M.C. and Others v Italy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M.C. and Others v Italy
Decided 3 September 2013
Full case nameAffaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie
Case number5376/11
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-126137
ChamberDeuxième Section
Language of proceedingsFrench
Nationality of partiesItalian
Court composition
Judge-Rapporteur
President
Danutė Jočienė
Judges
Instruments cited
Legislative Decree No. 78/2010 [1]
Keywords
  • Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (A1P1)
  • Violation of Article 14
  • Abnormal and exorbitant charge

  • Annual uprating
  • Damage to property
  • Permanent damage[1]

M.C. and Others v Italy (also known as Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie) is a case decided by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 3 September 2013 in which Article 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1) was engaged due to the applicants not being afforded annual uprating which the court deemed damage to their property of a disproportionate character in the form of an exorbitant charge.[2][3][4] The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy.[5]

Background[]

The applicants were 162 Italian nationals who had either received blood transfusions or blood products contaminated with various blood-borne viruses. The applicants, all of whom were given anonymity, complained that part of the compensation they received because of the contamination was not being afforded an annual reassessment according to the inflation rate. Following transfusions or the administration of blood derivatives, the applicants were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), and/or hepatitis B and/or hepatitis C. Forty of the applicants or their relatives suffered from haemophilia, a condition that requires frequent infusions of blood products. The other applicants were infected through blood transfusions carried out during hospital treatment.

The compensation was to include a supplementary indemnity, in Italian ″indennità integrativa speciale″, abbreviated to ″IIS″. This indemnity component (IIS) was to be subject to reassessment based on the annual rate of inflation and was intended to prevent or reduce the effects of currency devaluation. However, the Italian government made interventions as to the re-assessment of this supplementary allowance (the IIS) as they believed that it was not possible to uprate the amount in line with inflation.[6] In the absence of the annual revaluation, the monetary value of the IIS was fated to gradually decrease. In addition, the IIS was thought to represent between 90% and 95% of the total amount of the compensation. The applicants presented accountancy expertise demonstrating that those who had a right to the revaluation of the IIS were being deprived every month of around 200 euros.[7]

Applicant's situation[]

During the case, the health of several of the applicants suffered serious deterioration due to the viruses with which they were infected. The infection with contaminated blood and blood products had led to some suffering liver cirrhosis, liver cancer, or a combination of several pathologies, in some, both AIDS and hepatitis. In some cases, this was often accompanied by the underlying condition of haemophilia. One applicant suffered from a nervous breakdown leading to several suicide attempts.

From the point the case application had been communicated to the Italian government, six applicants unfortunately died. Their heirs were then established in the Court proceedings.

The applicants provided medical certificates and expert medical reports showing the reduced life expectancy of people infected with the hepatitis virus and HIV. The expert evidence made out a strict link between the applicant’s prognosis of survival and the beneficial effect of the compensation allowances in question.

The Court considered that they were obligated to take the pathologies of the applicants into account. In particular, how during the proceedings, six of them had died. The judges also attached particular importance to the fact that the annual reassessment (the IIS) represented more than 90% of the total amount of the compensation paid to the applicants.

Relevant law[]

Under Law No. 210/1992, the applicants had already received compensation from the Italian Ministry of Health for the permanent damage they suffered as a result of their contamination.[1]

Law No. 210/1992 stated that additional compensation, ″indennizzo ulteriore″, is to be granted to persons who have suffered damage as a result of compulsory vaccinations and that this additional compensation should be subject to an annual reassessment based on the rate of inflation.[8] Since February 1992, the entitlement under Law No. 210/1992 to compensation from the state for anyone who had suffered permanent injury from compulsory vaccinations had been extended to those who had been infected with HIV as a result of blood products and/or those who had suffered irreversible damage due to post-transfusion hepatitis.[9] The court was unable to identify any disparity in treatment between those who had been affected by post-transfusion hepatitis and those who had suffered permanent damage as a result of compulsory vaccinations.[10]

The applicant's arguments relied on various articles and protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights as follows: Article 6 section 1, Article 13, Article 14, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12.[11]

Judgment[]

The judges decided unanimously that the applicants had suffered damage to their property of a disproportionate character due to the adoption by the Italian government of Legislative Decree No. 78/2010.[8] This decree placed an ″abnormal and exorbitant charge″ (″charge anormale et exorbitante″) on the applicants, and in the opinion of the court upset the fair balance between the demands of the general interest and the safeguarding of individual′s fundamental rights.[12]

The judges were unanimous in finding that there had been a violation of Article 14 of the Convention along with a declaration that the application was admissible under A1P1 (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).[7]

