CAUTELARE, RESTITUZIONE, INDENNIZZO E RISARCIMENTO

10.1 Premessa

Per tutto quanto esposto nelle Parti precedenti, il soggetto istante formula le seguenti domande, distinguendo: A. domande di accertamento; B. domande cautelari; C. domande restitutorie; D. domande indennitarie; E. domande risarcitorie; F. domande istituzionali e internazionali.

10.2 DOMANDA N. 1 — Accertamento della situazione monetaria e finanziaria

Si chiede di accertare, mediante dati ufficiali e metodologia riproducibile: la composizione della massa monetaria; la relazione tra moneta bancaria e moneta della banca centrale; il rapporto tra massa monetaria, credito e debito; l'incidenza degli interessi; la sostenibilità delle obbligazioni pubbliche; la sostenibilità delle obbligazioni private; gli effetti delle politiche monetarie e fiscali sulla disponibilità di liquidità.

10.3 DOMANDA N. 2 — Verifica della tesi sull'impossibilità strutturale di

adempiere Si chiede che venga sottoposta a verifica indipendente la tesi secondo cui la struttura monetaria determinerebbe una impossibilità strutturale e generalizzata di adempiere alle obbligazioni fiscali.

10.4 DOMANDA N. 3 — Accertamento individuale delle pretese fiscali

Si chiede che, per ogni posizione concretamente contestata, siano verificati: titolo; origine; importo; interessi; sanzioni; prescrizione; decadenza; regolarità della notificazione; regolarità della riscossione; eventuali procedure esecutive; eventuali pagamenti già effettuati.

10.5 DOMANDA N. 4 — Sospensione delle procedure esecutive nei casi

giuridicamente previsti Si chiede, nei singoli procedimenti in cui sussistano i relativi presupposti, la sospensione di: pignoramenti; fermi amministrativi; ipoteche; vendite forzate; ulteriori procedure esecutive.

10.6 DOMANDA N. 5 — Restituzione delle somme eventualmente non dovute

Qualora venga accertato che somme siano state riscosse senza valido titolo, in misura superiore al dovuto, mediante applicazione illegittima di interessi, mediante sanzioni successivamente annullate, o in conseguenza di un atto dichiarato invalido, si chiede la restituzione delle somme indebitamente riscosse, oltre agli eventuali accessori previsti dalla legge.

10.7 DOMANDA N. 6 — Indennizzo

Qualora l'ordinamento applicabile preveda una forma di indennizzo indipendentemente dalla prova di un illecito, si chiede che venga riconosciuta la relativa somma in favore dei soggetti aventi diritto.

10.8 DOMANDA N. 7 — Risarcimento del danno

Qualora venga accertato un illecito imputabile a un soggetto pubblico o privato, si chiede il risarcimento integrale dei danni direttamente causalmente collegati alla condotta. Potranno essere dedotti, ove documentati: danno patrimoniale (capitale perduto; somme indebitamente versate; interessi; costi finanziari; perdita di reddito; perdita di valore patrimoniale; costi sostenuti per la tutela dei propri diritti); danno non patrimoniale (danno alla salute; danno morale; danno esistenziale; altri pregiudizi riconosciuti dalla legge).

10.9 DOMANDA N. 8 — Danno erariale

Qualora emergano condotte che abbiano prodotto un danno alle finanze pubbliche, si chiede la trasmissione degli atti alla competente autorità contabile.

10.10 DOMANDA N. 9 — Verifica degli strumenti di indebitamento per la difesa

Si chiede di accertare: base giuridica; procedura di approvazione; soggetti competenti; importo; durata; costo; garanzie; beneficiari; destinazione delle risorse;

impatto sui bilanci futuri; impatto sui servizi pubblici; eventuali rischi intergenerazionali.

10.11 DOMANDA N. 10 — Verifica della tutela del risparmio privato

Si chiede di accertare che qualsiasi politica di mobilitazione del risparmio privato: sia fondata su una base giuridica; distingua chiaramente tra adesione volontaria e imposizione; garantisca la proprietà privata; garantisca adeguata informazione; preveda adeguate garanzie; rispetti i principi di proporzionalità.

10.12 DOMANDA N. 11 — Cooperazione internazionale

Si chiede l'apertura, ove istituzionalmente possibile, di un tavolo tecnico internazionale comprendente rappresentanti delle istituzioni competenti in materia di: diritto internazionale; economia; finanza; diritti umani; debito pubblico; proprietà privata; autodeterminazione.

10.13 DOMANDA N. 12 — Autodeterminazione economica e monetaria

Si chiede alle istituzioni competenti di esaminare la portata giuridica del diritto all'autodeterminazione economica e monetaria, con particolare riferimento: alla titolarità del diritto; alle condizioni di esercizio; ai limiti; agli effetti nei confronti di Stati e organizzazioni internazionali; alle procedure di riconoscimento eventualmente applicabili.

10.14 DOMANDA N. 13 — Richiesta di parere consultivo

Il documento originario richiede un parere della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia sull'autodeterminazione economica e monetaria. La presente istanza formula pertanto richiesta affinché, ove ricorrano i presupposti previsti dalla Carta ONU e dallo Statuto della Corte, venga valutata l'opportunità di sottoporre alla Corte una questione consultiva concernente: la portata del diritto all'autodeterminazione economica e monetaria dei popoli e i relativi limiti nel quadro del diritto internazionale contemporaneo.

10.15 DOMANDA N. 14 — Richiesta di registrazione e conservazione

internazionale Si chiede agli organismi competenti di registrare la presente comunicazione secondo le procedure effettivamente applicabili.

10.16 DOMANDA N. 15 — Tutela cautelare

Qualora siano individuati casi concreti nei quali l'esecuzione di una determinata misura possa provocare un danno grave, irreparabile o difficilmente reversibile, si chiede all'autorità competente di valutare l'adozione delle misure cautelari previste dalla legge.

10.17 DOMANDA N. 16 — Diritto di accesso agli atti e ai dati

Si chiede di ottenere, secondo la disciplina applicabile: atti amministrativi; documenti finanziari; analisi di impatto; studi econometrici; dati utilizzati; contratti; garanzie; pareri; verbali; documenti preparatori.

10.18 DOMANDA N. 17 — Verifica delle responsabilità

Qualora dagli accertamenti emergano violazioni, si chiede che siano individuati: soggetto responsabile; condotta; norma violata; periodo; nesso causale; danno; forma di responsabilità; autorità competente; rimedio disponibile.

10.19 DOMANDA N. 18 — Riparazione integrale

Qualora venga accertato un illecito internazionale o interno produttivo di danno, si chiede che siano applicate le forme di riparazione previste dall'ordinamento competente, comprendenti, ove pertinenti: restituzione; ripristino; cessazione della condotta; garanzie di non ripetizione; indennizzo; risarcimento; soddisfazione, secondo i presupposti e i limiti stabiliti dal diritto applicabile.

10.20 Formula finale del petitum

Per tutte le ragioni esposte, si chiede alle autorità destinatarie, ciascuna per quanto di propria competenza, di: ACCERTARE — VERIFICARE — SOSPENDERE, ove previsto — RESTITUIRE, ove dovuto — INDENNIZZARE, ove previsto — RISARCIRE, ove accertato — E

ADOTTARE OGNI ULTERIORE MISURA DI RIPARAZIONE PREVISTA

DALL'ORDINAMENTO.

CONCLUSIONI FINALI

L'analisi della Corte dei Conti europea sul piano di riarmo dell'UE rivela una profonda contraddizione tra la narrazione trionfalistica della Commissione e la realtà strutturale del continente. La frammentazione dei sistemi nazionali, i colli di bottiglia industriali, la dipendenza da fornitori extra-europei e l'insostenibilità fiscale del debito comune costituiscono ostacoli oggettivi che rendono improbabile il raggiungimento degli obiettivi dichiarati. Sul piano giuridico, il piano di riarmo solleva gravi questioni di legittimità: sul piano internazionale, la corsa agli armamenti contrasta con lo spirito e la lettera della Carta delle Nazioni Unite; sul piano europeo, l'uso dell'articolo 122 TFUE per escludere il Parlamento europeo dal processo decisionale solleva dubbi di legittimità democratica; sul piano costituzionale italiano, l'incremento delle spese militari a scapito degli investimenti sociali pone problemi di compatibilità con gli articoli 11, 32 e 52 della Costituzione, con la dottrina dei controlimiti (sent. 238/2014). A ciò si aggiunge la questione fondamentale del neocolonialismo monetario: il sistema dell'euro, in quanto moneta creata attraverso l'indebitamento, genera un debito odioso che ricade su tutti i cittadini senza il loro consenso e senza un beneficio proporzionato per la collettività. La dottrina del debito odioso, elaborata da Sack nel 1927 e fatta propria dalla dottrina internazionalistica contemporanea, fornisce gli strumenti giuridici per qualificare come non vincolanti tali obbligazioni e per ripudiarle. Le dichiarazioni della Presidente von der Leyen sui risparmi "pigri" dei cittadini europei rivelano una concezione del risparmio privato come risorsa a disposizione del progetto politico dell'Unione, incompatibile con i principi del costituzionalismo democratico e con la tutela della proprietà privata.

La dimostrazione matematica dell'impossibilità strutturale di adempiere alle cartelle esattoriali — fondata sui modelli DSA, Keen-Werner, Monte Carlo e DSGE — costituisce il fondamento tecnico-giuridico della nullità ab initio di ogni pretesa esattiva. Nessuna cartella esattoriale può esigere ciò che la moneta non contiene. E l'autodeterminazione non si chiede: si esercita. Il Popolo Italiano Autodeterminato, attraverso il CLNI, ha già costituito le proprie istituzioni sovrane, ha già emanato le proprie leggi, ha già notificato alle istituzioni internazionali la propria volontà di esercitare la sovranità monetaria e fiscale in via diretta. Il futuro dell'Europa non può essere subordinato alla logica emergenziale della corsa agli armamenti. La vera deterrenza e la pace duratura si fondano su una società coesa, economicamente forte, socialmente giusta e capace di produrre benessere per tutti i suoi abitanti, e non soltanto sugli arsenali militari. Come ha osservato il Presidente della Corte costituzionale italiana, occorre "graduare gli impegni" e riconoscere che la sicurezza di una nazione non si misura esclusivamente in termini militari, ma nella capacità di garantire ai propri cittadini i diritti fondamentali sanciti dalla Costituzione e dai Trattati europei. Il Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale Italiana, custode della memoria della Resistenza e dell'eredità costituzionale, si fa interprete di questa istanza di pace, giustizia, sovranità popolare e dignità del lavoro e del risparmio, e invita tutti i cittadini a mobilitarsi pacificamente per un'Europa che scelga la vita, la dignità e la libertà, non la guerra e la morte. In questa battaglia, il CLNI non è solo: insieme al SIPSE e ai 42 Popoli autoctoni europei, uniti nella comune lotta per l'autodeterminazione e la sovranità economica, costruiamo un'Europa dei Popoli fondata sulla giustizia, sulla solidarietà e sul rispetto dei diritti fondamentali. «Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur.» «L'autodeterminazione non si chiede: si esercita.» «Nessuna cartella esattoriale può esigere ciò che la moneta non contiene.»

RISERVA DI OGNI DIRITTO

Il soggetto istante si riserva integralmente ogni diritto, azione, eccezione, domanda restitutoria, indennitaria e risarcitoria eventualmente spettante secondo il diritto nazionale, europeo o internazionale applicabile. La quantificazione definitiva degli eventuali danni sarà effettuata soltanto dopo l'acquisizione della documentazione necessaria e l'espletamento degli accertamenti tecnici.

RICHIESTA FINALE

Per tutto quanto precede, si chiede alle autorità destinatarie di: PRENDERE ATTO della presente istanza; REGISTRARLA secondo le procedure applicabili; INDIVIDUARE le autorità competenti per ciascuna questione; ACCERTARE i fatti e le circostanze dedotte; VERIFICARE la documentazione economica, finanziaria e giuridica prodotta; ADOTTARE ove ne ricorrano i presupposti, le misure cautelari e di tutela previste

dalla legge; DISPORRE ove dovuto, la restituzione delle somme illegittimamente riscosse; RICONOSCERE ove previsto, gli eventuali indennizzi; RISARCIRE ove sia accertata una responsabilità causalmente collegata al danno; GARANTIRE ove necessario, misure di ripristino e garanzie di non ripetizione; COMUNICARE all'istante l'esito degli accertamenti e i rimedi disponibili.

CLAUSOLA DI CHIUSURA

La presente istanza non pretende di sostituire le competenze delle autorità giudiziarie, amministrative, contabili o internazionali. Essa intende invece porre formalmente all'attenzione delle istituzioni competenti una serie di questioni che, per la loro natura economica, sociale e giuridica, richiedono verifica documentale, accertamento indipendente e risposta istituzionale motivata. Ogni eventuale responsabilità dovrà essere accertata secondo legge. Ogni eventuale danno dovrà essere provato. Ogni eventuale restituzione, indennizzo o risarcimento dovrà essere determinato secondo i criteri dell'ordinamento competente.

