Free South Park Scandinavia

Telecom bill: reply to Mr. Toscano

I was pleased that the Ing. Toscano has been affected by my remarks on the judgments of the Supreme Court, and take note of cases cited in the comment.
I would like to stress, however, in reality, the findings by the Court of Cassation of 2005 cited in the commentary, is not contrary to the reasoned judgments in 2009, since the latter deep into the subject does not resolve this issue as a purely interpretive ( invoice, which includes its transmission), but based on a solid legal basis. The Court in 2009, in fact, and adds two additional basic elements: 1) when required by contract (the contract with Telecom) per la quale le spese di invio fattura sono a carico dell'utente; e 2) l'art.53 della convenzione di concessione del servizio di telecomunicazione ad uso pubblico alla SIP (ora Telecom), approvata con DPR n.523/1984, che prevede l'inserimento obbligatorio di facoltà alternative di recupero della fattura, senza addebito di spese.
E' sulla base di tali elementi, allora, che il più recente orientamento del Giudice delle Leggi, con ancora maggiore sicurezza e minori 'rischi interpretativi', riesce a dirimere (sembra definitivamente, anche se con la 'beffa' del rigetto dei ricorsi...) la controversa questione.
Mi è sembrato opportuno esplicitare ancora una volta tali elementi, anche per meglio identificare gli elementi 'forti' che caratterizzano le ultime decisioni, a differenza di quelle citate dall'Ing. Toscano che, pur pregevoli, si inoltrano ancora per il percorso scivoloso dell'interpretazione letterale delle norme sull'IVA.
Ringrazio ancora per l'interessamento ed il proficuo confronto.
Avv. Antonio M. Polito

(pubblicato originariamente in data 17.12.2009)

Kates Platground 2009

bill Telecom Expenses: comment Eng. Toscano Movement Consumers Catania.

Pubblico la gentile mail inviatami dall'Ing. Toscano del Movimento Consumatori, sportello di Catania, sul contenuto della quale, a breve, aggiungerò a mia volta un commento .

Gent.mo Mr. Polito,

I highly appreciated your article on the "true history of the shipping bill," perhaps now the only one who shed light on the actual content of the notes Case No. 3532, 3542 the Supreme Court.

I tried to add a comment on his blog but there is some script that generates error and then I can not post.

then I communicate what I wanted to add in this e-mail [...].

Besides these recent judgments of the SC, there is one in 2005 showed that in a short passage concepts that are opposed (and then showing a contrast in the case-SC) to those now affirmed by the SC when he says that "... The shipping bill is not meant to be attributed to the operation of outputting the fact that art. 21, paragraph 1, up, recite, that "The bill has to be issued at the time of delivery or shipment to ' On the other hand ... delivery or mailing of the bill is not a segment of the billing ... . In fact, the sentence no 16702 of 2005 , the SC reminded the \u0026lt;\u0026lt;... exact fulfillment of the obligations billing and registration under Articles. 21, 23, 24 and 25 of the said Presidential Decree (NDR: 633/1972) - according to which the supplier must issue an invoice for the transaction, recorded in the register and send invoices copy ... to the assignee ... >> then showing the ' obligation of delivery or shipment to another part of the bill, but that obligation is no longer in the more recent judgments of the SC first mentioned, although the second paragraph of Article 8. 21 of Presidential Decree 633/1972 " costs invoice and the consequent obligations and formalities not be subject to any charge under " according to paragraph 1: "The bill is has to issued at the time of its delivery or shipment to another part "according to paragraph 4:" The paper invoice is made out in duplicate, one of which is given or sent to ' On the other hand ", ergo, in my opinion, delivery or shipping a specific duty of those who issuing the invoice and are part of the invoice and then the cost of this issue "can not be the subject of complaint whatsoever.

Moreover, the recent ruling No 6510/2009 of the Court of Naples , next to these judgments No. 3532-3542/2009 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 3532 - 3542/2009 end_of_the_skype_highlighting the Supreme Court, again condemns the Telecom to charge the shipping costs, saying that \u0026lt;\u0026lt;... should be observed as the delivery or the sending of the bill is certainly a part - according to what the other judges on the merits - of the "consequent fulfillment and purpose" in Article. 21, paragraph 8, of PDR 633/1972, whose costs can not be charged to the customer for any reason. should further be noted that the delivery or Shipping bill is - in the spirit of the legislation - an indispensable element of the process of issuing the invoice that without the delivery or shipment, even seems to acquire legal significance to external prejudice to be a purely internal legal position of the issuer . Moreover, according to the contractual provision relied upon by Telecom Spa should be emphasized that the provision giving the client the responsibility to pay the shipping costs of the bill is void because of conflict with a peremptory norm of Article. 21 analyzed above, which excludes the cost of the invoice may be charged al cliente. Il carattere imperativo della cennata disposizione emerge dal fatto che essa, per evidenti finalità di interesse generale, disciplina proprio la ripartizione tra i soggetti interessati degli oneri connessi alla imposizione fiscale . >> ed inoltre che <<... deve rilevarsi come in ogni caso il comportamento tenuto dalla appellante ... sia da considerare contrario ai principi di buona fede e correttezza ponendo necessariamente a carico del cliente oneri aggiuntivi (cfr. l’orientamento seguito di recente dalla Suprema Corte nelle sentenze richiamate dalla stessa parte appellante) . >>, the latter statement is a general principle that is independent of the particular contractual relationship with a particular company.

I hope she can bring this my notes on his blog, where considered valid and worthy of being released.

Sincerely,

Ing Giuseppe Toscano

Adviser "Consumer Movement" door Catania

www.movimentoconsumatorict.it

(originally published on 12.11.2009)