M.C. and Others v Italy

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.[1][2][3]

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
Stanley Naismith
President
Danutė Jočienė
Judges
Instruments cited
Legislative Decree No. 78/2010
Keywords
  • Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (A1P1)
  • Violation of Article 14
  • Abnormal and exorbitant charge

  • Annual uprating
  • Damage to property

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 which requires frequent infusions of blood products. The other applicants were infected through blood transfusions carried out during the course of 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.[4] 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.[5]

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 received compensation from the Italian Ministry of Health for the permanent damage they suffered as a result of their contamination.

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.[6]

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.[7]

Judgment

The judges decided 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. 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.[8]

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).[5]

By way of remedy, the Italian government was required by the ECHR to set, within 6 months, 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.[9]

See also

References
  1. M.C. and Others v Italy [2013] ECHR 802, [2013] ECHR 5376/11, [2013] 802, ECtHR
  2. "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". EU Business Ltd. Buckinghamshire, UK. 3 September 2013. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
  3. "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″ charge.
  4. "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...
  5. 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
  6. 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...
  7. Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11, [10]-[16] (ECHR 3 September 2013).
  8. 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").
  9. 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…").
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.