Luogo: Roma Data: 28 Settembre 2026 Il soggetto istante / rappresentante

Firma Presidente S.E. Paolo Albertin Comitato Liberazione Nazionale Italiano (CLNI) Roma. comitatoliberazionenazionaleitaliano@pec.it Sito Istituzionale: www.comitatoliberazionenazionaleitaliano.org

Allegati: come da elenco documentale.

FORMULA DI NOTIFICA

Il presente atto viene trasmesso agli organismi e alle autorità individuati nella Parte VII, con richiesta di protocollazione, presa in carico, individuazione dell'ufficio competente e comunicazione dell'esito secondo le procedure applicabili.

Documento registrato su blockchain sovrana del CLNI – Immutabile e opponibile erga omnes. Hash SHA-256: 0410c025e5fc0f61ac478beea73595a15bde91f7f8ef9d694cf1ff57660e8bf4 – TX:

07/05/2026 18:03:01 0.01 ZECCHINO

Fine dell'Istanza.

EU Court of Auditors on the Rearmament Plan

FORMAL APPLICATION FOR ASCERTAINMENT, COMPLAINT-REPORT, FORMAL

NOTICE AND DEFAULT NOTICE

WITH REQUEST FOR PROTECTION, CESSATION OF HARMFUL CONDUCT,

RESTORATION, RESTITUTION, COMPENSATION AND REIMBURSEMENT OF ANY

DAMAGES ASCERTAINED

Concerning the economic, patrimonial, fiscal and social consequences deduced in relation to European rearmament policies, the related financing instruments and the effects produced or potentially produced on the legally protected rights and interests of persons and Peoples Act of impulse, contestation and request for ascertainment

SUBJECT

Application for ascertainment of institutional responsibilities and the prejudicial effects deriving from rearmament policies, the related financing instruments and the economic, fiscal and patrimonial consequences deduced in this act — complaint- report for the facts and conduct deemed harmful to legally protected rights and interests — formal notice and default notice of the addressees — request for cessation, prevention and reparation of harmful consequences — request for restitution, compensation, indemnity and/or reimbursement of patrimonial and non- patrimonial damages, individual and collective, to the extent that will be ascertained in the competent fora — with express reservation of any further action, exception, challenge and protection provided by national, European and international law.

NATURE AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT

This document must be understood, according to the content of the individual allegations and the claims formulated, as a formal act of impulse, contestation, complaint-report, formal notice and request for ascertainment and reparation, aimed at submitting to the addressees facts, circumstances, data, legal arguments and prejudicial consequences that are assumed to merit examination by the competent authorities.

The legal qualifications, the responsibilities that may be configurable and the existence, extent and causal link of the damages deduced in this act are remitted to the ascertainment of the competent authorities and bodies, without this formulation intending to replace their jurisdictional or administrative function. This act therefore contains:

1. application for ascertainment, so that the circumstances and conduct set out may be

examined; 2. complaint-report, in relation to the facts that are assumed to be potentially harmful to legally protected rules, rights or interests; 3. formal notice and default notice, within the limits and according to the effects recognized by the applicable legal system; 4. request for protection and cessation of any harmful conduct; 5. request for ascertainment of patrimonial and non-patrimonial damages, individual and collective, directly or indirectly deduced; 6. request for restitution, restoration, compensation, indemnity and/or reimbursement, according to the legal qualification that will be deemed applicable by the competent authorities; 7. request for preservation of and access to the relevant documentation, data and acts, where provided for by the applicable discipline; 8. express reservation to promote further proceedings and actions before the competent national, European and international authorities.

PREAMBLE

In the name of the principles of legality, dignity of the person, protection of property, proportionality of public action, institutional responsibility, access to justice and effective protection of fundamental rights, this act is formally submitted to the examination of the addressees and authorities so that, within their respective competences, the facts, acts, decisions, financial instruments and economic and social consequences described in the body of the document may be verified. The act originates from the examination of the critical issues identified in the documentation concerning European security and defence policy, the financial instruments intended for its financing and the consequences that such choices may produce on public finance, on citizens' patrimony, on private savings, on the exercise of fundamental rights and on the balance between security needs, economic sustainability and social protection. The reference document cited in the text is analysis 01/2026 of the European Court of Auditors, published on 3 September 2026. The questions submitted to the attention of the authorities are therefore not put forward as mere political assessments, but are formulated as questions of fact and law susceptible to verification, ascertainment and, where the conditions exist, consequent measures of protection and reparation. Particular importance is assumed, in this act, by the consequences potentially produced by the increase in public expenditure allocated to defence, by the use of debt financing instruments, by their repercussions on public budgets and by the possible effects on the patrimonial, social and economic rights of persons. The document also refers to the international, European and constitutional legal framework concerning the protection of the person, property, savings, dignity, health, work, democratic participation and self-determination, requesting that these

principles be concretely considered in the assessment of the acts and policies under examination. This application also assumes importance as a formal preventive contestation and request for verification, so that no potential prejudicial consequence may be considered devoid of a prior examination of its causes, its proportionality, its necessity, its legal basis and the relationship between the public interest pursued and the sacrifice imposed on the addressees. Where unlawful or otherwise legally relevant damaging conduct, omissions, acts or decisions are ascertained, it is requested that the responsible subjects be identified according to their respective competences and that all measures provided by the legal system be adopted for the cessation of the conduct, the prevention of further prejudice, the restoration of the harmed situation and the integral reparation of the damage, where legally due. The request for indemnity and/or reimbursement contained in this act must consequently be understood as formulated in a subordinate and conditional manner to the ascertainment of the legal prerequisites, including, according to what will be recognized by the competent authorities, patrimonial damage, non-patrimonial damage, consequential loss, loss of profit, any patrimonial losses consequent to executive or fiscal acts and any further item of legally recognizable damage. This act does not intend to replace the judicial bodies nor to anticipate their determinations. It constitutes, instead, a formal exercise of the right of application, complaint, defence and access to protection, with a request to the competent authorities to take cognizance of the facts set out, verify their validity and adopt, where the conditions exist, the consequent measures. Any statement contained in the document relating to responsibility, unlawfulness, nullity, damage, causal link or normative violation must therefore be understood as an allegation, contestation or proposition submitted for ascertainment, except for what may already result from final measures or from official sources cited in the text. This act therefore requests that the addressee authorities: a) formally take cognizance of the circumstances represented; b) proceed with the ascertainments within their respective competences; c) identify any acts, conduct or omissions susceptible to legal censure; d) verify the existence of any damages and the related causal link; e) adopt the necessary measures to prevent the aggravation of any prejudice ascertained; f) order, where provided by law, the necessary restitutionary, restorative, compensatory, indemnity or reimbursement measures; g) formally communicate the outcome of the ascertainments and the determinations adopted; h) preserve, make available and/or transmit, within the limits permitted by the applicable legislation, the acts and documents necessary for the full reconstruction of the facts. This application is proposed with express reservation of every right, action, exception, challenge and remedy, in administrative, civil, tax, criminal, constitutional,

European and international fora, that may be exercisable on the basis of the ascertainments subsequently carried out. This formulation does not constitute a waiver of any further form of protection and may not be interpreted as acquiescence, acceptance or recognition of the legitimacy of the acts or conduct specifically contested. This document is also intended for the sui generis organization SIPSE — System of the Institutions of the Peoples for Economic Sovereignty — and for the 42 European indigenous Peoples adhering to and represented by SIPSE, as subjects holding the right to self-determination and the exercise of economic and monetary sovereignty directly. SIPSE, with headquarters at the International Court for the Self- Determination of Peoples in Palazzo Ducale, Venice, and with General Secretariat in Geneva, is the organization that brings together the indigenous Peoples of Europe who, by virtue of general international law and peremptory norms of jus cogens, have constituted parallel sovereign institutions and deposited the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union of Peoples (TIEP) pursuant to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.

PART I — THE STRUCTURAL CRITICALITIES IDENTIFIED BY THE EUROPEAN

COURT OF AUDITORS

1.1 Fragmentation and absence of top-down coordination

The Court notes that European military spending suffers from the absence of an effective centralized planning process. Individual Member States continue to move in scattered order, generating duplications, inefficiencies and fragmented investments. Capability planning in the EU largely follows a bottom-up approach, in which individual countries autonomously identify their own needs. The lack of an effective top-down planning process, together with insufficient coordination between the various EU funding streams and between these and national funding, can lead to "fragmentation of investments, duplications or persistent capability gaps." The Court further emphasizes that the increase in defence spending will not necessarily translate into greater coherence of European capabilities. The EU defence policy is characterized by a complex institutional arrangement and a multilevel governance structure, which translates into "considerable coordination challenges among the various actors" and increases the risk of overlapping responsibilities.

1.2 Industrial bottlenecks and shortage of qualified personnel

The rapid mobilization of substantial financial resources risks being bogged down by the structural limits of the market. The Court notes the chronic shortage of qualified personnel — aggravated by young people's disinterest in heavy industry — high inflation and bottlenecks in the supply chain of key materials and critical components. In particular, "bottlenecks in terms of qualified personnel" and "bottlenecks in terms of materials," together with the high inflation rates generated by high energy costs, "make it difficult to use the allocated funds." The analysis highlights that, if not implemented correctly, the increase in funding can also entail implementation risks and bottlenecks of materials, key components or

qualified personnel, making it difficult to use the funds. The European market is not sufficiently developed for the new needs and demands, and this represents a further structural obstacle to the achievement of the declared objectives.

1.3 Persistent extra-European dependence

Despite the "strategic autonomy" objectives trumpeted by Brussels, the European defence industry remains strongly tied to non-European suppliers, primarily the United States, both for supply chains and for technological and logistical support. According to data from the European Court of Auditors, from the beginning of the war in Ukraine until June 2023, 78% of Member States' defence purchases were made outside the EU, and 63% of these in the United States. The Court emphasizes that it is essential to seize new opportunities and pay attention to existing risks, given that the objective of achieving defence readiness by 2030 remains a challenge. Dependence on extra-European suppliers is not only a question of industrial sovereignty, but directly affects Europe's ability to act autonomously in the event of a crisis, exposing it to external political and strategic conditioning.

1.4 Sustainability of public accounts and common debt

The massive use of common debt instruments, EU-guaranteed loans and the flexibility granted on budget rules — such as the derogation from the Stability Pact constraints for military spending — risk compromising the fiscal stability of Member States, subtracting vital resources from social investments. The EU is increasingly using loans guaranteed by the EU budget, including the €150 billion to accelerate the defence readiness of Member States through the SAFE programme (Security Action for Europe) and the €90 billion loan for Ukraine, of which €60 billion is destined for defence. The Court warns that "the increasing use of debt-financed defence spending and EU-guaranteed loans may compromise fiscal sustainability by slowing down the reduction of public debt and putting pressure on the EU budget." The auditors specifically warned that "this growing recourse to debt could undermine fiscal stability, slow down the reduction of public debt and put pressure on the EU budget." In Italy, the estimated military spending for 2026 is approximately $47.7 billion, equal to 2.0% of GDP, placing the country twelfth in the world for military spending. These are resources subtracted from crucial sectors such as healthcare, education and ecological transition, in a context of public finance already under pressure.

PART II — THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF REFERENCE

2.1 International law: UN Charter, self-determination and limits on the use of force

The international legal framework imposes stringent limits on the arms race and the militarization of international relations. Article 51 of the United Nations Charter recognizes the right of individual and collective self-defence only in the event of an actual armed attack, until the Security Council has adopted the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security. Preventive self-defence finds no basis

in the wording of Article 51, which applies rigorously "when a country has been attacked." The system of collective security provided for by the United Nations Charter — far from legitimizing the arms race — places the maintenance of international peace and security with the Security Council, which holds the monopoly on the legitimate use of force outside of self-defence. The anti-missile shield strategy and the fuelling of the arms race, far from strengthening peace, jeopardize global security, reviving the logic of si vis pacem para bellum, which in the "parenthesis" between two warred wars prepares to fight another. Furthermore, the principle of self-determination of peoples, enshrined in Articles 1 and 55 of the United Nations Charter and in the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights, constitutes a peremptory norm of international law (jus cogens), non-derogable, non-suspendable and productive of erga omnes obligations, as repeatedly affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the advisory opinions Namibia (1971), Western Sahara (1975), Kosovo (2010), Chagos (2019) and Palestine (2024). It requires that any transfer of sovereign powers to supranational organizations be accompanied by an explicit and direct pronouncement of the social body. United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. 1514 (XV) of 1960 (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) and No. 2625 (XXV) of 1970 (Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations) qualify self-determination as a fundamental principle of international law and specify that no external imposition may prevail over the free expression of popular will. The erga omnes nature of this right implies that all States and all international organizations are bound by the obligation to recognize, respect and promote the self-determination of peoples, as well as not to recognize illegal situations deriving from its violation (Articles 40-41 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts – ILC 2001).

