The implementation of the purported sugar tax was consistently delayed, extending its implementation for years. However, if the government and parliament decide to implement it immediately, they will be allowed to do so without risking constitutional violations. According to a recently published Constitutional Court decision, the levy on the consumption of sweetened soft drinks is not constitutionally invalid and can compensate for higher health-related costs. The Second Section of the Regional Court of Lazio, which censured this discipline, raised the issue of legitimacy for violating the principle of tax equality, given that the sugar tax, which is set to go into effect on July 1st, next year unless extended, is intended to affect only specific non-alcoholic beverages. Therefore, fruit juices and vegetable juices, unfermented, not containing added alcohol, containing added sugar or other sweetening matter, obtained by the addition of sweeteners of natural or synthetic origin, are taxed (including mineral and carbonated waters, with added sugar or other sweeteners or flavorings), while other foodstuffs containing the same substances would not be taxed. In its opinion, the Lazio Regional Administrative Court determined that the disparate treatment accorded to two cases deemed similar (sweetened soft drinks and other food products) was not justified in the law's text or explanatory report and was thus unreasonably discriminatory. In rejecting the claim of unconstitutionality, the Court determined that the legislature's disincentive decision - the imposition of the sugar tax - is not unreasonable, arbitrary, nor inappropriate in terms of its restriction to sweetened beverages as opposed to other types of foods.
|