Introduction 

On 2 December 2025, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Ferrieri and Bonassisa v. Italy, adopting an approach consistent with its rulings in two similar cases against Italy - Italgomme Pneumatici S.r.l. and Others v. Italy (6 February 2025) and Agrisud 2014 S.r.l. Semplificata and Others v. Italy (11 December 2025) - which are likely to have a significant impact on the Italian system of tax assessment. The judgment, made public on 8 January 2026, concerns the compatibility with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to respect for private life, of the Italian legal framework governing access to taxpayers’ banking data for the purpose of verifying compliance with tax obligations.

The Court found that the Italian regulatory framework does not meet the requirements of the aforementioned provision, as it grants the tax authorities broad discretionary powers to access banking data, without sufficiently clear limitations, and fails to ensure either prior independent oversight or an effective ex post judicial remedy.

The two applicants, who had been notified at different times - Ferrieri in 2019 and Bonassisa in 2020 - by their respective banks of requests by the Tax Authority to access their banking data, brought their case before the Court, alleging a violation of their right to respect for private life under Article 8.

The Legal Issues Raised 

The applicants challenged the broad margin of discretion afforded to the national authorities and the lack of adequate procedural safeguards, in particular the absence of judicial or independent oversight of the measures adopted, both ex ante and ex post.

Pursuant to Article 35 of the Convention, one of the admissibility requirements for an application is the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies, in accordance with a well-established rule of international law. However, according to the case-law of various human rights bodies in the field of individual communications, such remedies must be not only formally available but also concretely effective.

The Italian Government raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the applicants had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. The applicants, for their part, contested the actual effectiveness of the available judicial remedies, pointing in particular to the uncertainty surrounding the availability of such remedies. With regard to admissibility, the Court considered it appropriate to examine admissibility and merits jointly and, finding that the application was not manifestly ill-founded, declared it admissible.

As to the merits, the Court had already held in its previous case-law - including G.S.B. v. Switzerland (no. 28601/11, § 93, 22 December 2015), M.N. and Others v. San Marino (no. 28005/12, § 51, 7 July 2015), Brito Ferrinho Bexiga Villa-Nova v. Portugal (no. 69436/10, § 43, 1 December 2015) and Samoylova v. Russia (no. 49108/11, § 62, 14 December 2021) - that banking information relevant to tax authorities constitutes personal data. This holds true regardless of whether such information is classified as sensitive data and irrespective of the fact that, under domestic law, it may be regarded as information of public interest. It follows that access to banking data amounts to an interference with the right to respect for private life.

However, such interference does not automatically entail a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. Its compatibility with the Convention depends on compliance with the requirements set out in paragraph 2 of that provision, which establishes the conditions under which a public authority may interfere with the exercise of the right protected by Article 8. In particular, the interference must be in accordance with the law and justified by the protection of interests relevant in a democratic society, such as national security, public safety, the economic well-being of the country, the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Furthermore, since such information does not concern particularly sensitive data, the Court has recognised that States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in regulating and processing financial data.

The issues raised by the applicants concerned, in particular: the alleged incompatibility of the Italian legal framework with the principles of legality and the rule of law; the absence of a mechanism for prior review of the measures adopted by an independent authority; the excessive discretion granted to the financial authorities and, in the present case, the failure to comply with the legal criteria governing access to banking data; the lack of adequate forms of ex post control; as well as the failure to notify them of the authorisation to access their data, which allegedly deprived them of the possibility of activating preventive forms of protection.

The Italian Government contested the complaint concerning the alleged lack of prior notification, arguing that the grounds underlying the measures in question were nonetheless foreseeable. It further emphasised that the use of IT tools for submitting requests to access banking data ensures the traceability and monitoring of the entire procedure. The Government also maintained that the ex ante control exercised by the competent governing body of the Tax Authority or of the Guardia di Finanza was adequate. As regards subsequent control, it argued that the authorisation to carry out financial tax inspections on bank accounts constitutes a preparatory act, which is not directly challengeable before a court. Such an act may be contested only in the context of an appeal before the competent tax court against the final tax assessment notice, by demonstrating that an irregularity in the authorisation procedure affected the validity of the tax measure. Finally, the Government also referred to the possibility of reporting any unlawful access to bank accounts to the Taxpayer’s Guarantor.

The Court’s Reasoning and Judgment

The Court first acknowledged the legitimacy of access by State authorities to banking data for the purpose of verifying compliance with tax obligations. However, it considered it necessary to assess whether the scope of the discretion conferred on the national authorities was adequately defined by the legal framework and whether it was provided sufficient procedural safeguards to protect the applicants against potential abuse or arbitrariness.

The Court observed the existence of excessively broad discretion vested in the tax authorities, noting that Italian legislation does not sufficiently circumscribe the margin of discretion granted to the authorities, either with regard to the decision to resort to such measures or to the scope of the information accessible.