By way of remedy, the Italian government was required by the ECHR to set, within 6 months,[13] a time–limit by which the State must undertake to guarantee the payment of the re–assessed IIS to any applicant entitled to the compensation under Law no. 210/1992 and that the payments should be back-dated to the point from which it had been granted to them.[14] The increase would also have to be paid to everyone in a comparable situation where the adjusted supplementary allowances had not been paid.[13]

See also[]

References[]

  1. ^ a b ECHR (August–September 2013). Information Note on the Court's case-law (PDF) (Report). Council of Europe. p. 19. 166. Retrieved 2021-04-15. All received (or had received) compensation for the permanent damage sustained as a result of that contamination.CS1 maint: date format (link)
  2. ^ M.C. and Others v Italy [2013] ECHR 802, [2013] ECHR 5376/11, [2013] 802, ECtHR
  3. ^ "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". EU Business Ltd. Buckinghamshire, UK. 3 September 2013. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
  4. ^ "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". The Morning News. 4 September 2013. p. 8. Retrieved 2020-04-26 – via Issuu.com. The judges at the court in Strasbourg said the government′s refusal to allow for a yearly increase in the payments in line with inflation constitute an ″abnormal and exhorbitant [sic]″ charge.
  5. ^ "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". Expatica. France. 3 September 2013. Retrieved 2021-09-05. Angelo Magrini, head of an association of victims, said it was an "important victory", estimating around 60,000 people in Italy were contaminated by blood transfusions.
  6. ^ "Decreto-legge del 31/05/2010 n. 78 (Articolo 11)" (pdf) (in Italian). Dipartimento delle Finanze. 31 May 2010. [13]. Retrieved 2020-04-29. Il comma 2 dell′articolo 2 della legge 25 febbraio 1992, n. 210 e successive modificazioni si interpreta nel senso che la somma corrispondente all′importo dell′indennita′ integrativa speciale non e′ rivalutata secondo il tasso d′inflazione...
  7. ^ a b ECHR. M.C. and Others v. Italy (Report). Council of Europe. 5376/11. Retrieved 2020-04-29. Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 166
  8. ^ a b ECHR. M.C. and Others v. Italy (Information Note on the Court's case-law No. 166) (Report). Council of Europe. 5376/11. Retrieved 2020-04-29. Yet the enactment of legislative decree no. 78/2010 had definitively set the terms of the debate submitted to the courts, by providing an authentic interpretation of law no. 210/1992 in a way that was favourable to the State...
  9. ^ Fineschi, V; Cateni, C; Fanetti, PL; Turillazzi, E. (1998). "No-fault compensation for transfusion-associated hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV infection: Italian law and the Tuscan experience". Transfusion. 38 (6): 596–601. Retrieved 2021-04-15.
  10. ^ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11, [10]-[16] (ECHR 3 September 2013) ("La Cour constitutionnelle releva aussi qu'aucune disparité de traitement ne pouvait être décelée entre les personnes affectées par des hépatites post-transfusionnelles et celles ayant subi un dommage permanent à la suite de vaccinations obligatoires (cette dernière catégorie bénéficiant également de la réévaluation de l'IIS en application de la loi no 229/2005 - paragraphes 12 et 13 ci-dessus), puisqu'il s'agissait de deux situations qui n’étaient pas comparables.").
  11. ^ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11, [10]-[16] (ECHR 3 September 2013).
  12. ^ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11, [85]-[86] (ECHR 3 September 2013) ("l′adoption du décret–loi no 78/2010 a donc fait peser une « charge anormale et exorbitante » sur les requérants et l′atteinte portée à leurs biens a revêtu un caractère disproportionné").
  13. ^ a b "The European Court of Human Rights condemns Italy for not having paid adjusted supplementary allowances in accidental contamination of blood cases". unipd-centrodirittiumani.it. Human Rights Centre - University of Padua. 9 September 2013. Retrieved 2021-09-05. Within six month from the definitive sentence, Italy will have to indicate a binding date for returning the adjusted supplementary allowances not only to the applicants, but to everyone in the same situation, definitively resolving the structural problem.
  14. ^ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11 Par ces motifs, la cour, à l'unanimité, [11] (ECHR 3 September 2013) ("Dit que l′État défendeur devra fixer, dans les six mois à partir du jour où le présent arrêt deviendra définitif en vertu de l′article 44 § 2 de la Convention, en coopération avec le Comité des Ministres, un délai ayant nature obligatoire dans lequel il s′engage à garantir, par des mesures légales et administratives appropriées, la réalisation effective et rapide des droits en question, notamment à travers le payement de la réévaluation de l′IIS à toute personne bénéficiant de l′indemnité prévue par la loi no 210/1992 à partir du moment où cette dernière lui a été reconnue…").
Retrieved from ""