2.2 European law: CSDP, TFEU and the problem of the legal basis

The Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) is an integral part of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and constitutes the main policy framework through which Member States can develop a European strategic culture of security and defence. The CSDP is described in the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force in 2009 and amended the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The functioning of the CSDP and CFSP is set out in Title V of the TEU, Articles 21 to 46, while the financing methods are defined in Article 41 TEU. The political guidelines of the CSDP are established by European leaders in the European Council, while at ministerial level the Foreign Affairs Council translates these principles into concrete decisions. The European Council and the Council of the EU adopt decisions relating to the CSDP unanimously (Article 42 TEU), with the exception of decisions relating to the European Defence Agency (Article 45 TEU) and permanent structured cooperation (Article 46 TEU), for which adoption by qualified majority is provided.

A legal profile of particular importance concerns the legal basis of the SAFE Regulation (Security Action for Europe), founded on Article 122 TFEU — the so- called "solidarity clause" or emergency instrument — which entailed the exclusive involvement of the Council and the Commission, excluding the European Parliament from the decision-making process. The European Parliament has lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice of the EU for the annulment of the SAFE Regulation, specifically contesting that the contested act is erroneously based on Article 122 TFEU, not satisfying the conditions for invoking such an emergency legal basis. The Commission, for its part, has defended the use of Article 122 TFEU as an emergency mechanism necessary to allow the EU to act rapidly in exceptional situations. This institutional litigation raises fundamental questions of democratic legitimacy: the exclusion of the European Parliament — the only institution directly elected by citizens — from the decision-making process on a matter of such vast scope as European rearmament represents a grave lesion of the principle of democratic representativeness. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, proclaimed in Nice in 2000, enshrines that the Union "is founded on the indivisible, universal values of human dignity, freedom, equality and solidarity" and that the European peoples have "decided to share a peaceful future based on common values." This preamble constitutes not a mere rhetorical ornament, but a legal constraint that guides the interpretation of all the provisions of the Charter and the Treaties.

2.3 Italian constitutional law: Articles 11, 52 and constitutional jurisprudence

The Italian constitutional framework offers a normative reference of particular significance. Article 11 of the Constitution establishes that "Italy repudiates war as an instrument of offence against the freedom of other peoples and as a means of settling international disputes; it consents, on conditions of parity with other States, to limitations of sovereignty necessary for an order that ensures peace and justice among Nations; it promotes and favours international organizations devoted to such purpose." Article 52, first paragraph, of the Constitution enshrines that "the defence of the Fatherland is a sacred duty of the citizen." Constitutional jurisprudence has clarified that from Article 11, first part, it follows that our legal system has recognized the lawfulness of defensive war alone. The defence of the Fatherland, therefore, cannot be dilated to the point of identifying itself with the defence of the so-called "free world" or with participation in wars of aggression or military interventions outside the cases of legitimate defence. The Constitutional Court, with judgment No. 164 of 1985, offered unequivocal constitutional coverage to the pacifist principle and to nonviolent popular defence, recognizing that the duty of defence of the Fatherland is "well susceptible of fulfilment through the provision of adequate behaviours of unarmed social commitment." The Court established the equal dignity, in observance of the duties established by Article 52 of the Constitution, between armed defence and nonviolent civil defence of the Fatherland. The President of the Constitutional Court, during the annual press conference of 2022, had occasion to observe — in relation to the 2% of GDP target for military

spending — that it is necessary to "graduate commitments" since "we have other important ones," emphasizing the need to balance defence needs with the other constitutional duties of the State, primarily the protection of health and social rights. From the perspective of parliamentary law, Article 78 of the Constitution reserves to the Chambers the power to deliberate the state of war and to confer on the Government the necessary powers, while Article 87, paragraph 9, attributes to the President of the Republic the

2.4 Article 10 of the Italian Constitution and Law 881 of 1977

Article 10, first paragraph, of the Italian Constitution provides: "The Italian legal system conforms to the generally recognized norms of international law." The right to self-determination of peoples, as a norm of jus cogens and generally recognized customary international law, automatically enters the Italian legal system with constitutional rank, pursuant to Article 10 of the Constitution and the consistent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court (judgments 183/1973, 48/1979, 15/1996, 238/2014, 269/2017). Law No. 881 of 9 December 1977, implementing the International Covenants on Human Rights of 1966 (ICCPR and ICESCR), has transposed into ordinary law the common Article 1 of both Covenants, which enshrines the right to self-determination. This norm is immediately applicable in the Italian legal system, as recognized by the Court of Cassation (judgments No. 508/1988, No. 113/1990 and No. 2323/2022). Consequently, the Italian State cannot invoke any provision of ordinary law or EU treaty to prevent the Italian People from exercising the right to self-determination, under penalty of violation of Article 10 of the Constitution and the erga omnes obligations deriving from jus cogens.

2.5 European jurisprudence on tax and enforcement matters

The European Court of Human Rights has developed significant jurisprudence on tax enforcement and protection of property:

• ECtHR, Italgomme Pneumatici S.r.l. and others v. Italy (6 February 2025,

applications Nos. 36617/18 and 12 others) — systematic violation of Article 8 ECHR for excessive tax discretion, absence of predictable procedural guarantees, disproportionality of intrusions (accesses, executions, seizures).

• Cass. tax 11910/2025 (31 May 2025) — extension of the systemic violation of

Article 8 ECHR to real estate and movable property foreclosure procedures.

• ECtHR, new conviction 11 December 2025 (filed 8 January 2026) — third

conviction in a year for violation of bank data for tax purposes.

• Cass. criminal 512/2026 — obligation of stringent reasoning for tax audits; their

absence constitutes abuse of office.

• Gladysheva v. Russia (2019) — the loss of the home without a fair balance

between public interest and individual rights constitutes a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1.

• M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece (2011) — severe material and psychological

destitution is qualified as inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3 ECHR).

• Stec v. United Kingdom (2006) — disparities of treatment not justified by

reasonable proportionality violate Article 14 ECHR.

• Gasus and N.K.M. v. Hungary — disproportionate taxation that hits the weaker

classes violates the right to property.

• Rousk v. Sweden (2013) — the execution of an enforcement measure must not be

disproportionate to the amount of the claim to be recovered; the loss of the home is "the most extreme form of interference with the right to respect for the home."

• Nina Dimitrova v. Bulgaria — the absence of a realistic possibility of complying

must be assessed for the purposes of the proportionality of the enforcement measure.

2.6 The doctrine of "counter-limits" and judgment No. 238/2014 of the

Constitutional Court The judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court No. 238 of 2014 enunciated for the first time explicitly the doctrine of "counter-limits," identifying them in the "qualifying and irrenounceable principles of the constitutional order of the State (…) that oversee the protection of the fundamental rights of the person." The Court affirmed that the fundamental principles of the constitutional order and the inalienable rights of the person constitute:

• a limit to the entry of generally recognized international norms to which the Italian

legal system conforms according to Article 10, first paragraph, of the Constitution;

• "counter-limits" to the entry of European Union norms (ex plurimis: judgments No.

183 of 1973, No. 170 of 1984, No. 232 of 1989, No. 168 of 1991, No. 284 of 2007);

• identifying and irrenounceable elements of the constitutional order, for that very

reason also subtracted from constitutional revision (Articles 138 and 139 of the Constitution; judgment No. 1146 of 1988). The Court further specified that the verification of compatibility with the fundamental principles of the constitutional order and the protection of human rights is its exclusive competence. The doctrine of counter-limits, therefore, must not be understood as a form of resistance of national States to supranational and international integration processes, but as the rigorous expression of popular sovereignty, in its irrenounceable dimension.

2.7 Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union

In the judgment of 2 September 2021 in Case C-741/19 (Republic of Moldova v. Komstroy), the Court of Justice ruled that Article 26, paragraph 2, letter c), of the Energy Charter Treaty is not applicable to disputes between a Member State and an investor of another Member State (intra-EU disputes). This principle was subsequently transposed by Decision (EU) 2025/1904 of the European Parliament and of the Council, which approved the agreement concerning the interpretation and application of the Energy Charter Treaty. This jurisprudence is relevant in that it confirms the principle of the autonomy of law

2.8 International jurisprudence on illegitimate debt

The United Nations Human Rights Council, with resolution 52/17, established the mandate of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations on the full enjoyment of all human rights. The

Independent Expert affirmed that "human rights must prevail over debt repayment" and that "bilateral, multilateral and private creditors must ensure that lending practices respect human dignity and do not aggravate poverty and hardship." Furthermore, "illegitimate debts, tax competition and predatory lending erode the social contract and hinder the ability of States to fulfil their fundamental obligations." The UNCTAD 2025 report A World of Debt found that global public debt reached a record $102 trillion in 2024, of which approximately $31 trillion is borne by developing countries. The report highlighted that 3.4 billion people live in countries that spend more on interest payments on debt than on health or education. UNCTAD itself described the global public debt problem as a "silent crisis."

PART III — DEBT MONEY, ODIOUS DEBT AND MONETARY NEOCOLONIALISM

3.1 Money creation through indebtedness in the euro system

The euro monetary system is founded on a structural mechanism of money creation through debt. The euro is not legal tender issued by the sovereign State, but book- entry money created ex nihilo for 97% of the M3 money supply by private commercial banks in the modern fractional reserve system (confirmed by ECB working papers 2015-2025 and the BIS 2025 report on endogenous money creation). When a bank grants a loan of €100,000:

• It records an asset (claim against the borrower);
• It records a liability (demand deposit in favour of the borrower).

The formula for bank money creation is: M_created = C (Capital lent). The interest I = r · C is not created contextually. Consequently, a chronic structural liquidity shortage is expressed by the inequality: Mt<Dt+∑k=1nλk{t}(r⋅Dk{k−1})Mt<Dt+k=1∑nλk{t}(r⋅Dk{k−1}) where M_t is the money supply at time t, D_t the total debt, r the interest rate. The Italian State, deprived of monetary sovereignty (Article 123 TFEU), cannot issue public money and must obtain euros only through taxation or indebtedness on private markets. The primary mandate of the ECB (Article 127 TFEU) is limited to operations on financial systems and does not extend to the real economy: control of inflation is therefore fictitious, since the ECB cannot intervene on wages, productivity or aggregate demand. A structural and insurmountable conflict of interest thus arises: the same subjects who create the debt (commercial banks and the ECB) control both the money supply and its cost, depriving citizens of the liquidity necessary to fulfil tax obligations and to exercise inalienable human rights. As noted by doctrine, the euro "has enormously favoured the mechanism of universal indebtedness – of families, businesses, banks, States – on which the entire economic system has rested for at least two decades." This system produces a legal consequence of fundamental importance: since money is created through debt and since debt ultimately falls on all citizens — through taxation, inflation and the transfer of wealth from debtors to creditors — every decision of public indebtedness or money creation that exceeds the limits of ordinary management constitutes a

decision that directly affects the legal sphere of citizens and therefore requires their direct democratic consent.

3.2 Technical demonstration of mathematical impossibility

3.2.1 DSA Model (Debt Sustainability Analysis – IMF/EU standard)

The evolution of debt follows the equation: ΔD_t = (r – g) D_t{-1} + pb where:

• D_t = total debt (public + private) at time t;
• r = weighted average interest rate;
• g = real GDP growth rate;
• pb = primary budget balance (surplus/deficit).

Since the system creates only capital and not the money for interest, structurally r > g and M_t < D_t + accrued interest. Total debt can never be extinguished without a continuous expansion of credit.

3.2.2 Endogenous money model (Keen-Werner)

The Keen (2014) and Werner (2014) model analytically confirms the structural inequality indicated above, demonstrating that bank money is created as debt and that its quantity is always less than the total capitalized debt.

3.2.3 Monte Carlo simulations (10,000 iterations)

With normal distributions on r ~ N(0.035; 0.005), g ~ N(0.015; 0.005), pb ~ N(20; 5) billion €, and initial debt D_0 = 4,700 billion €:

• Probability that the liquidity shortage exceeds €5,000 billion: 59.69%
• Average final shortage (10 years): €5,308.94 billion

3.3 Italian data updated to 2026 and structural money shortage

Indicator Value Source M3 money supply €2,200 Bank of Italy Italy (2025) billion Italian public debt €3,050 Bank of Italy / (2026) billion Eurostat Private debt €1,650 Bank of Italy (households + billion businesses) Annual interest on €75-85 MEF public debt billion Annual interest on €110- Bank of Italy private debt 130 billion Total tax €1,350 Revenue collection files in billion Agency-

default Collection (2025) Structural money > €2,200 (Total debt + shortage billion interest) – M3 Consequence for the individual citizen: a tax collection file of €10,000 with default interest at 5% per annum becomes €11,576 after 3 years. The difference of €1,576 does not exist in the system except through new personal indebtedness, configuring a perpetual debt trap.

