A List Of Different Woods#

Constitutional Court Judgement: illegal sewage fee.

Saturday 5 sttembre 2009 Mr. Michael Anthony Giliberti .

The Constitutional Court with the decision No. 335 of 11 / 10/2008 redesigns, the relationship between utilities and consumers. The Judgement has related to the disputed treatment fee, establishing the principle that if the local council are not active for water purifiers waste, the share of the bill for purification should not be paid by citizens.

The Constitutional Court, asked to rule on the legality of the payment of the sewage in the water bills as a result of action brought by a citizen against the amounts paid to the company providing water supply for a service not rendered, declared the constitutional illegitimacy of article. 14, paragraph 1, Law of 5 January 1994, n. 36 (provisions relating to water resources), both in the original text, both as amended by art. 28 of the Law of 31 July 2002, 179 (provisions relating to the environment) insofar as it provides that the share reference to the service rate of sewage is caused by users 'even if the drain is without a centralized sewage treatment plants or they are temporarily inactive' he said, also, pursuant to art. Law 27 of March 11, 1953, No 87, declares that Article. 155, first paragraph, first sentence of the legislative decree of 3 April 2006, no 152 (Environmental Regulations), to the extent it provides that the share price related to the service of sewage is caused by users' even where treatment plants are missing or they are dormant. "

In this case, the Court held that the amount in question until now required for all users of the water supply, following the ruling of the Supreme Court No 96 of 01.04.2005, shall not constitute a charge, but payment for a service which, in cases where the facilities are lacking, be refused. All this is contrary to Article 3 of the Constitution because it discriminates against those who pay the price without receiving the service. In light of this ruling the law firm Giliberti & Partners, to seek clarifications from the very beginning of Solofra Irno Service Spa, in respect of payment of the fee of purification, together with all the right tools to ' to recover amounts wrongfully paid by the users to share voice and sewage treatment in municipalities where there are no related equipment. E 'activated a field of study who will instruct any claims for damage to property or otherwise, caused to citizens by the malfunction of the service of collection and allocation of payments. There are various hardships suffered by you from the beginning of the year, with continuous demands for payment, behind front and poor competence of the management bodies of the various services (water, gas, sewage, etc...)

Driver For 460668 Webcam

TARSU, PURIFICATION, SEWER, WATER .... ORGANIZED AND CITIZENS 'BEST!

After a period of suspension of publications and a partial correction of the mission of the study (special attention is given to the many complaints by users against compulsory collection of fees, taxes, fines and recoveries, not related by agencies relevance to public or private regime almost) back with a series of articles and news for users and citizens, especially in this time of crisis, felt the need for greater protection of their rights at all levels, both public and private sectors. Reclamation sarnese Agro Nocerino, Fee for the purification and sewage, road tax, Tarsu, ICI, Gas, Water, fines etc.. become a true and his nightmare for families and especially for the elderly, when these services are entrusted to municipal bodies to participate (often limited company with the participation of interested private profit rather than to the efficiency of the service, or to facilitate nepotistic hiring outside the government) is not prepared for an efficient and effective management of the service. Appeals in Tax Commission, claims self-defense to the management authorities, appeals to the justice of the peace, included as part of wider action to protect the citizen, that cross a greater awareness seems to be aware of the need for more organized forms collaboration (such as committees, associations and working groups), they can certainly ensure a more effective protection of the rights violated. Important in this respect the latest rulings of the Supreme Court or the Constitutional Court on the subject, that are creating clarity on certain aspects of the rates which for various reasons these institutions apply to citizens-users (often illegal as containing illegal entries or not due) .

Attorney Michael Anthony Giliberti

TARSU NOT THE 'SUBJECT TO VAT

The fee for disposal of municipal solid waste, is the tribute that the municipalities applied on basis of the total cost of the service collection and subsequent disposal of waste using as parameter the surface of the living quarters and activities where the waste may arise.
With a recent ruling, the Court of Cassation ruled chel'IVA 10% normally charged on the bills of the waste tax is unlawful. The Court of Cassation, in line with the approach of other European Union countries, has determined that the consideration that citizens must pay for the collection and disposal of waste, is a tax and not a fee is not charged and therefore the 'VAT.
This important decision means the ability for taxpayers to request the refund to the municipalities levying of the sums paid by way of value added tax (VAT) on the fee for waste disposal in the last ten years.
Appeals
and VAT refund in hand with proof of payment in the last ten years of Tarsu on which the entry was calculated at 10% VAT, you may ask for a refund. Initially it is sufficient, even with the help of a lawyer, wary that the municipal government performance.