Irrespective of your views on whether Italy can, or should, raise tax in that way, there is a fundamental issue of fairness here, which is screwing an aircraft which cannot fly because
- it has broken down
- it is being worked on
- it is waiting for parts
- the owner got run over by a bus and is dead / recovering / etc
- the pilot got into bad wx, landed, and is unable to leave due to continued bax wx
- the pilot stopped for just 1 day but cannot leave Italy due to bad wx (which let's face it could happen to any aircraft, even a bizjet)
- as above but cannot depart due to airport closed (due to equipment, crash, etc - imagine a case where 20 visitors are parked there and somebody wrecks the runway, and after 48 hrs the Italian tax collector will go round and collect 5 or 6 figures from the parked visitors
)
- etc
- etc
A country with the slightest pretence of civil liberties and not run by totally idiotic up-yours conmen has to make a provision for the above factors, with a framework of exemptions which need to be authorised by somebody with a specified authority.
In the case of an EASA reg type the authority would need to be tied into Part M, but in the case of a foreign reg one it would need to be signed off by an appropriate authority e.g. an A&P/IA for an N-reg. This would be horribly complicated.
I am no lawyer but would be amazed if trapping such people would stand up if some rich victim decided to properly exhaust the legal options (ECJ for example).
France and the UK abandoned long term parking controls like that in 2004/2005, probably for these reasons as much as the controversy. One can understand Italy not giving a t055 about what anybody thinks, but if people can sue for compensation then it is all a bit pointless...
Until this is resolved, I will not even enter Italian airspace, which for me, with a 1300nm range, is not a significant hardship