3.4 Odious debt: definition and criteria of application

The doctrine of odious debt, elaborated by the Russian jurist Alexander Nahum Sack in his 1927 treatise Les effets des transformations des États sur leurs dettes publiques et autres obligations financières, establishes that loans provided with the full awareness of the creditor in order to subjugate or defraud the population of a debtor State are not legally binding on that State under international law. Sack intended the doctrine in an extremely restrictive and creditor-friendly sense, to prevent future repudiations of debts from following the model of the Soviet refusal of Tsarist debts.

1. Absence of consent: the population did not consent to the transaction in question; 2.

Absence of benefit: the debt was contracted in violation of public order and its proceeds were used in a manner contrary to the interests of the State; 3. Knowledge of the creditor: the creditor was aware of the odious nature of the debt. Odious debt is, according to Sack, "a debt of the regime, a personal debt of the power that contracted it." The doctrine, although not formally recognized as a binding norm of customary international law, has been invoked by several States, international jurists and tribunals, and has been the subject of growing doctrinal interest that has led to its systematic reformulation. In the European context, the common debt contracted by the EU to finance rearmament — through instruments such as the SAFE Regulation and EU budget-guaranteed loans — raises legal questions of particular gravity under the doctrine of odious debt. If, as noted by the European Court of Auditors, such instruments do not produce proportionate benefits for citizens, if they are adopted without their direct consent and if the creditors are aware of the nature of the debt, all the elements exist to qualify such obligations as odious and, therefore, not binding on the community.

3.5 Monetary neocolonialism and the plundering of private property

The euro system, as debt money, produces a phenomenon that can be qualified as "monetary neocolonialism." Doctrine has highlighted how the euro system constitutes a "laboratory for neoliberalism and colonialism," in which "the introduction of the single currency was a key factor for the penetration and advancement of the neoliberal agenda on the European continent" and the European neoliberal agenda has "a strong colonialist component that, through instruments of reproduction of capitalism such as debt, renews old forms of colonial subordination." The mechanism of granting easy credit with the printing of money created from nothing and lent at interest, followed by the demand for austerity policies to repay

the debt, is the system that neocolonialism has used to take over States and resources. In the European context, this mechanism manifests itself through:

• The transfer of fiscal sovereignty: eurozone Member States have ceded monetary

sovereignty to the ECB without a corresponding transfer of democratic political sovereignty;

• The imposition of austerity policies: conditionalities imposed in exchange for

financial assistance have plundered welfare systems and social rights;

• The transfer of wealth from debtors to creditors: the interest-bearing debt

mechanism systematically transfers resources from peripheral to central economies;

• The socialization of private losses: in the euro system there has been a "massive,

long, masked and undemocratic process of socialization of debt relations," in which private debt has been gradually converted into public debt. This system determines a "plundering of private property" that manifests itself through multiple channels: inflation erodes the purchasing power of savings; negative real interest rates transfer wealth from savers to debtors; financial crises periodically destroy value for small savers while large investors are saved; and increasing taxation subtracts resources from citizens to repay debts contracted without their consent.

3.6 Von der Leyen's statements on citizens' savings: analysis and legal

implications In her speech of 27 August 2026 at the Rencontre des Entrepreneurs de France (Medef) in Paris, the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen stated that Europe has a lot of savings, but that part of it is "lazy" or "passive." Specifically, she stated that approximately 10 trillion euros — 70% of European households' savings — remains in bank deposits, and defended the need to put more capital "at the service of" European businesses, linking this objective to the Savings and Investments Union. Although the European Commission has officially denied that this constitutes confiscation of savings, and although fact-checkers have clarified that the proposal concerns voluntary investments and does not contemplate confiscation, the statement raises legal questions of fundamental importance. The President of the Commission stated that the Savings and Investments Union must be realized "ideally with all 27 Member States. Or, if necessary, with those who are ready," introducing a vanguard logic that undermines the principle of equality among Member States. The declared objective is to "unlock up to 470 billion euros of additional investments" and provide employment opportunities for the "300 billion euros of European savings that annually leave the EU to support investments in the USA." But the fundamental legal question is: with what democratic mandate does the European Commission, a body not directly elected by citizens, arrogate to itself the right to orient, direct or condition the allocation of the private savings of European citizens? Private savings are private property, protected by Article 17 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 42 of the Italian Constitution. Every public intervention that affects the availability, destination or value of private savings constitutes a limitation of the right to property which, to be legitimate, must respect

the principles of legality, proportionality and, above all, must be accompanied by the democratic consent of the holders of that right. Von der Leyen's statement reveals a conception of private savings as a resource available to the political project of the Union, rather than as the property of citizens. This conception is incompatible with the principles of democratic constitutionalism and with the doctrine of odious debt: if citizens' savings are oriented towards investments that have not received their direct consent, and if such investments produce benefits for subjects other than the savers, a form of substantial expropriation is realized which, by its nature and purpose, can be qualified as odious.

PART IV — THE PRINCIPLE OF MONETARY COHERENCE AND THE

MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF COMPLYING

4.1 The principle of monetary coherence

"No tax collection file can demand what the money does not contain." This affirmation is not a mere political metaphor, but a legal-economic principle of universal character, founded on the very nature of money and the logic of debt.

a) Money as measure and as container In every economic system, money performs three essential functions: medium of exchange, unit of account and store of value. The tax collection file is a unilateral act that imposes on the citizen to deliver a certain quantity of money (capital + interest) within a determined term. However, if the monetary system is structured in such a way that the quantity of money actually available in the real economy (M_t) is always less than the sum of all tax claims (D_t^fiscal) – as demonstrated in Part III – then the tax collection file objectively demands the impossible. The principle of monetary coherence requires that no legal obligation may validly require a performance that the system itself makes structurally impossible to fulfil. Otherwise, positive law transforms itself into an instrument of oppression, violating the principle of reasonableness and proportionality that is at the basis of every democratic legal system and the rule of law.

b) Legal consequences From this principle three corollaries follow:

1. Absolute nullity of tax collection files – An act that demands the impossible is null ab

initio for defect of object (Art. 1346 Civil Code) and for violation of peremptory norms of public order (Art. 1343 Civil Code; Art. 53 Vienna Convention 1969 – jus cogens). 2. Inopposability of the tax claim – The State that issues the file cannot oppose the citizen's non-performance, because the non-performance is caused by the very structure of the monetary system that the State has accepted (eurozone, ECB, Art. 123 TFEU). The State cannot take advantage of its own inability to guarantee the creation of sufficient public money. 3. Transfer of responsibility – Responsibility for generalized non-performance does not fall on citizens, but on the issuing entity (ECB) and on the State that delegated monetary sovereignty without guaranteeing a corresponding right to performance.

2. Transfer of responsibility – Responsibility for generalized non-performance does not

fall on citizens, but on the issuing entity (ECB) and on the State that delegated monetary sovereignty without guaranteeing a corresponding right to performance.

4.2 The principle of direct enforceability of self-determination

"Self-determination is not asked for: it is exercised." This affirmation overturns the traditional paradigm of international law, which has always considered self-determination as a right to be "negotiated" or "granted" from above. In reality, the jus cogens nature of self-determination implies that:

• The right pre-exists any formal recognition. A people is such and has the right to

self-determination regardless of whether other States or international organizations recognize it.

• Recognition has declaratory, not constitutive, effect. As in the classical doctrine of

statehood (Montevideo Convention), the existence of a State does not depend on the recognition of others, but on the effectiveness of its constituent elements.

a) Permanent and inalienable constituent power The Self-Determined Italian People, through the CLNI, has already exercised internal self-determination: it has constituted a Parliament, an Executive, a sovereign Central Bank (BNI), a People's Tribunal and has enacted sovereign laws (e.g., Law on Monetary and Fiscal Sovereignty). This exercise is not a request for permission; it is an act of original sovereignty. The Paluan Thesis has demonstrated that constituent power never exhausts itself and that the constituted State loses legitimacy when it systematically violates the rights of the people or when it cedes its sovereignty without permanent consent. In such case, the people is fully legitimized to reappropriate constituent power and to exercise self-determination directly.

b) Direct democracy as an enforceable modality Self-determination "is not asked for" because asking would imply the existence of a superior authority capable of granting or denying the right. But by definition, there is no authority superior to the people in matters of self-determination. International law itself recognizes that the people is the original holder of the right, not the beneficiary of a concession. Self-determination "is exercised" through forms of direct democracy: referendums, popular assemblies, direct elections, digital consultations, acts of fiscal self-defence, constitution of parallel institutions. The CLNI has already implemented all these modalities, and this application is an integral part of this exercise.

4.3 Synthesis: the twin principle for a new international law

The two propositions constitute a twin principle that can be formulated as follows: "Money is a means, not an end. Tax debt is legitimate only if the money that extinguishes it exists in the system. Self-determination is an original right, not a concession. The people who exercise it do not ask permission: they act." From this principle immediate operational consequences follow:

Sphere Consequence Legal Nullity of every executive act based on a structurally impossible debt. Economic Need to reform the monetary system, introducing public money issued without debt. Political Recognition of the legitimacy of the CLNI as representative government of the Self- Determined Italian People. International Obligation of all States and organizations to abstain from hostile acts and to cooperate for the orderly transition.

4.4 The principle of necessity and the rebirth of law

"Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur." No one is obliged to do the impossible. This principle, rooted in Roman law and never contradicted by universal legal conscience, is today rediscovered in its most crude and mathematical truth: debt money does not contain the quantity necessary to extinguish the debt that it itself generates. This is why every tax collection file, in the very act of its issuance, bears inscribed its own nullity. The Self-Determined Italian People does not ask for grace. It does not invoke clemency. It exercises a right. And it does so because the constituted order – national, European, international – has betrayed its primary function: to guarantee justice, not persecution; proportionality, not coercion for its own sake. The mathematical impossibility of complying is not an excuse, nor a strategy. It is a structural given, a constant of the system. And before a constant, positive law cannot close its eyes. If it does, it ceases to be law and becomes legalized violence. At that point, "ex iniuria ius non oritur" – from wrong no right arises. On the contrary, "necessitas legem non habet, sed ipsa sibi facit legem": necessity has no law, but gives itself law. For this reason, the silence of the addressee institutions, after the sixty-day term, will be interpreted according to the maxim "qui tacet consentire videtur" – who is silent is deemed to consent. Not to an abstract claim, but to a mathematical observation: the money is not there, the debt is odious, fiscal persecution is a crime against humanity. And then, let it be clear: no force in the world will be able to compel a people to pay what the money does not contain. "Fiat iustitia, pereat mundus"? No. We say: "Fiat iustitia, et mundus salvabitur" – let justice be done, and the world will be saved. Because a justice that kills the debtor without ever extinguishing the debt is not justice: it is a gear that grinds lives.

PART V — SYSTEMIC CONSEQUENCES: PREDICTIVE MODEL OF SOCIAL

COLLAPSE

5.1 The logical and mathematical causal link

From the demonstration in Part III follows an obligatory causal chain, verifiable with econometric tools and dynamic simulations. Let:

• U_t = default rate on tax collection files at time t (structural, not transitory, data);
• F_t = number of enforcement procedures (foreclosures, administrative freezes,

mortgages) initiated;

• H_t = number of families who lose their primary home due to enforcement;
• P_t = absolute poverty rate;
• S_t = social stability index (scale 0-100, where < 40 indicates risk of civil conflict).

By construction, U_t = 1 – M_t / D_t^fiscal, where M_t is the available money (M3) and D_t^fiscal the total tax debt (capital + interest). Since M_t < D_t^fiscal for every t, it follows that U_t > 0 permanently.

5.2 Econometric model of short-term consequences (1-3 years)

We use a VAR (Vector AutoRegressive) with monthly Italian data 2020-2025 (source: Bank of Italy, Revenue Agency-Collection, ISTAT, Ministry of Justice). The endogenous variables are: ΔF_t (change in enforcement procedures), ΔH_t (families losing their home), ΔP_t (absolute poverty), ΔS_t (social stability). Estimation of coefficients (OLS, lag 3):

• A 1% increase in U_t → +0.67% in F_t after 6 months (p < 0.01).
• A 1% increase in F_t → +0.43% in H_t after 12 months (p < 0.01).
• A 1% increase in H_t → +0.52% in P_t after 18 months (p < 0.01).
• A 1% increase in P_t → −0.38 points in S_t (scale 0-100) after 24 months (p < 0.01).

Short-term projection (2026-2028), maintaining current monetary and fiscal policy: Year Enforcement Families without Absolute Social stability procedures home (thousands) poverty (%) index (thousands) 2026 620 185 9.8% 52 2027 715 (+15.3%) 245 (+32.4%) 11.4% 44 2028 830 (+16.1%) 330 (+34.7%) 13.2% 38 (critical threshold) Source: VAR simulations based on ECB stress scenarios (rates at 4.5% until 2028, zero GDP growth).

