“Consulta judges should follow the constitution, not science.” The decision of the Constitutional Court, which ruled on the legality of the vaccination obligation and the consequences of non-compliance with it, is still under discussion. The debate is fueled by Augusto Sinagra, professor of European Union law at La Sapienza, the former judge and lawyer who promoted one of the appeals against compulsory vaccination that Consulta rejected.
“If unconstitutionality could be tolerated in the name of emergency,” Sinagra declares, “it would suffice for governments to declare a state of exception to impose special laws.” The Constitutional Court press release speaks of the statutory vaccination obligation because it was introduced “in an epidemic period”. Sciarra and his colleagues may not have realized that, in justifying the alleged conformity of legislation on mandatory vaccination with the Constitution, they had set themselves on an inclined plane: If the unconstitutionality of a law is justified in the name of an emergency, it becomes too easy for any government to declare any emergency in order to introduce Special legislation is radically unconstitutional.”
There was not much doubt about the legality of compulsory vaccination. for art. In Article 32 of the Constitution, health is not only a singular good, but a collective good. Thus, medical treatment, including vaccination, may be required by law. Doubts ariseOn the other hand, about the legality of suspending the salaries and checks of unvaccinated workers. The Court seems to have considered that, in exceptional circumstances, the right to health can take precedence over other rights, up to their revocation.
The hearing of eight cases of the same number of judges, who considered “unfounded” objections to unconstitutionality made by lawyers for citizens deemed aggrieved and disenfranchised, also witnessed tense moments. Like when lawyer Augusto Sinagra, promoter of one of the appeals, questioned the court’s “apparent” impartiality. Sinagra, without naming him, drew attention to the conflict of interest of Judge Marco Dalberti, Mario Draghi’s legal advisor. Until last September 14 and the judge of the Constitutional Court was appointed by the President of the Republic, Sergio Mattarella, the next day. And President Silvana Ceara cut him off.
“Maybe the president has little experience with the case of the public, having been appointed recently,” Sinagra comments in an interview with Alessandro Rico for La Verità. «He did not take into account the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg court, which states that a judge must not only be impartial, but appear impartial. In closed courtrooms, Sciarra and colleagues concluded that there were no incompatibility profiles in college. But this was not true. Articles 117 and 111 of the Constitution stipulate that the judge shall be, and appear to be, impartial, motivated by respect for the Italian people.
Very difficult attack, straight to the point. This is because Judge D’Alberti finds himself assessing the actions of the government he was helping. Until recently, Professor D’Alberti provided personal and direct legal assistance to the then Prime Minister, Mario Draghi. I was hoping for a greater sensitivity than D’Alberti who didn’t have to attend college.”
Indeed, the court is highly politicized: a third of its members are nominated by parliament in joint session. “I am against elected judges, but if it helps to clear things up, let us prove that the Constitutional Court is no longer a judicial body in the proper sense, but rather a political body as evidenced by the decision of November 30, 2022. It is a heavy burden: its first president was , Gaetano Azzaretti, during the outbreak, President of the Race Commission. I say this to indicate the position of the judiciary of every degree and degree: to satisfy governmental authority.
Or as the Head of Consulta mentioned in one Courier interview “Sciences”. How does Sciarra make this bizarre, impromptu, and troubling decision about compulsory vaccination compatible with the fact that so many adverse events that can lead to death in hundreds of cases have now been verified? What is clear is that the judges have remained on paracetamol and are waiting to be vigilant.”
“Infuriatingly humble social media buff. Twitter advocate. Writer. Internet nerd.”
