The 2026 opened with a notable decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the case of Ferrieri and Bonassisa v. Italy.

The ECtHR found the violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Human Rights Convention) for unreasonable interference with private life and privacy by Italian Tax Authorities (Agenzia delle Entrate).

The judgment clarifies the privacy limits applicable to fiscal investigations and underscores the need for effective oversight and remedies when public authorities look to access information about individuals’ private lives and their personal data.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention – Right to respect for private and family life

Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention states that:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence”

The primary purpose of this provision is to protect individuals against arbitrary interferences with private and family life, home and correspondence by a public authority.

The State bears a negative obligation under the Human Rights Convention not to interfere with private life of individuals unless it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims, and is “necessary in a democratic society” to achieve the aim or aims concerned (ECtHR – Libert v. France, 2018, §§ 40-42).

ECtHR case law makes clear that the concept of “private life” extends to personal data protection.

Protection of personal data is of fundamental importance to a person’s enjoyment of her right to respect for private life, and domestic law must afford appropriate safeguards to prevent any use of personal data as may be inconsistent with the guarantees in Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention (ECtHR – L.B. v. Hungary, [GC], 2023, §§ 103 and 122).

Italian tax authorities’ access to banking data: broad discretion and lack of ex post control

Several provisions of Italian tax law allow Italian tax authorities (Agenzia delle Entrate) to request financial data from banks to check the declarations submitted by the taxpayers. Specifically, Article 51 of Presidential Decree no. 633/1972 on the assessment of value added tax (VAT), and Article 32 of Presidential Decree no. 600/1973 on the assessment of income taxes states that the tax offices can

“having obtained prior authorisation from the central director of assessment of tax authority […] request that banks provide […] data, information and documents relating to any [financial] relationship or transactions […], including services rendered, [involving] their clients, as well as the guarantees given by third parties”.

In practice, the tax offices exercise discretion in deciding whether to issue such requests and in defining their scope.

While administrative circulars (such as Circular no. 131/1994, Circular no. 25/2014, and Circular no. 16/2016) provide certain criteria defining the boundaries of this power, the ECtHR noted that these criteria are not sufficient. Italian courts have repeatedly stated tax authorities are not required to justify their powers by giving reasons for their decisions making it impossible to verify compliance with the administrative criteria and leaving the scope and necessity of the interference effectively unchecked (Cass. Civ. 8849/2015).

The ECtHR accepted that the need not to jeopardize the purpose of the bank request might justify the lack of ex-ante judicial or independent review. However, it found decisive the absence of any ex-post judicial or independent review.

According to the ECtHR, the Italian Government has failed to demonstrate the existence in practice of any remedy before tax courts, civil courts, and/or the Taxpayer’s Guarantor (Garante Nazionale del Contribuente).

The authorisation underlying bank requests can be challenged solely if and when it culminates in a tax assessment notice – an eventuality that is uncertain, and for which there is no established case law confirming an effective remedy. Likewise, there is no consistent case law establishing a civil‑court remedy, and the Taxpayer’s Guarantor issues non‑binding recommendations rather than enforceable decisions.

On this basis, the ECtHR concluded that the legal framework violated Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.

Legal implications and consequences in Italy

Under Article 46 of the Human Rights Convention, Italy must adopt measures within its domestic legal system to remedy the violation and prevent recurrence. Because the violation flows from the content of the law as interpreted and applied by the domestic courts, the judgment has potentially wide‑ranging implications in Italy.

The Italian Constitutional Court (Corte Costituzionale) has already held that domestic law must, where possible, be construed in conformity with the Human Rights Convention and ECtHR jurisprudence (Italian Constitutional Court decisions no. 348 and 349-2007).

In the near term, taxpayers may seek to challenge assessment notices and request a conforming interpretation or, failing that, the referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court.

Looking ahead

The judgment could potentially result in the annulment of the enforcement acts issued by tax authorities pursuant to the relevant presidential decrees on tax assessment, but this will not be an automatic consequence.

The ruling does not deny the legitimacy of tax authorities’ access to banking data per se. Rather, it emphasises that robust, practical safeguards are indispensable. Bringing Italian practice into alignment with Article 8 of Human Rights Convention requires enforceable constraints on discretion, meaningful post‑factum control, and real avenues of redress. Until such reforms are implemented, litigation risk will persist around tax assessments built on bank data obtained under the current framework, and courts will be called upon to ensure that privacy rights are not overridden.