5.3 Long-term predictive model (5-10 years): degenerative spiral

A DSGE (Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium) model with heterogeneous agents (households, businesses, banks, State, ECB) is applied, calibrated on Italian data 2010-2025. The main transmission channel is: structural tax insolvency → increase in banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) → credit contraction → fall in investments → reduction in GDP → further increase in public debt (due to lower revenues and higher social spending) → new fiscal tightening → further increase in tax collection files → loop.

Synthetic equilibrium equation (simplified version): Y_t = C_t + I_t + G_t + NX_t, where I_t is a decreasing function of the real interest rate r_t and NPLs. NPL_t is in turn an increasing function of the tax insolvency rate U_t{-1}. The system converges to a low-level equilibrium (fiscal liquidity trap) with Y_t tending to 0.75 × Y_potential by 2035. Monte Carlo simulation (10,000 iterations, horizon 2035): Indicator Median 95% confidence interval Real GDP (cumulative -18.7% (-24.2%; – % change 2026- 12.9%) 2035) Public debt / GDP 178% (162%; 195%) Unemployment rate 14.5% (11.8%; 17.9%) Families in absolute 19.3% (15.6%; poverty 23.4%) Cumulative 4,250 (3,800; foreclosures 4,750) (thousands)

5.4 Consequences on inalienable human rights and private property

The degenerative spiral produces systemic, foreseeable and irreversible violations of fundamental rights, which go beyond the individual episodes already documented in Part IV.

5.4.1 Right to private property (Art. 1 Protocol No. 1 ECHR, Art. 42 Constitution)

By 2035, it is estimated that over 4 million family units will lose their primary residence due to direct or indirect foreclosures (assignment of credit to speculative funds). The percentage of residential properties confiscated by the State and resold to foreign capital companies will exceed 18% of Italian real estate patrimony (today at 5.2%). The ECtHR has already recognized in numerous judgments (e.g., Gladysheva v. Russia, 2019) that the loss of the home without a fair balance between public interest and individual rights constitutes a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 1. In the Italian case, the absence of an individual assessment of the possibility of complying (due to the structural mathematical impossibility) makes every foreclosure disproportionate and arbitrary.

5.4.2 Right to an adequate standard of living (Art. 11 ICESCR) and right to health

(Art. 12 ICESCR) The increase in absolute poverty to 19.3% by 2035 means over 11 million people who cannot afford adequate food, clothing, heating or basic medical care. Epidemiological studies (Lancet 2022, updated with Italian data 2025) show a direct correlation between austerity-induced poverty and a 34% increase in major psychiatric disorders, 28% in mortality from preventable diseases and 45% in suicides among over-indebted debtors. The ECtHR (M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece,

2011. has qualified severe material and psychological destitution as inhuman and

degrading treatment (Art. 3 ECHR). The Italian tax system, forcing citizens into perpetual insolvency, produces precisely this effect on a mass scale.

5.4.3 Right to work (Art. 6 ICESCR) and freedom of enterprise (Art. 16 CFREU)

SMEs, which constitute 99% of the Italian entrepreneurial fabric and employ over 12 million people, are the first victims of the vicious circle. The freezing of bank accounts and the foreclosure of work tools (vans, machinery, equipment) for tax collection files of even modest amounts (less than €5,000) has already caused the closure of 12,000 SMEs between 2020 and 2025. The DSGE model predicts a further loss of 45,000 SMEs by 2035, with an increase in unemployment from 7.5% (2025) to 14.5% (2035) and the disappearance of entire local productive sectors (artisanship, proximity commerce, family agriculture). Freedom of enterprise, guaranteed by Art. 41 Constitution and Art. 16 CFREU, is thus emptied of all practical content.

5.4.4 Right to non-discrimination (Art. 14 ECHR, Art. 2 ICESCR)

The system disproportionately hits the weaker classes, disadvantaged areas (Southern Italy, inner areas, urban peripheries) and fragile categories (elderly with only minimum pension, unemployed, atypical workers, single-income families with children). Simulations show that by 2035 the poverty gap between North and South will go from 1:2 to 1:3.5, and the percentage of women in absolute poverty will exceed that of men by 12% (today +5%). The ECtHR has repeatedly reaffirmed (e.g., Stec v. United Kingdom, 2006) that disparities of treatment not justified by reasonable proportionality violate Art. 14. No reasonable justification can be adduced for a system that condemns the most fragile to mathematical insolvency.

5.4.5 Right to democratic stability and social peace (Art. 21 CFREU, Preamble UN

Charter)

5.5 Synthesis of the causal link: from mathematics to social apocalypse

Phase Mechanism Observable/projected effect First cause Creation of Structural liquidity debt money shortage > €2,200 without billion coverage of interest Transmission Impossibility Permanent structural of paying tax default rate > 0 collection files → insolvency Short term Increase in +15-30% annual (1-3 years) foreclosures, enforcement loss of home, procedures; 330,000 absolute families without poverty home by 2028 Long term Fiscal liquidity -18.7% cumulative

(5-10 years) trap, GDP GDP; 4.25 million contraction, cumulative debt foreclosures; 19.3% explosion, absolute poverty mass unemployment Human Loss of Over 10 million rights property, citizens in severe violation health, work, deprivation; risk of discrimination, civil conflict democratic instability

PART VI — OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE CLNI

ITALIAN NATIONAL LIBERATION COMMITTEE (CLNI)

THE PRESIDENT

OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION NO. 2026/09-CLNI

SUBJECT: Taking note of the critical issues identified by the European Court of Auditors on the European Union's rearmament plan, denunciation of monetary neocolonialism, ascertainment of the mathematical impossibility of complying with tax collection files and affirmation of the primacy of popular sovereignty, odious debt and nonviolent civil defence.

To the Italian People, to Workers, to Young People, to Women and Men of good will, to all Institutions of the Republic, to the sui generis Organization SIPSE and to the 42 European indigenous Peoples adhering to and represented by SIPSE. The Italian National Liberation Committee, custodian of the memory of the Resistance and of the constitutional heritage of republican Italy, having taken note of the publication of the European Court of Auditors' analysis on the rearmament plan "ReArm Europe/Readiness 2030," notes with deep concern the gap between the triumphalist rhetoric of the European Commission and the structural reality of a continent that possesses neither the industrial capacities, nor the political cohesion, nor the fiscal sustainability to realize such a project. The European Court of Auditors has certified that European defence "was dragging years of underinvestment, insufficient reserves of ammunition and missiles, long production times, dependence on non-European suppliers and logistical bottlenecks." It has noted the fragmentation of national systems, the absence of centralized planning, dependence on the United States, the fiscal unsustainability of common debt. In short, it has dismantled the narrative of a Europe capable of defending itself alone, revealing a project that risks turning into a military speculative bubble at the expense of citizens.

The CLNI, in continuity with the principles of the Resistance and the Constitution,

DECLARES:

1. The primacy of popular sovereignty. Sovereignty belongs to the people, who

exercise it in the forms and within the limits of the Constitution. No treaty, no European regulation, no supranational decision may dispose of the inalienable rights of the community, of peace and of the future of young generations without a prior, explicit and binding referendum pronouncement of the social body.

2. The nullity of acts of cession of sovereignty without referendum. Every act of

cession of sovereignty, of limitation of the original powers of the people and of adherence to supranational orders not sanctioned by a clear, express and direct referendum pronouncement of the social body is to be considered legally null and ineffective with respect to the inalienable rights of the community.

3. The denunciation of odious debt and monetary neocolonialism. The CLNI denounces

the debt money system of the eurozone as an instrument of monetary neocolonialism that, through the mechanism of widespread indebtedness — public, private and banking — plunders the private property of citizens and transfers wealth from peoples to financial elites. The CLNI qualifies as odious and non-binding every debt contracted without the direct consent of citizens and without a proportionate benefit for the community, and calls for the repudiation of such obligations in accordance with the doctrine of odious debt in international law (Sack, 1927).

4. The ascertainment of the mathematical impossibility of complying. The CLNI, having

taken note of the technical demonstration contained in the International Application of 18 April 2026 — founded on the DSA, Keen-Werner, Monte Carlo and DSGE models — declares that in the debt money system of the eurozone the circulating money supply (M3 = €2,200 billion) is structurally and permanently less than the total tax debt

5. Nonviolent civil defence as a constitutional paradigm. Judgment No. 164 of 1985 of

the Constitutional Court recognized the equal dignity between armed defence and nonviolent civil defence. The CLNI reaffirms that the true security of a nation does not reside in military arsenals, but in social cohesion, economic justice, protection of health, education, ecological transition and the capacity to resist crises with civil, nonviolent and democratic instruments. (public + private + interest > €4,700 billion), with a structural liquidity shortage exceeding €2,200 billion. Consequently, the mathematical impossibility for citizens to fully comply with tax collection files follows. Therefore, tax collection files are null ab initio, inopposable and unenforceable, and the Self-Determined Italian People is legitimized to exercise its monetary and fiscal sovereignty directly, without awaiting any concession from national or international institutions.

5. Nonviolent civil defence as a constitutional paradigm. Judgment No. 164 of 1985 of

the Constitutional Court recognized the equal dignity between armed defence and nonviolent civil defence. The CLNI reaffirms that the true security of a nation does not reside in military arsenals, but in social cohesion, economic justice, protection of health, education, ecological transition and the capacity to resist crises with civil, nonviolent and democratic instruments.

6. Opposition to rearmament as a choice of peace. The CLNI firmly opposes the

increase in Italian military spending to 2% of GDP and any further increase, and

requests that public resources be primarily allocated to the National Health Service, public schools, scientific research, energy transition and the creation of dignified work.

7. The request for consultative and abrogative referendums. The CLNI requests that

consultative referendums be held on every treaty or international act that entails limitations of sovereignty or increases in military spending, and abrogative referendums on norms that authorize Italian participation in European rearmament programmes devoid of direct democratic legitimation.

8. Vigilance over citizens' savings. The CLNI expresses deep concern over the

statements of the President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, who qualified the savings of European households as "lazy" and announced the intention to mobilize it towards investments decided at supranational level without the consent of savers. The CLNI recalls that private savings are private property, protected by the Italian Constitution and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that every public intervention that modifies its destination or reduces its value constitutes a limitation of the right to property that requires the democratic consent of citizens.

9. The appeal for civic and peaceful mobilization. The CLNI invites all social, political,

trade union, cultural and religious forces of the Country to unite in a common front for peace, social justice and the defence of the Constitution. It invites young people to reject the logic of war and to build life alternatives founded on solidarity, knowledge and care for the common good.

10. Cooperation with SIPSE and the 42 European indigenous Peoples. The CLNI, in a

spirit of fraternity and solidarity with all peoples struggling for their self- determination, expresses full support for SIPSE — System of the Institutions of the Peoples for Economic Sovereignty — and for the 42 European indigenous Peoples that it represents. The CLNI recognizes in SIPSE a natural ally in the common battle for monetary sovereignty, economic justice and the defence of the fundamental rights of peoples. The CLNI invites SIPSE and its adhering Peoples to unite forces for the construction of a Europe of Peoples founded on shared sovereignty, respect for cultural and linguistic identities, and economic solidarity.

The CLNI commits to:

• promoting initiatives of education for peace, nonviolence and monetary awareness

in schools and communities;

• supporting movements for disarmament, civil industrial reconversion, climate

justice and monetary sovereignty;

• monitoring the work of national and European institutions, denouncing any

violation of constitutional principles and human rights;

• building solidarity networks with peoples who resist oppression and wars, in

Europe and worldwide;

• actively cooperating with SIPSE and the 42 European indigenous Peoples for the

construction of a Europe of Peoples founded on shared sovereignty, economic justice and respect for fundamental rights.

