter a) of the Law of 27 July 2000, no 212 (Provisions relating to statutory rights of the taxpayer) raised by the Regional Tax Commission of Venice, in regard to Article 3, first paragraph, and 97 of the Constitution, by the order in the epigraph. (...)
0 comments:
Post a Comment