CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 juin 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 } Published on 30 June 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 28109/23 VI.MOBILE SRL against Italy lodged on 4 July 2023 communicated on 11 June 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Tax Authority’s refusal to pay the applicant company late-payment interests on value-added tax (VAT) refunds. On 31   July 2007 the applicant company requested reimbursement of unduly paid VAT for the year 2006. The Agency granted the applicant company’s request, but required the submission of bank guarantees for the amount of both the requested VAT credit and of other tax debts, the existence of which was under assessment at the time. The applicant company alleges it could not afford to obtain the bank guarantees because of the significant amount of the sums to be covered. Therefore, it did not pursue the request for refund and decided to wait until the end of the proceedings concerning the tax debts. On 5 December   2013, following the conclusion of the tax debt proceedings, the applicant company reiterated the request for VAT refund and obtained a judgment ordering the Tax Authority to pay. Consequently, the Tax Authority paid the VAT credit and the late-payment interests calculated from the date of the reiteration of the request. The applicant company instituted enforcement proceedings requesting that the interests be calculated from the date of the initial refund request rather than from the date of the reiteration of it. Its claims were dismissed in last instance by the Court of Cassation (decision no.   17450 of 19   June   2023). The applicant company complains that the refusal to calculate the interest from the date of the initial VAT refund request amounted to an interference with its rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In   particular, the applicant claims that the alleged interference had no legal basis and was disproportionate as it imposed an excessive burden. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, having regard to the Tax Authority’s refusal to pay default interests from the date of the initial request (see   Buffalo S.r.l. en liquidation v.   Italy , no.   38746/97, §§   32-40, 3   July   2003)?   2.     If so, was the interference in the public interest and did it impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see   Eko-Elda AVEE v.   Greece , no.   10162/02, §§   29-30, ECHR 2006-IV; Intersplav v.   Ukraine , no.   803/02, §§   38-40, 9   January 2007; and Antonov v.   Bulgaria , no.   58364/10, §§   56-65, 28   May 2020)?