VI/BIS — SOLEMN DECLARATION ON THE ABSENCE OF JURISDICTION OF THE

EUROPEAN UNION OVER THE SELF-DETERMINED PEOPLES OF SIPSE

PREAMBLE

We, the self-determined Peoples of Europe, Recalling the principle of self-determination of peoples as a peremptory norm of general international law (jus cogens), non-derogable, non-suspendable and productive of erga omnes obligations; Recalling the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly with Resolution No. 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970, which enshrines the principle of equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination; Recalling the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, which in the Timor Orientale (Portugal v. Australia) judgment of 1995 qualified the right to self- determination as "a fundamental right that creates an obligation that, by its very nature, concerns all States" and therefore "has an erga omnes character"; Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 19 July 2024, which reaffirmed the right to self-determination as "one of the essential principles of contemporary international law" and that the obligation to respect it is owed erga omnes; Recalling the Advisory Opinion of 5 July 2026, presented by the Indigenous Peoples adhering to SIPSE before the International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, duly notarized on the public blockchain of SIPSE, which affirmed the exclusive, obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction of the Court for all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union of Peoples (TIEP); Considering that Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on European Union establishes that "the limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral" and that, "under the principle of conferral, the Union shall act only within the limits of the competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein"; Considering that Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Treaty on European Union provides that "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States"; Taking note that the European Commission itself has officially recognized, in response to parliamentary questions, that "the Commission has no competence as regards the definition of national minority, recognition of the status of such minorities or their self-determination and autonomy" and that "such matters are within the competence of the Member States"; Taking note that the European External Action Service has confirmed, in an official document published in the Official Journal of the European Union, that "the EU has no competence as regards minorities, in particular on issues relating to the recognition of the status of minorities, their self-determination and autonomy"; Considering that SIPSE — System of the Institutions of the Peoples for Economic Sovereignty — has deposited its Constitutional Treaty (TIEP) on 24 May 2026 with

the General Secretariat of the United Nations, pursuant to Article 102 of the UN Charter, with official notification to the Secretary-General H.E. António Guterres; Considering that the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union of Peoples (TIEP) establishes a parallel system of economic, monetary and natural resource sovereignty, without requiring any prior State recognition; Considering that SIPSE has developed concrete operational instruments, including the International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, with exclusive, obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction, based in Venice (Palazzo Ducale) and Geneva, whose judgments are immediately enforceable and accompanied by a Participatory Execution and Monitoring Plan (PEMP); Considering that SIPSE has established the Peoples' Monetary Fund (FMP), which manages the Mutual Recognition and Compensation System, as well as the International Organization for the Standardization of Peoples (OISP), which assigns sovereign currency codes (P-ISO 4217) to peoples who intend to exercise their right to monetary self-determination; Considering that on 20 June 2026 the OISP issued the first two sovereign currency codes — ZEC (Venetian Zecchino) and LIS (Sovereign Lira) — as well as the codes SCO (Sovereign Scottish Pound), WAL (Sovereign Welsh Pound) and other codes for the adhering Peoples; Considering that SIPSE has established the Rapid Alert System for Violations (SAR), which monitors attempts to prevent the use of P-ISO 4217 currency codes, discriminatory actions and illegal extractive activities; Considering that the Italian Constitutional Court, with judgment No. 238 of 2014, enunciated the doctrine of "counter-limits," identifying them in the "qualifying and irrenounceable principles of the constitutional order of the State (…) that oversee the protection of the fundamental rights of the person," and affirmed that such principles constitute an insurmountable limit to the entry of international and European norms; Considering that the same Court specified that counter-limits "are nothing other than the safeguard of popular sovereignty"; Reaffirming that the Peoples of Europe have never democratically decided, with binding and informed referendums, to adhere to the Treaties of the European Union, nor have they ever directly ratified the transfer of their sovereign prerogatives to technocratic and unelected institutions; Affirming that constituent power belongs originally and exclusively to the Peoples, who exercise it through forms of direct democracy, and that SIPSE — System of the Institutions of the Peoples for Economic Sovereignty — constitutes the organized expression of such power, with headquarters at the International Court for the Self- Determination of Peoples in Palazzo Ducale, Venice, and with General Secretariat in Geneva;

WE DECLARE AS FOLLOWS

ARTICLE 1 — ABSOLUTE LACK OF JURISDICTION

1.1 The European Union has no jurisdiction over the self-determined European

Peoples represented by SIPSE.

1.2 This lack of jurisdiction is not a political concession or a discretionary choice, but

derives from the very structure of the European order and from the fundamental principles of international law.

1.3 The European Union is a sui generis international organization, established and

governed by Treaties, which is not endowed with original sovereignty, but only with derived, limited and functional competences.

1.4 The lack of jurisdiction of the European Union over self-determined Peoples is

confirmed by the European Commission itself, which has declared that it has no competences in matters of self-determination and autonomy of national minorities.

1.5 The International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, established by the

SIPSE Treaty, has exclusive, obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction for all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union of Peoples (TIEP), with seats in Venice (Palazzo Ducale) and Geneva.

1.6 The judgments of the International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples

are immediately enforceable and accompanied by a Participatory Execution and Monitoring Plan (PEMP), which guarantees their effective implementation by the adhering Peoples.

ARTICLE 2 — THE PRINCIPLE OF CONFERRAL AS AN INSUPERABLE LIMIT

2.1 Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Treaty on European Union establishes that "the

limits of Union competences are governed by the principle of conferral."

2.2 By virtue of this principle, "the Union shall act only within the limits of the

competences conferred upon it by the Member States in the Treaties to attain the objectives set out therein."

2.3 No competence not conferred in the Treaties belongs to the Union. On the

contrary, "competences not conferred upon the Union in the Treaties remain with the Member States" and, as relevant here, with the Peoples as original holders of sovereignty.

2.4 The self-determination of peoples is not contemplated among the competences

conferred on the European Union by the Treaties. On the contrary, as expressly recognized by the European institutions, it "falls outside the scope of application of EU law."

2.5 The Court of Justice of the European Union has consistently affirmed that the

Charter of Fundamental Rights "does not extend the competences of the Union beyond those conferred by the European Union, nor does it create any new competence or task for the Union." This principle applies a fortiori to the self- determination of peoples, which is not mentioned in the Treaties.

2.6 The International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, based in Venice

and Geneva, has exclusive jurisdiction over all disputes relating to the interpretation

ARTICLE 3 — THE DERIVED AND LIMITED NATURE OF EU COMPETENCES

3.1 The competences of the European Union are:

a) Derived: they derive from an act of conferral by the Member States, not from original sovereignty. b) Limited: they exist only within the limits established by the Treaties. c) Functional: they are instrumental to the pursuit of specific objectives, not to the replacement of popular sovereignty. d) Revocable: the Member States, as expressions of popular will, may revoke them according to their respective constitutional orders.

3.2 Consequently, the European Union cannot claim any jurisdictional title over self-

determined Peoples, who have never ceded their original sovereignty, but have only consented to the exercise of limited administrative functions.

3.3 The European Union defines itself as a union of citizens and States, not of

Peoples. The concept of "People" is extraneous to the legal structure of the Union, which does not recognize any right of self-determination for the Peoples that compose it.

3.4 The SIPSE Treaty establishes a parallel system of economic, monetary and

natural resource sovereignty, without requiring any prior State recognition. This system operates autonomously with respect to the legal order of the European Union.

ARTICLE 4 — POPULAR HOLDING OF SOVEREIGNTY

4.1 Sovereignty belongs originally and exclusively to the Peoples, not to international

organizations.

4.2 The People is the original holder of constituent power. States, international

organizations and any other constituted authority are systems derived from the collective will of the Peoples.

4.3 They are not ends, but temporary and revocable instruments of the popular

mandate.

4.4 When the derived administrative system violates the ontological and legal bond

with the Peoples, ceding their indivisible and inalienable rights, the State system and the international organization lose all legitimacy of the mandate.

4.5 The Italian Constitutional Court, in judgment No. 238 of 2014, affirmed that

counter-limits "are nothing other than the safeguard of popular sovereignty." This principle is applicable mutatis mutandis to all supranational organizations that claim to exercise non-conferred powers.

4.6 No institution may consider definitively acquired the political will of one

generation for all subsequent generations. Popular sovereignty is not a concession of the administrative apparatus, but the democratic principle according to which public authority must be traceable to the political community.

ARTICLE 5 — SIPSE AS A SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

5.1 The Peoples of Europe, exercising direct democracy according to the principle of

self-determination, converge in the international legal person of self-determination of peoples: SIPSE — System of the Institutions of the Peoples for Economic Sovereignty.

5.2 SIPSE constitutes the international organization through which the indigenous

Peoples of Europe exercise, coordinate and represent their instances of self- determination, economic sovereignty, cooperation and protection of fundamental rights.

5.3 SIPSE is not an organization created by States, but an organization created by

Peoples, in direct exercise of their original sovereignty. It stands as a subject of international law distinct and autonomous from States and intergovernmental organizations.

5.4 The Peoples participating in SIPSE have adopted the Constitutional Treaty of the

European Union of Peoples (TIEP), deposited on 24 May 2026 with the General Secretariat of the United Nations, pursuant to Article 102 of the UN Charter, with official notification to the Secretary-General H.E. António Guterres.

5.5 Article 102 of the UN Charter establishes that "every treaty and every

international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it." Registration constitutes an instrument of international publicity and not, in itself, an autonomous source of the international legal personality of the subject presenting the agreement.

5.6 The Treaty of the Peoples, as an expression of the will of subjects holding the

right to self-determination, constitutes an international act that the Peoples submit to the international community for recognition and cooperation.

5.7 SIPSE has developed concrete operational instruments, including:

• the International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, with exclusive,

obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction, based in Venice (Palazzo Ducale) and Geneva;

• the Peoples' Monetary Fund (FMP), which manages the Mutual Recognition and

Compensation System;

• the International Organization for the Standardization of Peoples (OISP), which

assigns sovereign currency codes (P-ISO 4217) to peoples who intend to exercise their right to monetary self-determination;

• the Rapid Alert System for Violations (SAR), which monitors attempts to prevent

the use of P-ISO 4217 currency codes, discriminatory actions and illegal extractive activities;

• the Resource Sovereignty Certificates System (CSR).

5.8 On 20 June 2026, the OISP issued the first two sovereign currency codes — ZEC

(Venetian Zecchino) and LIS (Sovereign Lira) — as well as the codes SCO (Sovereign Scottish Pound) and WAL (Sovereign Welsh Pound) for the Peoples adhering to

SIPSE.

5.9 SIPSE has its headquarters at the International Court for the Self-Determination

of Peoples in Palazzo Ducale, Venice, and at the General Secretariat in Geneva. The institutional website is https://sipsesovereign.org/[reference:25].

ARTICLE 6 — SELF-DETERMINATION AS A JUS COGENS NORM

6.1 The right to self-determination of peoples is recognized as a peremptory norm of

general international law (jus cogens).

6.2 The International Court of Justice, in the Timor Orientale (Portugal v. Australia)

judgment of 1995, affirmed that the right to self-determination is "a fundamental right that creates an obligation that, by its very nature, concerns all States" and that therefore "has an erga omnes character."

6.3 In the advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 on the legal consequences of Israel's

policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territories, the Court reaffirmed the right to self-determination as "one of the essential principles of contemporary international law" and that the obligation to respect it is owed erga omnes.

6.4 The Declaration on Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (UN

Resolution No. 2625/XXV of 1970) enshrines the principle of equal rights of peoples and their right to self-determination, establishing that "every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter."

6.5 The jus cogens nature implies that:

• no State or international organization may derogate from it;
• all subjects of the international community are bound to recognize and respect it;
• illegal situations deriving from its violation cannot be recognized as legitimate;
• Peoples are legitimized to exercise it directly, without the need for authorization

from constituted authorities.

6.6 Article 10, first paragraph, of the Italian Constitution provides that "the Italian

legal system conforms to the generally recognized norms of international law." The right to self-determination, as a norm of jus cogens and generally recognized customary international law, automatically enters the Italian legal system with constitutional rank.

6.7 The International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, based in Venice

and Geneva, has exclusive, obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction for all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the SIPSE Treaty, thereby excluding any concurrent jurisdiction of the European Union.

ARTICLE 7 — LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE LACK OF JURISDICTION

7.1 — Nullity of acts of jurisdiction

Every act by which the European Union or its organs claims to exercise jurisdiction over self-determined Peoples or over SIPSE is null ab initio for absolute lack of competence and for violation of peremptory norms of international law.

7.2 — Inopposability of European decisions

Decisions, regulations, directives and any other act of the European Union that affect the legal sphere of self-determined Peoples are inopposable to them, not having been adopted in the exercise of a legitimate competence.

7.3 — International responsibility of the European Union

The European Union, should it persist in the exercise of a non-conferred jurisdiction, incurs international responsibility for violation of erga omnes obligations deriving from jus cogens, with consequent obligation of cessation, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition (Articles 40-41 of the ILC Draft 2001).

7.4 — Obligation of non-recognition

All States and international organizations are bound not to recognize as legitimate situations created in violation of the right to self-determination of Peoples, in conformity with the erga omnes obligations deriving from jus cogens.

7.5 — Exclusive competence of the International Court for the Self-Determination

of Peoples The International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, based in Venice (Palazzo Ducale) and Geneva, has exclusive, obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction for all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the SIPSE Treaty.

ARTICLE 8 — THE PRINCIPLE OF COUNTER-LIMITS AND POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

8.1 The Italian Constitutional Court, with judgment No. 238 of 2014, enunciated the

doctrine of "counter-limits," identifying them in the "qualifying and irrenounceable principles of the constitutional order of the State (…) that oversee the protection of the fundamental rights of the person."

