CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 31 mars 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 118 April 2009 Faccio v. Italy - 33/04 Decision 31.3.2009 [Section II] Article 10 Article 10-1 Freedom to receive information Affixing of seals to television set for non-payment of licence fee: inadmissible   Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Affixing of seals to television set for non-payment of licence fee: inadmissible   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Affixing of seals to television set for non-payment of licence fee: inadmissible   The applicant applied to the subscriptions office of a public-service broadcasting channel for the cancellation of his subscription to the public television service. Three years later the tax police affixed seals to his television set, wrapping it in a nylon bag to prevent it being used. Inadmissible : It was not disputed that the affixing of seals to the applicant’s television set amounted to an interference in his right to receive information and his right to respect for property and his private life. This measure, provided for by law, pursued a legitimate aim, namely that of dissuading individuals from failing to pay a tax or dissuading them from cancelling the subscription to the public television service. The Court, like the Government, considered that the proportionality of the measure was to be analysed in the light of the fiscal nature of the broadcasting licence. The licence fee was a tax intended for funding the public broadcasting service. In the Court’s opinion, and as was clear from the wording of the relevant legislation, the mere fact of possessing a television set entailed an obligation to pay the tax in question, independently of the applicant’s wish to watch the programmes broadcast by the public channels. Indeed, by converse impliction, even accepting that a system which made it possible to watch only private channels without paying the licence fee was technically possible, this would be tantamount to stripping the tax of its very essence, namely a contribution to a community service rather than the price paid by an individual in exchange for reception of a given channel. In this context, it was to be noted that taxation matters still belonged to the “hard core” of prerogatives of the State authorities, and that the public nature of the relationship between the tax-payer and the community remained predominant. In the light of the foregoing, and of the reasonable amount of the tax in question (107.50 euros for 2009), the affixing of seals to the applicant’s television set was a measure that was proportionate to the objective pursued by the State: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes