Access to Banking Data and Taxpayers’ Rights: The Strasbourg Court Condemns Italy

Translated by Martina Marino

With the judgment Ferrieri and Bonassisa v. Italy, published on 8 January 2026, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for violating Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which guarantees respect for private and family life. The ruling concerns the Italian system governing access to taxpayers’ banking data for tax assessment purposes. According to the Court, the current legislation grants the tax administration excessively discretionary powers, lacking clearly defined and precise limits.

The applications (nos. 40607/19 and 34583/20) were lodged before the Strasbourg Court pursuant to Article 34 of the Convention by Ferrieri and Bonassisa on 23 July 2019 and 1 August 2020, respectively. The cases were subsequently joined before the Court. Both applicants had been informed by their banks that the Italian Revenue Agency had requested access to their banking data as part of tax investigations.

The measures challenged by the applicants are governed by Article 51 of Presidential Decree No. 633/1972 (VAT) and Article 32 of Presidential Decree No. 600/1973 (income tax), which empower the Italian Revenue Agency to request data from banks concerning taxpayers’ accounts and financial transactions. These provisions formed the legal basis for the authorization issued by the Agency’s directors, which initiated the investigations against Ferrieri and Bonassisa.

The provision of the Convention allegedly violated by the applicants is Article 8, which guarantees every individual the right to respect for private and family life. The article states:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except where such interference is in accordance with the law and constitutes a measure necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

In particular, paragraph 2 establishes that interference by public authorities with the exercise of this right is prohibited unless it is necessary, among other reasons, for “the economic well-being of the country.”

The applicants complained of the excessive breadth of the discretionary powers conferred on national authorities by domestic legislation, as well as the lack of sufficient procedural safeguards to protect them from potential abuse or arbitrariness, particularly the absence of prior and/or subsequent judicial or independent review of the contested measures.

The Court held that the legislation granted national authorities unlimited discretion both regarding the conditions for implementing such measures and the scope of the data that could be obtained, without sufficiently clarifying the limits of such powers.

As regards safeguards, the Italian Government pointed to three domestic remedies: an appeal before the Tax Justice Court, proceedings before the civil courts, and recourse to the Taxpayer Ombudsman. The Court found all three remedies inadequate. The first is only available in the context of challenging a possible tax assessment notice, which may never be issued. The second has not demonstrated practical effectiveness. The third lacks binding powers. Consequently, the Court also rejected the Government’s preliminary objection based on the alleged failure to exhaust domestic remedies.

The Court’s general conclusion was as follows: “even assuming that the contested measures have a general legal basis in Italian law, that law does not meet the quality requirements imposed by the Convention.” Therefore, a violation of Article 8 of the Convention was found.

In conclusion, the Court characterized the violation as a systemic issue, requiring the Italian State to adopt general and structural measures. In particular, Italy must:

• introduce clear and binding legal criteria governing the conditions and requirements for access to banking data;
• establish effective and timely judicial or independent review mechanisms;
• ensure effective remedies also within the framework of international tax cooperation.

The Court also noted that some of the necessary measures are already reflected in Article 13 of Law No. 212/2000, but that the relevant general principles should be translated into specific provisions of domestic law.

Mondo Internazionale APS – All rights reserved ® 2026