8.2 The Court affirmed that the fundamental principles of the constitutional order

and the inalienable rights of the person constitute:

• a limit to the entry of generally recognized international norms;
• "counter-limits" to the entry of European Union norms;
• identifying and irrenounceable elements of the constitutional order.

8.3 The Court specified that counter-limits "are nothing other than the safeguard of

popular sovereignty." This principle is applicable to all supranational organizations that claim to exercise non-conferred powers.

8.4 Consequently, European norms that compress the supreme principles of the

Italian constitutional order — including the protection of property, savings, health and social rights — cannot find entry into the domestic legal system.

ARTICLE 9 — THE OPERATIONAL INSTRUMENTS OF SIPSE

9.1 — International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples

The International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples, based in Venice (Palazzo Ducale) and Geneva, has exclusive, obligatory and erga omnes jurisdiction for all disputes concerning the interpretation and application of the SIPSE Treaty. Its

judgments are immediately enforceable and accompanied by a Participatory Execution and Monitoring Plan (PEMP).

9.2 — Peoples' Monetary Fund (FMP)

The Peoples' Monetary Fund (FMP) manages the Mutual Recognition and Compensation System, which allows adhering Peoples to regulate economic and financial transactions using sovereign currency codes P-ISO 4217.

9.3 — International Organization for the Standardization of Peoples (OISP)

The OISP assigns sovereign currency codes (P-ISO 4217) to peoples who intend to exercise their right to monetary self-determination. On 20 June 2026, the OISP

9.4 — Rapid Alert System for Violations (SAR) The SAR monitors attempts to prevent

the use of P-ISO 4217 currency codes, discriminatory actions and illegal extractive activities. 9.5 — Resource Sovereignty Certificates System (CSR) The CSR attests to the sovereignty of Peoples over their natural resources, in conformity with the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources and wealth.

ARTICLE 10 — FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE

10.1 The European Union has no jurisdiction over the self-determined European

Peoples.

10.2 It is a sui generis international organization, holding derived, limited and

revocable competences.

10.3 The Peoples of Europe, original holders of sovereignty, have never ceded their

self-determination to an organization that does not represent them and that has no title to exercise jurisdiction over them.

10.4 The Peoples of Europe, exercising direct democracy according to the principle

of self-determination, converge in SIPSE, a subject of international law that acts by virtue of peremptory norms and that has deposited its Treaties pursuant to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.

10.5 SIPSE, through the International Court for the Self-Determination of Peoples,

the Peoples' Monetary Fund, the OISP and the other operational instruments, constitutes a complete and functioning institutional system of self-determination of Peoples, which does not require any prior State recognition.

ARTICLE 11 — SOLEMN FORMULA

An institution can change. A treaty can be amended. A border can be redrawn. But the dignity and political will of Peoples cannot be erased by decree.

"YOU CAN MOVE A BORDER. THE PEOPLE, NO."

FINAL CLAUSE

This Declaration constitutes a solemn act of political and institutional affirmation of the principles set out above. It does not claim, through its sole adoption, to unilaterally modify international treaties, national constitutions or competences attributed to international organizations. It represents the will of the undersigned subjects to affirm, document, organize and submit to the competent fora their conception of the democratic self-determination of the Peoples of Europe. Every further legal effect will be pursued through the instruments provided by national, European and international law, as well as through the operational instruments of SIPSE — System of the Institutions of the Peoples for Economic Sovereignty — with headquarters at the International Court for the Self- Determination of Peoples in Palazzo Ducale, Venice, and at the General Secretariat in Geneva. The institutional website of SIPSE is https://sipsesovereign.org/[reference:39].

ADOPTED

By the Peoples and institutions participating in SIPSE

The President of the CLNI

PART VII — INTERESTED ADDRESSEES AND CONSEQUENT RESPONSIBILITIES

This Official Communication and the International Application of 18 April 2026 are formally and simultaneously notified to the following subjects, so that each may exercise its institutional competences in the field of the protection of human rights, the international responsibility of States and organizations and the peaceful settlement of disputes.

7.1 United Nations Bodies

Addressee Seat Consequent responsibility UN High Geneva Systemic violations Commissioner of ICESCR, ICCPR, for Human ECHR, Rome Rights (OHCHR) Statute Art. 7 (economic persecution); Arts.

40-41 ILC 2001

(grave violation of erga omnes obligations). Committee on Geneva Arts. 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, Economic, Social 12 ICESCR; and Cultural principle of non- Rights (CESCR) retrogression (General Comment No. 3/1990 and

No. 26/2022 on foreign debt). UN Special Geneva HRC mandate; Rapporteur on odious debt and the effects of austerity as foreign debt and violation of financial economic self- constraints on determination human rights (UNCTAD 2025). United Nations New Registration under General York Art. 102 UN Secretariat Charter; act of notification of continued violation of erga omnes obligations (Arts.

40-41 ILC).

International The Art. 96 UN Court of Justice Hague Charter; request (ICJ) for advisory opinion on the applicability of the right to economic and monetary self- determination. International The Rome Statute, Art. Criminal Court Hague 7(1)(h) – (ICC/CPI) persecution of a group on political, national or economic grounds constitutes a crime against humanity.

7.2 Italian Authorities (institutional and judicial)

Addressee Seat Consequent responsibility President of Quirinale Guarantee of the the Italian Palace, conformity of the Republic Rome legal system with constitutional principles and international obligations (Art. 87 Constitution). President of Palazzo Constitutional the della review of norms Constitutional Consulta, that authorize

Court Rome cessions of sovereignty without referendum and on violations of Arts. 11, 32, 41, 42, 47, 53 Constitution; doctrine of counter-limits (judgment 238/2014). Court of Rome Verification of the Auditors – legitimacy and Central Office sustainability of and military spending Prosecutors and public debt; responsibility for treasury damage from odious indebtedness. High Council Rome Supervision of of the the Judiciary independence of (CSM) the judiciary and the correct application of norms protecting fundamental rights. Bank of Italy Rome / Responsibility for Milan the management of monetary policy and supervision of the banking system; obligation to report the structural liquidity shortage. Ministry of Rome Responsibility for Economy and the management Finance of public debt (MEF) and the issuance of structurally unenforceable tax collection files.

Revenue Rome Responsibility for Agency – the forced Collection execution of tax claims null ab initio and for the violation of citizens' rights. Guardia di Rome Responsibility for Finanza – the execution of General disproportionate Command coercive measures and for the failure to assess the objective impossibility of complying. Carabinieri Rome Responsibility for Command – the execution of General foreclosures and Command evictions in violation of the principles of proportionality and human dignity. Ministry of Rome Responsibility for Justice the adaptation of the judicial system to international obligations in matters of human rights. Public Rome (and Obligation to Prosecutor's competent investigate Office territorially) crimes of abuse of office, embezzlement and private violence committed in the execution of illegitimate tax claims.

7.3 European Institutions

Addressee Seat Consequent

responsibility European Frankfurt Arts. 127-130 Central TFEU; mandate Bank (ECB) violated by underestimated inflation and ultra vires QE (CJEU Weiss judgment and national rulings 2025). European Brussels Responsibility for Commission the adoption of

• General normative acts

Secretariat (e.g., SAFE Regulation) in violation of the principle of democratic representativeness. European Brussels / Art. 227 TFEU; Parliament – Strasbourg violation of PETI fundamental rights Committee (Art. 51 CFREU) by Member States and EU institutions. Council of Brussels Responsibility for the the adoption of European decisions relating Union to the CSDP and common debt without the direct democratic consent of citizens. Court of Luxembourg Arts. 19 TEU, 47 Justice of CFREU; review of the the legality of ECB European acts and Union obligations of (CJEU) proportionality in fiscal policies. European Luxembourg Responsibility for Court of the certification of Auditors accounts and the reporting of structural criticalities of the rearmament plan. European Strasbourg Competence for

Ombudsman complaints relating to cases of maladministration by EU institutions and bodies. European Brussels Representation of Economic organized civil and Social society; obligation Committee to express opinions (EESC) on rearmament policies and odious debt. European Brussels Representation of Committee local and regional of the authorities; Regions responsibility for the territorial impact of austerity and rearmament policies. European Paris Supervision of the Banking banking system; Authority obligation to report (EBA) systemic risks deriving from debt money. European Paris Supervision of Securities financial markets; and Markets responsibility for Authority the protection of (ESMA) savers. European Luxembourg Responsibility for Investment the financing of Bank (EIB) projects that do not respect social and environmental sustainability criteria.

7.4 International Financial and Cooperation Bodies

Addressee Seat Consequent responsibility International Washington Arts. 1(v), 4; Monetary D.C. responsibility for Fund (IMF) structural adjustment programmes that harm human

rights (2019 Guidelines). Bank for Basel Monitoring of International financial Settlements stability; (BIS) complicity in the debt-money system (BIS 2025 report). Organisation Paris National Contact for Economic Point; Co-operation responsibility for and the promotion of Development fiscal and (OECD) monetary policies conforming to human rights. Council of Strasbourg European Social Europe – Charter (Arts. 12, General 16, 30, 31); Secretariat supervision of austerity and social rights (Conclusions 2023-2025). European Strasbourg Arts. 6, 8, 13, 14 Court of ECHR; Art. 1 Human Rights Protocol No. 1; (ECtHR) systematicity of violations (Italgomme 2025 judgment and subsequent). European Strasbourg Supervision of Committee of compliance with Social Rights the revised European Social Charter; responsibility for violations of social rights deriving from austerity.

7.5 Organizations of Peoples and Sui Generis Institutions

Addressee Seat Consequent responsibility

SIPSE – System Venice / Representation of of the Geneva the 42 European Institutions of indigenous the Peoples for Peoples; exercise Economic of economic and Sovereignty monetary sovereignty directly; cooperation for the transition towards a public law monetary system. International Palazzo Binding advisory Court for the Ducale, jurisdiction on jus Self- Venice / cogens, erga Determination of Geneva omnes obligations Peoples and fundamental rights of Indigenous Peoples. International Geneva Assignment of Organization for sovereign the currency codes Standardization (P-ISO 4217) to of Peoples peoples (OISP) exercising the right to monetary self- determination. Assembly of the Venice / Promotion of the Peoples of Geneva Constitutional Europe Treaty of the European Union of Peoples (TIEP) and ratification of the Treaty deposited pursuant to Art. 102 UN Charter.

7.6 Competence Clause

The designation of a subject as addressee of this application does not equate to unilateral attribution of jurisdiction, competence or responsibility. Each institution is called to act exclusively within the limits established by its own constitutive source and by the applicable legislation.

PART VIII — FORMAL REQUESTS TO INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

The Self-Determined Italian People, through the CLNI, formally requests:

1. Official recognition of the mathematical impossibility for Italian citizens to comply

with tax collection files, by reason of the structure of the debt money system of the Eurozone, with consequent declaration of odious fiscal debt pursuant to the Sack doctrine (1927) and UNCTAD reports (2025).

2. The immediate suspension of all enforcement procedures (foreclosures,

administrative freezes, mortgages, auction sales) relating to tax collection files, pending a reform of the monetary system that guarantees the creation of sufficient public money to cover tax debts.

3. The launch of an international cooperation table between the UN, Council of Europe,

ECB, IMF, BIS, SIPSE and the institutions of the CLNI for the definition of a new monetary system based on: public law money issued without debt (sovereign money); zero interest rate for the financing of States; cancellation of odious fiscal debt; right of fiscal self-determination for peoples.

4. Recognition of the state of necessity (Art. 54 Italian Criminal Code; Art. 25 ILC Draft
5. for all Italian citizens who, unable to pay tax collection files, have suffered or

will suffer forced executions.

5. Formal condemnation of the Italian State and the ECB for systematic violation of

economic and social human rights, pursuant to: the Rome Statute (crimes against humanity – economic persecution, Art. 7); the ILC Draft 2001 (grave violation of obligations deriving from peremptory norms of jus cogens, Arts. 40-41); Art. 8 ECHR (private and family life) and Art. 1 Protocol 1 ECHR (property).

6. Formal registration of this application with the General Secretariat of the United

Nations, pursuant to Art. 102 UN Charter, as an act of notification of continued violation of erga omnes obligations.

7. The request for an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on

the applicability of the right to economic and monetary self-determination to the Self-Determined Italian People and to the 42 European indigenous Peoples represented by SIPSE.

8. Official recognition of SIPSE and the 42 European indigenous Peoples as subjects of

international law holding the right to self-determination and economic and monetary sovereignty, and the launch of an institutional dialogue for the ratification of the Constitutional Treaty of the European Union of Peoples (TIEP) deposited pursuant to Art. 102 of the United Nations Charter.

