| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| March 6. 2023. | Sentenza 35./2023. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Vaccination | The Constitutional Court of Italy held that the exclusion of compensation for the injuries caused by the mandatory vaccination beyond the 3-years-term of general limitation of statutes is unconstitutional. | The Constitutional Court of Italy held that the exclusion of compensation for the injuries caused by the mandatory vaccination beyond the 3-years-term of general limitation of statutes is unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court considered that due to the very short timeframe of using Covid-19 vaccinations the harms caused by mandatory vaccination might occur beyond the 3-years-period, therefore, it would cause severe infringements of constitutional rights, if compensation claims would be per se excluded beyond this period. A minor was also amongst the applicant represented by his parents. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?param_ecli=ECLI:IT:COST:2023:35 | |||
| February 9. 2023. | Sentenza 15/2023. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Vaccination; right to education | The Constitutional Court of Italy held that mandatory vaccination imposed on teachers was constitutional during the public health emergency. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a request for interpretation submitted by a labor court concerning the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination imposed on teachers during the public health emergency. The Constitutional Court held the measure constitutional, therefore, the request was dismissed as unfounded. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?param_ecli=ECLI:IT:COST:2023:15 | |||
| December 1. 2022. | Sentenza 241/2022. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Mandatory vaccination | The Constitutional Court of Italy found, that the vaccination mandate on public health workers, teachers, public servants and persons over 50 is constitutional. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a case concerning the constitutionality of the vaccination mandate imposed on public health workers, teachers, public servants and persons over 50 to prevent the further mitigation of Covid-19 pandemic. The Constitutional Court found these measures constitutional, the impugned governmental policies were neither unreasonable nor disproportionate. | https://www.eius.it/giurisprudenza/2022/656 | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/comunicatistampa/CC_CS_20221201194237.pdf | https://www.thelocal.it/20221202/italys-constitutional-court-upholds-covid-vaccine-mandates-as-fines-kick-in | |
| July 8. 2022. | Sentenza 171/2022. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Right to equality; freedom to conduct a business | The Constitutional Court of Italy ruled, that the entrusting of pharmacies with the selling of rapid Covid-19 testing and the exclusion from para-pharmacies from this activity meant a constitutional balancing of the competing rights and interests. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a case challenging the entrustment of pharmacies with the right to sell rapid Covid-19 tests. The claimants held, that the exclusion of para-pharmacies from this activity meant a violation of right to equality, as well as an unreasonable restriction on right to conduct a business. The Constitutional Court acknowledged, that pharmacies and para-pharmacies have several similarities in their nature, for instance, in both types of storages, the presence of qualified pharmacologists are required. Nevertheless, significant differences may also exist: pharmacies are entities primarily fulfilling social tasks for providing medicines and additional public health services for their clients, while para-pharmacies are essentially profit-oriented enterprises with certain healthcare expertise and licenses optained to take part in a number of healthcare activities. Moreover, the network of pharmacies cover the whole country and ensure equal access for all clients to receive rapid-Covid-19 testing; in the meanwhile, para-pharmacies has much fragmented resources with limited coverage around the country. As a consequence, despite the similarities of the two types of economic entities, their differential treatment was reasonable in this regard, the Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the impugned measures accordingly. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?param_ecli=ECLI:IT:COST:2022:171 | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/comunicatistampa/CC_CS_20220708112450.pdf | https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/healthcare-life-sciences/italy-the-constitutional-court-on-the-legitimacy-of-entrusting-pharmacies-with-rapid-swabs-and-serological-tests | |
| May 26. 2022. | Sentenza 127/2022. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Human dignity; right to equality; freedom of movement | The Constitutional Court of Italy held, that the envisage of criminal sanction for the violating of quarantine measures means a constitutional restriction of freedom of movement, while reasonable differentiation between special targetgroups do not violate the principle of non-discrimination. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a case concerning the criminalization of violating quarantine measures during the public health emergency. According to the Constitutional Court, such interventions are constitutional unless right to dignity or freedom of movement has not been restricted arbitrarily. Moreover, such quarantine restrictions sanctioned by criminal law might be ordered either as general measures or decisions tailored to special targetgroups, if the differentiation has an objective ground. | https://giurcost.org/decisioni/2022/0127s-22.html?titolo=Sentenza%20n.%20127 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/06/italy-criminal-sanctions-violation-quarantine-measures-compatible-right-personal | ||
| November 11. 2021. | Sentenza 213 of 2021. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Right to equality; right to property; access to justice | The Constitutional Court of Italy ruled, that the suspension of executing property release orders during the public health emergency was constitutional; right to property, right to equality and right to access to justice has not been infringed. | The Constitutional Court was approached by two judges who dealt with cases concerning the suspension of executing property release orders during the Covid-19 pandemic. The referring judges questioned the constitutionality of the suspensions. The Constitutional Court rejected these arguments and held, that the suspension of executing property release orders does not violate right to equality, right to property and access to justice, such state intervention should be reasonable during the public health emergency. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?anno=2021&numero=213 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/italy-constitutional-court-no-213-2021-11-11 | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?param_ecli=ECLI%3AIT%3ACOST%3A2021%3A198 | |
