Constitutional Court gives the green light to the unified tax
According to the judges, this does not constitute a means-test restriction on access to justice
Can the legislature make access to civil justice conditional upon the payment of a levy, such as the unified contribution? Judgment No. 137/2026 of the Constitutional Court, filed yesterday, answered this question in the affirmative, finding that the questions of constitutional legitimacy – raised by the Civil Cassation Court and the Honorary Justice of the Peace of Benevento, with reference to Articles 3, 24 and 111 of the Constitution – regarding Article 1, paragraph 812, subparagraph (a), point 2 of Law 207/2024, which introduced Article 14, paragraph 3.1 of Presidential Decree 115/2002 (Consolidated Law on Court Costs), which provides that a civil case may not be entered on the register unless the unified fee required by law has been paid.
The Consulta’s position
The Constitutional Court held that this provision meets the tests of proportionality and strict necessity, in that:
- From a statistical perspective, its introduction has led to a reduction in the evasion rate of the flat-rate tax of approximately 200 per cent compared with the year prior to its introduction;
- from the perspective of the judicial system, the flat-rate fee ensures improved functioning and greater efficiency of the justice system;
- in terms of the amount involved, it is a modest outlay;
- there is no evidence of discrimination against those of limited means, who may avail themselves of legal aid at the state’s expense, which by law results in exemption.
It therefore seems that the days when the Constitutional Court had deemed the imposition of taxes to be a condicio sine qua non for taking action and determining whether or not such taxes were due are now a distant memory tax liability contested in court, resulting in unequal treatment between taxpayers, as well as a violation of the right to bring legal proceedings, which the Constitution guarantees to ‘everyone’ (this is the well-known decision which had declared the institution of solve et repete in tax matters to be unlawful: Judgment No. 21 of 1961; but see also Constitutional Court ruling 522 of 2002, which had declared unconstitutional a provision making the issue of the original or a copy of the judgment conditional upon payment of registration tax, in order to gain access to enforcement proceedings).
The European Court of Justice
Moreover, the European Court of Justice (judgement of 6 October 2015, Case 61/2014) has held that court fees constitute a source of funding for the judicial activities of Member States and serve to deter the bringing of manifestly unfounded or vexatious claims.
Inadmissibility
It is, however, worth noting the other aspect declared inadmissible by the Constitutional Court, namely the issue of granting the registrar the power to decide on the entry of a case on the register and therefore to refuse to enter the case on the register in the event of failure to pay the standard court fee, thereby precluding access to civil justice. Here, the Constitutional Court has not ruled out a conflict with the constitutional principles of the right to bring an action and the right to a defence. However, it is for the legislature to address this issue, as it has the sovereign authority to identify the most appropriate legislative solution to challenge or contest the registrar’s refusal.