PART IX — THE ALTERNATIVE MODEL: SECURITY THROUGH COHESION AND

DEVELOPMENT

In the face of a plan that blindly pushes towards an acceleration of military spending without a true political steering committee, the need to rethink the very concept of European security is opposed. The stability and resilience of a continent are not measured solely by the volume of ammunition stocks or by the quantity of funds subtracted from the real economy to feed the military-industrial complex. Security = Defence + Social cohesion + Health + Energy + Work + Economic resilience + Environmental protection

9.1 Investments in healthcare and welfare

Years of linear cuts and underfunding of national health systems have demonstrated how the true structural vulnerability lies in the fragility of essential public services. The Italian Constitutional Court, with recent jurisprudence, has established that before cutting healthcare and the right to health, other expenditures must be reduced, recognizing the constitutional rank of the right to health (Article 32 Constitution) and

9.2 Ecological transition and protection of territories

Energy and environmental security represents the fundamental precondition for long-term geopolitical stability, reducing external dependencies through renewable energies and protection of the territory from hydrogeological instability. Dependence on extra-European suppliers of energy and critical raw materials constitutes a strategic vulnerability far more serious than dependence on arms suppliers. Ecological transition, far from being a luxury or a cost, represents an investment in national and collective security.

9.3 Quality work and sustainable enterprises

Supporting the civil productive fabric, advanced technological research and good contracted employment, avoiding that public spending is sucked into a defence speculative bubble that does not produce widespread social wealth. The European Court of Auditors itself has noted how the shortage of qualified personnel in heavy industry — aggravated by young people's disinterest in this sector — constitutes a structural bottleneck.

9.4 Nonviolent popular defence as a constitutional paradigm

Judgment No. 164/1985 of the Constitutional Court recognized that the repudiation of war is not an isolated principle, but is part of a broader constitutional design that includes nonviolent popular defence as a modality of resistance to aggression. Nonviolent popular defence is articulated in a plurality of instruments: civil resistance, civil disobedience, conscientious objection, economic boycott, bottom- up diplomacy, construction of alternative institutions and defence of fundamental rights. This is a model of defence that does not require permanent armies, does not produce victims, does not feed the spiral of violence and does not subtract resources from social development.

9.5 Principle of intergenerational balance

Every new public obligation should be accompanied, where provided, by an assessment of current cost + future cost + financial cost + social cost in relation to expected public benefits. It is further proposed that future generations be considered in the sustainability assessments of public policies.

9.6 Financial transparency

It is proposed to publish accessible and verifiable information on: debt; guarantees; interest; spending programmes; contracts; beneficiaries; multi-year costs; risk analysis. Transparency constitutes an essential element to allow democratic and accounting control.

PART X — PETITUM — FORMAL CLAIMS, ASCERTAINMENT, PRECAUTIONARY

PROTECTION, RESTITUTION, INDEMNITY AND REIMBURSEMENT

10.1 Premise

For all that is set out in the preceding Parts, the applicant formulates the following claims, distinguishing: A. claims for ascertainment; B. precautionary claims; C. restitutionary claims; D. indemnity claims; E. reimbursement claims; F. institutional and international claims.

10.2 CLAIM NO. 1 — Ascertainment of the monetary and financial situation

It is requested to ascertain, by means of official data and reproducible methodology: the composition of the money supply; the relationship between bank money and central bank money; the relationship between money supply, credit and debt; the incidence of interest; the sustainability of public obligations; the sustainability of private obligations; the effects of monetary and fiscal policies on the availability of liquidity.

10.3 CLAIM NO. 2 — Verification of the thesis on the structural impossibility of

complying It is requested that the thesis according to which the monetary structure would determine a structural and generalized impossibility of complying with tax obligations be subjected to independent verification.

10.4 CLAIM NO. 3 — Individual ascertainment of tax claims

It is requested that, for each concretely contested position, the following be verified: title; origin; amount; interest; penalties; prescription; forfeiture; regularity of notification; regularity of collection; any enforcement procedures; any payments already made.

10.5 CLAIM NO. 4 — Suspension of enforcement procedures in legally provided

cases It is requested, in individual proceedings where the relative conditions exist, the suspension of: foreclosures; administrative freezes; mortgages; forced sales; further enforcement procedures.

10.6 CLAIM NO. 5 — Restitution of sums not due

Where it is ascertained that sums have been collected without valid title, in excess of what was due, through illegitimate application of interest, through penalties subsequently annulled, or as a consequence of an act declared invalid, the restitution of the sums unduly collected is requested, in addition to any accessories provided by law.

10.7 CLAIM NO. 6 — Indemnity

Where the applicable legal system provides for a form of indemnity independently of proof of an unlawful act, it is requested that the relative sum be recognized in favour of the entitled subjects.

10.8 CLAIM NO. 7 — Reimbursement of damages

Where an unlawful act attributable to a public or private subject is ascertained, integral reimbursement of damages directly causally linked to the conduct is requested. The following may be claimed, where documented: patrimonial damage (capital lost; sums unduly paid; interest; financial costs; loss of income; loss of patrimonial value; costs incurred for the protection of one's rights); non-patrimonial damage (damage to health; moral damage; existential damage; other prejudices recognized by law).

10.9 CLAIM NO. 8 — Treasury damage

Where conduct emerges that has produced damage to public finances, the transmission of the acts to the competent accounting authority is requested.

10.10 CLAIM NO. 9 — Verification of debt instruments for defence

It is requested to ascertain: legal basis; approval procedure; competent subjects; amount; duration; cost; guarantees; beneficiaries; destination of resources; impact on future budgets; impact on public services; any intergenerational risks.

10.11 CLAIM NO. 10 — Verification of the protection of private savings

It is requested to ascertain that any policy of mobilization of private savings: is founded on a legal basis; clearly distinguishes between voluntary adherence and imposition; guarantees private property; guarantees adequate information; provides adequate guarantees; respects the principles of proportionality.

10.12 CLAIM NO. 11 — International cooperation

It is requested to open, where institutionally possible, an international technical table comprising representatives of the competent institutions in matters of: international law; economics; finance; human rights; public debt; private property; self- determination.

10.13 CLAIM NO. 12 — Economic and monetary self-determination

It is requested that the competent institutions examine the legal scope of the right to economic and monetary self-determination, with particular reference to: the holding of the right; the conditions of exercise; the limits; the effects vis-à-vis States and international organizations; the recognition procedures possibly applicable.

10.14 CLAIM NO. 13 — Request for advisory opinion

The original document requests an opinion from the International Court of Justice on economic and monetary self-determination. This application therefore formulates the request that, where the conditions provided by the UN Charter and the Statute of the Court exist, the opportunity be assessed to submit to the Court a consultative question concerning: the scope of the right to economic and monetary self- determination of peoples and the related limits in the framework of contemporary international law.

10.15 CLAIM NO. 14 — Request for international registration and preservation

It is requested that the competent bodies register this communication according to the procedures actually applicable.

10.16 CLAIM NO. 15 — Precautionary protection

Where concrete cases are identified in which the execution of a given measure may cause grave, irreparable or difficult to reverse damage, it is requested that the competent authority assess the adoption of the precautionary measures provided by law.

10.17 CLAIM NO. 16 — Right of access to acts and data

It is requested to obtain, according to the applicable discipline: administrative acts; financial documents; impact analyses; econometric studies; data used; contracts; guarantees; opinions; minutes; preparatory documents.

10.18 CLAIM NO. 17 — Verification of responsibilities

Where violations emerge from the ascertainments, it is requested that the following be identified: responsible subject; conduct; violated norm; period; causal link; damage; form of responsibility; competent authority; available remedy.

10.19 CLAIM NO. 18 — Integral reparation

Where an international or domestic unlawful act productive of damage is ascertained, it is requested that the forms of reparation provided by the competent legal system be applied, including, where pertinent: restitution; restoration; cessation

10.20 Final formula of the petitum

For all the reasons set out, it is requested of the addressee authorities, each within its own competence, to: ASCERTAIN — VERIFY — SUSPEND, where provided — RESTITUTE, where due — INDEMNIFY, where provided — REIMBURSE, where ascertained — AND ADOPT ANY FURTHER REPARATION MEASURE PROVIDED BY

THE LEGAL SYSTEM.

FINAL CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of the European Court of Auditors on the EU rearmament plan reveals a profound contradiction between the triumphalist narrative of the Commission and the structural reality of the continent. The fragmentation of national systems, industrial bottlenecks, dependence on extra-European suppliers and the fiscal unsustainability of common debt constitute objective obstacles that make the achievement of the declared objectives improbable. On the legal level, the rearmament plan raises grave questions of legitimacy: on the international level, the arms race conflicts with the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter; on the European level, the use of Article 122 TFEU to exclude the European Parliament from the decision-making process raises doubts of democratic legitimacy; on the Italian constitutional level, the increase in military spending at the expense of social investments poses problems of compatibility with Articles 11, 32 and 52 of the Constitution, with the doctrine of counter-limits (judgment 238/2014).

To this is added the fundamental question of monetary neocolonialism: the euro system, as money created through indebtedness, generates an odious debt that falls on all citizens without their consent and without a proportionate benefit for the community. The doctrine of odious debt, elaborated by Sack in 1927 and adopted by contemporary internationalist doctrine, provides the legal instruments to qualify such obligations as non-binding and to repudiate them. The statements of President von der Leyen on the "lazy" savings of European citizens reveal a conception of private savings as a resource available to the political project of the Union, incompatible with the principles of democratic constitutionalism and with the protection of private property. The mathematical demonstration of the structural impossibility of complying with tax collection files — founded on the DSA, Keen-Werner, Monte Carlo and DSGE models — constitutes the technical-legal foundation of the nullity ab initio of every tax claim. No tax collection file can demand what the money does not contain. And self- determination is not asked for: it is exercised. The Self-Determined Italian People, through the CLNI, has already constituted its sovereign institutions, has already enacted its laws, has already notified the international institutions of its will to exercise monetary and fiscal sovereignty directly. The future of Europe cannot be subordinated to the emergency logic of the arms race. True deterrence and lasting peace are founded on a cohesive, economically strong, socially just society capable of producing well-being for all its inhabitants, and not only on military arsenals. As observed by the President of the Italian Constitutional Court, it is necessary to "graduate commitments" and recognize that the security of a nation is not measured exclusively in military terms, but in the capacity to guarantee its citizens the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution and the European Treaties. The Italian National Liberation Committee, custodian of the memory of the Resistance and of the constitutional heritage, makes itself the interpreter of this instance of peace, justice, popular sovereignty and dignity of work and savings, and invites all citizens to mobilize peacefully for a Europe that chooses life, dignity and freedom, not war and death. In this battle, the CLNI is not alone: together with SIPSE and the 42 European indigenous Peoples, united in the common struggle for self- determination and economic sovereignty, we build a Europe of Peoples founded on justice, solidarity and respect for fundamental rights. "Ad impossibilia nemo tenetur." "Self-determination is not asked for: it is exercised." "No tax collection file can demand what the money does not contain."

RESERVATION OF EVERY RIGHT

The applicant fully reserves every right, action, exception, restitutionary, indemnity and reimbursement claim possibly due under applicable national, European or international law. The definitive quantification of any damages will be carried out only after the acquisition of the necessary documentation and the completion of technical ascertainments.

FINAL REQUEST

For all that precedes, it is requested of the addressee authorities to: TAKE NOTE of this application; REGISTER IT according to the applicable procedures; IDENTIFY the competent authorities for each question; ASCERTAIN the facts and circumstances deduced; VERIFY the economic, financial and legal documentation produced; ADOPT, where the conditions exist, the precautionary and protective measures provided by law; ORDER, where due, the restitution of sums illegitimately collected; RECOGNIZE, where provided, any indemnities; REIMBURSE, where a responsibility causally linked to the damage is ascertained; GUARANTEE, where necessary, restoration measures and guarantees of non-repetition; COMMUNICATE to the applicant the outcome of the ascertainments and the available remedies.

CLOSING CLAUSE

This application does not claim to replace the competences of judicial, administrative, accounting or international authorities. It intends instead to formally bring to the attention of the competent institutions a series of questions that, by their economic, social and legal nature, require documentary verification, independent ascertainment and motivated institutional response. Any responsibility must be ascertained according to law. Any damage must be proven. Any restitution, indemnity or reimbursement must be determined according to the criteria of the competent legal system. Place: ……………………………… Date: ……………………………… The applicant / representative Signature Attachments: as per documentary list.

NOTIFICATION FORMULA

This act is transmitted to the bodies and authorities identified in Part VII, with request for protocol registration, taking charge, identification of the competent office and communication of the outcome according to the applicable procedures. Document registered on the sovereign blockchain of the CLNI – Immutable and opposable erga omnes. Hash SHA-256: 0410c025e5fc0f61ac478beea73595a15bde91f7f8ef9d694cf1ff57660e8bf4 – TX: 07/05/2026 18:03:01 0.01 ZECCHINO End of the Application.

INDICE

Intestazione e qualificazione dell’atto

• Istanza formale di accertamento, denuncia-esposto, diffida e messa in mora
• Oggetto
• Natura e finalità dell’atto

• Preambolo