| October 2. 2021. | Sentenza 198/2021. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Freedom of movement; separation of powers; criminal law | The Constitutional Court of Italy held, that an administrative sanction envisaged for persons leaving their homes illegally during the curfew period was constitutional. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a case concerning the envisaged administrative sanction against those, who leave their homes without proper justification during the curfew period. A 400 euro fine was imposed on the claimant, who initiated the case. The validity of these measures were contested on formal grounds, but the Constitutional Court rejected all of the arguments raised, and found, that the enactment of the impugned decrees was based on proper authorization, while the restrictions of certain fundamental rights and the envisaged and imposed administrative sanctions were also reasonable during the public health emergency. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionSchedaPronuncia.do?param_ecli=ECLI%3AIT%3ACOST%3A2021%3A198 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/italy-constitutional-court-no-198-2021-10-22 | ||
| March 12. 2021. | Sentenza 37/2021. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Separation of powers; municipalities | The Constitutional Court of Italy held, that a regional government should not legislate on the public health emergency regime and should not vest powers on municipalities to adopt public health restrictions different from the national policies. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a case against a law adopted by the autonomous region of Valle d'Aosta to implicitly authorize municipalities to adopt public health restrictions different from nationally applicable measures. The Constitutional Court argued, that with the adoption of this law, the autonomous region overstepped its competences as public health restrictions fall outside from the scope of its autonomy. State authorities have exclusive competence to regulate on public health restrictions, moreover, the implemented restrictions have also strong international relevance. For these reasons, any law vesting the power on regional or local authorities to enact different curfew regimes than the national one should be unconstitutional. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/pdf/convid_english_20210225183352.pdf | https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/covidwho-1847108;
https://lexatlas-c19.org/the-italian-constitutional-court-steps-in-and/;
https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/covidwho-1793470 |
||
| January 14. 2021. | Sentenza 4/2021. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Separation of powers; municipalities | The Constitutional Court of Italy held, that a regional government should not legislate on the public health emergency regime and should not vest powers on municipalities to adopt public health restrictions different from the national policies. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard a case against a law adopted by the autonomous region of Valle d'Aosta to implicitly authorize municipalities to adopt public health restrictions different from nationally applicable measures. The Constitutional Court argued, that with the adoption of this law, the autonomous region overstepped its competences as public health restrictions fall outside from the scope of its autonomy. State authorities have exclusive competence to regulate on public health restrictions, moreover, the implemented restrictions have also strong international relevance. For these reasons, any law vesting the power on regional or local authorities to enact different curfew regimes than the national one should be unconstitutional. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/sites/default/files/node-case/2021-10/ordinanceno4.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/italy-constitutional-court-no-4-2021-01-14 | ||
| December 23. 2020. | Sentenza 278/2020. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Right to access to justice; right to a fair trial; prisoners rights | The Constitutional Court of Italy held, that suspending the statute of limitations during the public health emergency, when all terms in judicial proceedings were also suspended was constitutional. | The Constitutional Court of Italy heard the petitions of three judges who contested the constitutionality of a law suspending statute of limitations during the first vawe of Covid-19, when all terms in judicial proceedings were also suspended (March-May 2020). The Constitutional Court rejected these arguments and held, that this measure did not infringe right to access to justice and right to a fair trial. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionPronuncia.do | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/italy-constitutional-court-no-278-2020-12-23 | ||
| November 24. 2020. | Sentenza 245/2020. | Constitutional Court of Italy | Right to access to justice; right to equality; right to a fair trial; prisoners rights | The Constitutional Court of Italy held, that the reassessment of home detention authorized for convicted persons on public health grounds was constitutional. | The Constitutional Court heard three cases jointly regarding the home detention of certain convicted persons on public health grounds. In May 2020. a new legislation required the reassessment of providing home detention for prisoners committed serious crimes or held in rigid regime. During these proceedings, the opinion of certain public authorities should be taken into account. The petitions argued the violation of right to access to justice, right to a fair trial, and right to equality. The Constitutional Court held, that the impugned measures were constitutional, the alleged violations of certain fundamental rights were not well-founded. | https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/actionPronuncia.do | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/italy-constitutional-court-no-245-2020-11-24 | ||