DATA PROTECTION
Supreme Court of Cassation: Italian Data Protection Authorithy's fines not collected within the five-year period are time-barred.
The Italian Data Protection Authority charged a Municipality with violation of Article 22, paragraph 8, of the Italiana Data Protection Code for having unlawfully processed sensitive personal data, even if removed after a short time. For this reason, the Municipality was notified of a payment notice issued by the Internal Revenue Service in the amount of more than 22 thousand auros for administrative penalties based on the aforementioned objection issued by the Italian Data Protection Authority.
The Municipality filed an opposition to the payment notice, which was upheld by the Judge, who found that the claim underlying the contested act was time-barred, since five years had elapsed between the contestation of the fact and the notification of the notice with the penalty imposed.
Against this decision, the Italian Data Protection Authority appealed in Cassation, alleging, among other things, the fact that the Court had upheld the plea of limitation raised by the municipality on the basis of the mere finding that a period of more than 5 years had elapsed between the dispute of the violation and the notification of the payment slip, without noticing the provision of Art. 18, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree No. 101/2018, by virtue of which the entry into force of the aforementioned Law resulted in the interruption of the limitation period of the right to collect the sums due under Article 28 L. No. 689/1981.
In its Order No. 23405 of August 1, 2023, the Supreme Court declared the ground of appeal unfounded, recalling Judgment No. 260/2021 in which the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional, for violation of Article 3 Const, Article 18, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree No. 101/2018, which establishes, with transitional provision, "as of its entry into force, the interruption ex lege of the limitation period for sanction proceedings, subject to the discipline of Legislative Decree No. 196 of 2003, which, on the date of application of Regulation No. 679/2016/EU, have been initiated, but not yet defined with the adoption of the order-injunction."
The unreasonableness lies in the fact that the automatic interruption determined an intolerable and unmotivated compression of the private individual's reasons for protection, since the Legislator could avail itself of different institutions, such as the suspension of the statute of limitations, aimed at facilitating the administration in a non-disproportionate manner, in addition to the fact that the censured norm connected this interruption to the inertia of the right holder, that is, to a ratio totally unrelated to that on which the institution of the statute of limitations is based.
Therefore, having been declared constitutionally illegitimate Article 18, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 101/2018, the rule applicable to the case in question is Article 28 of Law No. 689/1981, which stipulates that the right to collect the sums due for the violations indicated in the same Law is prescribed in 5 years starting from the day on which the violation was committed.
In light of this, the Ermellini recognize the correctness of the reasoning of the lower court judge who had deemed the statute of limitations to have accrued, given that more than 5 years had elapsed between the Italian Data Protection Authority's notice of objection and the notification of the payment slip.
For this reason, too, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
Court of Cassation, Sec. I Civil, Order (ud. July 11, 2023) Aug. 1, 2023, No. 23405
The Municipality filed an opposition to the payment notice, which was upheld by the Judge, who found that the claim underlying the contested act was time-barred, since five years had elapsed between the contestation of the fact and the notification of the notice with the penalty imposed.
Against this decision, the Italian Data Protection Authority appealed in Cassation, alleging, among other things, the fact that the Court had upheld the plea of limitation raised by the municipality on the basis of the mere finding that a period of more than 5 years had elapsed between the dispute of the violation and the notification of the payment slip, without noticing the provision of Art. 18, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree No. 101/2018, by virtue of which the entry into force of the aforementioned Law resulted in the interruption of the limitation period of the right to collect the sums due under Article 28 L. No. 689/1981.
In its Order No. 23405 of August 1, 2023, the Supreme Court declared the ground of appeal unfounded, recalling Judgment No. 260/2021 in which the Constitutional Court had declared unconstitutional, for violation of Article 3 Const, Article 18, paragraph 5, Legislative Decree No. 101/2018, which establishes, with transitional provision, "as of its entry into force, the interruption ex lege of the limitation period for sanction proceedings, subject to the discipline of Legislative Decree No. 196 of 2003, which, on the date of application of Regulation No. 679/2016/EU, have been initiated, but not yet defined with the adoption of the order-injunction."
The unreasonableness lies in the fact that the automatic interruption determined an intolerable and unmotivated compression of the private individual's reasons for protection, since the Legislator could avail itself of different institutions, such as the suspension of the statute of limitations, aimed at facilitating the administration in a non-disproportionate manner, in addition to the fact that the censured norm connected this interruption to the inertia of the right holder, that is, to a ratio totally unrelated to that on which the institution of the statute of limitations is based.
Therefore, having been declared constitutionally illegitimate Article 18, paragraph 5, of Legislative Decree No. 101/2018, the rule applicable to the case in question is Article 28 of Law No. 689/1981, which stipulates that the right to collect the sums due for the violations indicated in the same Law is prescribed in 5 years starting from the day on which the violation was committed.
In light of this, the Ermellini recognize the correctness of the reasoning of the lower court judge who had deemed the statute of limitations to have accrued, given that more than 5 years had elapsed between the Italian Data Protection Authority's notice of objection and the notification of the payment slip.
For this reason, too, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
Court of Cassation, Sec. I Civil, Order (ud. July 11, 2023) Aug. 1, 2023, No. 23405
