Order delivered at the hearing of June 5, 2024, attached to Judgment No. 144 of 2024

ORDER

Having examined the documents relating to the proceedings concerning the constitutional challenge to Article 35, paragraph 3, of Legislative Decree No. 241 of July 9, 1997 (Regulations simplifying taxpayers' obligations in the context of income tax and value added tax returns, and modernizing the return management system), brought before the Court by the Seventh Section of the Council of State, by order of January 31, 2024 (case file No. 23 of 2024) and published in Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica No. 10, Special Series No. 1, of 2024; Having noted that the National Council of Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts intervened in the proceedings, with a document filed on March 26, 2024; that the intervener claims to hold a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the subject matter of the a quo proceedings, inasmuch as, pursuant to Article 29 of Legislative Decree No. 139 of June 28, 2005 (Constitution of the Order of Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts, pursuant to Article 2 of Law No. 34 of February 24, 2005), it institutionally represents those enrolled in the register of chartered accountants and accounting experts, to whom the contested provision reserves, together with professionals enrolled in other registers or roles, the issuance of the conformity visa for tax returns, and is endowed with prerogatives (in disciplinary matters, continuous and mandatory professional training, and registration and removal from the register) directly affected by the acceptance of the question, being equated, with regard to the attribution of reliability and competence to its members, to the prerogatives of a private voluntary association, such as the LAPET National Tax Association, a party to the a quo proceedings; that the standing to intervene would also derive from the National Council of Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts being an omitted party with an interest in the a quo proceedings, whose right of defense, already infringed by such omission, would be definitively annulled if the possibility of intervening in these proceedings were denied; Considering that the intervener is not a party to the a quo proceedings, nor does such status derive from its alleged status as an omitted party with an interest in the same proceedings; that any related issue, in fact, falls within the purview of the a quo Judge; that, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 3, of the Supplementary Rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court, in incidental proceedings "[t]hose holding a qualified interest, directly and immediately related to the subject matter of the proceedings, may intervene"; that this provision reflects the consistent case law of this Court, according to which participation in incidental constitutional proceedings is normally limited to the parties to the a quo proceedings, as well as the Prime Minister and, in the case of regional law, the President of the Regional Government (Articles 3 and 4, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Supplementary Rules), it being possible to derogate from this, without conflicting with the incidental nature of the proceedings, only in favor of third parties who hold a qualified interest, immediately related to the substantive subject matter of the a quo proceedings (among many, Orders No. 225 of 2021, No. 271 and No. 37 of 2020) and not simply governed, like any other, by the provision under challenge (among many, Judgments No. 108 of 2023, with attached order delivered at the hearing of April 4, 2023, No. 46 of 2021, No. 206, with attached order delivered at the hearing of June 4, 2019, No. 159, No. 106, No. 98 and No. 13 of 2019, with attached order delivered at the hearing of December 4, 2018; Orders No. 225, No. 191 and No. 24 of 2021, No. 202 of 2020 and No. 204 of 2019); that such interest exists where a "legal position capable of being immediately and irremediably prejudiced by the outcome of the incidental proceedings" is configured (Judgment No. 159 of 2019; Orders No. 271 and No. 111 of 2020); that it is therefore not sufficient that the third party's interest may be affected by the effects of the judgment of acceptance, but there must be a direct link between its subjective position and the subject matter of the a quo proceedings, since the impact on this position must derive not, as for all other substantive situations governed by the challenged provision, from the pronouncement of this Court on the constitutional legitimacy of the provision itself, but from the immediate effect that this pronouncement produces on the substantive subject matter of the a quo proceedings (among many, Judgments No. 77 of 2023, No. 218 of 2021, with attached order delivered at the hearing of October 5, 2021, and No. 253 of 2019, with attached order delivered at the hearing of October 22, 2019; Order No. 37 of 2020); that, in light of these principles, the institutional representative function of the members of the register performed by the National Council of Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts does not justify the intervention, "even more so in view of [...] the introduction of Article 4-ter [current Article 6] of the Supplementary Rules, which allows non-profit social formations and institutional bodies "bearing collective or diffuse interests relating to the constitutional question" to submit a written opinion to the Court as amici curiae" (Order No. 37 of 2020); that the further functions performed by the same National Council in disciplinary matters, and in the supervision of the professional training of the members of the register, do not justify the intervention either, since there is no qualified and direct link between the prerogatives connected to these functions and the specific substantive subject matter of the a quo proceedings; that the latter, while it may concern the professional interests of the members, concerns aspects that are not suitable to immediately and irremediably compromise the aforementioned prerogatives, which would not be impaired or otherwise put into play directly by the outcome of these proceedings; that the intervention must therefore be declared inadmissible.

For These Reasons

THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

declares the intervention in the proceedings of the National Council of Chartered Accountants and Accounting Experts inadmissible. Signed: Augusto Antonio Barbera, President