CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 30 mai 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 16   June 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no.   37273/21 CEM S.P.A. against Italy lodged on 14   July 2021 communicated on 30   May 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the imposition of a fine on the applicant company for having entered into three real estate leasing contracts concerning immovable goods, without paying value-added tax (VAT) in 2005. Pursuant to Section   8 § 1 (c) of Presidential Decree no.   633 of 26   October 1972 (hereinafter “Presidential Decree no. 633/1972”), the applicant company, being classified as habitual exporter, could benefit from VAT exemption with respect to contracts relating to the provision of services and transfer of goods, except immovable goods. On 23   December 2010, the Revenue Agency requested the payment of VAT for the three leasing contracts and applied a tax surcharge equal to 100% of the amount due. The applicant challenged the measure before the judicial authorities. By final judgment of 14   January 2021 (no.   535/2021), the Court of Cassation upheld the sanction. It acknowledged that at the material time the prevailing domestic and European case-law (see Court of Cassation, judgment no.   23329 of 15   October 2013; and Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 21   February 2008, C-425/06 and references therein) qualified the real estate leasing contracts as provision of services rather than transfer of goods. However, in the light of a change in the European Union and domestic case ‑ law (see Court of Cassation, judgment no.   20951 of 2015; Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 2   July 2015, C-209/14 and judgment of 16   February 2012, C-118/11), the court departed from that interpretation and held that those contracts should be qualified as transfer of immovable goods, and therefore were not covered by the VAT exemption. The applicant company complains of a violation of Article   7 of the Convention and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention on account of the unforeseeable change in the interpretation given by the Court of Cassation to the nature of real estate leasing contracts for the purposes of Section   8 §   1 (c) of Presidential Decree no.   633/1972. The applicant company further complains about the retroactive application of that new interpretation to its case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicant company’s rights under Article   7 of the Convention on account of the alleged lack of clarity and foreseeability of the applicable law and how it was applied in the applicant company’s case ( Del Río Prada v.   Spain [GC], no.   42750/09, §§   111 ‑ 17, ECHR 2013)?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1? If so: (a)     was the interference in accordance with the principle of lawfulness, within the meaning of the provision? (b)     was the interference proportionate to the aim pursued or did it impose an excessive burden on the applicant company?