While acknowledging the existence of administrative circulars intended to limit such discretion, the Court held that these cannot be regarded as an effective safeguard. In light of the case-law of the Court of Cassation, the authorities are not required to give reasons for their decisions nor, consequently, to demonstrate that their actions comply with the principles laid down in those circulars.

The Court therefore concluded that the legal basis of the contested measures was not capable of delimiting with sufficient precision the scope of the discretion conferred on the national authorities and did not meet the “quality of law” requirement under Article 8 of the Convention.

As regards the lack of prior notification of access to banking data, the Court rejected the interpretation according to which there exists a right to receive prior notification in the case of lawfully ordered tax inspections. Likewise, the absence of ex ante judicial or independent oversight may be justified by the need not to undermine the effectiveness of tax investigations. However, the Court emphasised that, in order to ensure compliance with Article 8 of the Convention, there must be effectively available mechanisms for ex post independent or judicial review of tax inspection measures.

The Court therefore examined the possibility of subsequent recourse before the tax court, the civil court and the Taxpayer’s Guarantor, namely the remedies indicated by the Italian Government.

As regards the first, the Court concluded that it cannot be regarded as an effective remedy, since under domestic law such authorisation is not independently challengeable before the tax courts, being classified as a merely preparatory act. It may be challenged only indirectly in the context of an appeal against a tax assessment notice. However, the Court considered that such a mechanism does not amount to an effective remedy. On the one hand, domestic case-law has clarified that the authorisation does not require reasoning and that any irregularities - or even its absence - do not affect the validity of the tax assessment notice. On the other hand, the availability of the remedy is uncertain, as it depends on the possible issuance of a tax assessment notice and on its being challenged by the taxpayer. Moreover, given the time limits within which the administration may proceed with tax assessments, such recourse may materialise only after a considerable lapse of time.

Similarly, with regard to proceedings before the civil court, the Court noted that the Government failed to convincingly demonstrate either their actual availability or their effectiveness.

Finally, as regards recourse to the Taxpayer’s Guarantor, the Court excluded that it could be regarded as an effective remedy for the purposes of the protection requirements under Article 8 of the Convention. In particular, this body is not vested with the power to adopt binding decisions, being limited to supervisory and guarantee functions in respect of the activity of the tax administration.

In its conclusions, the Court dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the Italian Government concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, noting the absence within the domestic legal system of effective ex post remedies and of independent oversight capable of ensuring adequate protection of Convention rights. As to the merits, the Court found that the national legislation grants the financial authorities a wide margin of discretion both as regards the conditions under which the measures in question - namely access to banking data - may be ordered and their scope. Consequently, in the absence of adequate minimum safeguards for the applicants, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.

Implications for the Italian Legal System

Having identified excessive discretion in the exercise of public powers, as well as the lack of adequate procedural safeguards and of effective and timely ex post review, the Court characterised the violation of the right to respect for private life as indicative of a systemic problem. Pursuant to Article 46 of the Convention, the Court therefore indicated a number of measures that the Italian legal system is required to adopt in order to bring the domestic legal framework into compliance with the guarantees provided for under Article 8. The judgment thus represents both an obligation and an opportunity for the Italian legislature to reconsider the current regulation of tax inspections, with a view to ensuring a more appropriate balance between the effectiveness of administrative action and the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Convention.

First, domestic law should define more clearly the circumstances and conditions under which the authorities may access taxpayers’ banking data, by imposing compliance with predetermined criteria and the obligation to provide adequate reasoning for such measures.

Second, provision should be made for effective review by a judicial or independent authority of the lawfulness of such access, with particular regard to compliance with the criteria and limits established by law, without making the possibility of recourse conditional upon the issuance or completion of tax assessment proceedings.

Third, the legal framework should take into account the context of international tax cooperation, allowing access to and transmission of banking data also for the purpose of verifying compliance with tax obligations in other States.

Finally, while acknowledging that certain safeguards are already provided for under domestic law, in particular by Law No. 212/2000 (Statute of Taxpayers’ Rights), the Court emphasised the need to give concrete effect to the principles contained therein through more specific provisions and to align domestic case-law with the principles developed by the Court itself.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judgment in Ferrieri and Bonassisa v. Italy confirms the Court’s recent case-law concerning the relationship between tax assessment powers and the protection of private life, calling for a structural intervention by the Italian legislature on the existing legal framework. The classification of the lack of procedural safeguards and ex post review as a systemic problem, within the meaning of Article 46 of the Convention, thus turns this decision into an opportunity for a comprehensive reform of the mechanisms governing access to banking data, in which the requirements of administrative efficiency must finally be balanced, in a clear and foreseeable manner, with the Convention guarantees relating to the protection of personal data and the right to respect for private life.

Lastly, as evidence of the relevance of this judgment for the interpretation of the Italian legal system, the Tax Chamber of the Court of Cassation, in judgment No. 2510/2026, considered it necessary to refer the same parties, as well as the Tax Authority, who had been involved in the domestic proceedings, to a new public hearing in order to allow adversarial proceedings with the Public Prosecutor, “taking into account this development in the supranational case-law”.