CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 3 octobre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } Published on 23 October 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 82280/17 KUWAIT PETROLEUM ITALIA S.P.A. against Italy lodged on 23 November 2017 communicated on 3 October 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the administration’s refusal – based on the failure of the applicant company to file a request within the time-limits provided for by law – to refund the amount of excise duties it had paid for oil products supplied to the carabinieri . The applicant company complains that the delay on the part of the carabinieri to issue an attestation confirming the use of its products for exempted purposes rendered the right to be refunded unenforceable in practice. The applicant company relies on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.     QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? If so: (i) was that interference in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? (ii) did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Intersplav v. Ukraine , no. 803/02, § 40, 9 January 2007, and Buffalo S.r.l. in liquidation v. Italy , no. 38746/97, § 39, 3 July 2003)? In answering the above question, and having regard to the statement contained in the judgment of the Court of Cassation no. 13724 of 2017, § 2.3 (the contested interference did not impose an excessive individual burden as “suitable requests” ( opportune sollecitazioni ) to the administrations could be filed to urge them to issue the relevant attestations), the parties are invited to comment on, and document by case-law of the competent courts, the effectiveness in general and in the applicant company’s case of such “suitable requests” to prevent that delays on the part of the administration impede in practice the enforcement of the right to be refunded.   The parties are also invited to inform the Court of any relevant amendments to the domestic legal framework concerning time-limits to request a refund of the amount of excise duties.