The Sicilian administrative court referred to the Constitutional Court the constitutionality question about mandatory vaccination for health care professionals established by the Italian law in 2021.
The complaint was brought by a student of the third year in nursing studies. The complainant claims that he should not have been forced to be vaccinated in order to participate in the training program required to the students of nursing.
The complainant refers that he had COVID-19 and that vaccination can pose serious risks of death for Antibody Dependent Enhancement.
The Sicilian administrative court referred to the Constitutional Court the constitutionality question about mandatory vaccination for health care professionals established by the Italian law in 2021. The administrative court asked the Constitutional Court whether the law complies with the constitutional requirements on legislation related to vaccines that impose balancing between the collective benefits stemming from mandatory vaccination and the individual costs. The limitations of the right to self-determination must be fully justified by the protection of collective health according to the principles established by the Italian Constitutional Court (Judgment 5/2018). The referring court, however, highlights the differences between the principles related to mandatory vaccination in ordinary times and those in pandemic emergency. It asks the Constitutional Court to revise the criteria for mandatory vaccination in times of pandemic particularly in relation to the pharmacovigilance and monitoring associated to vaccines subject to conditional authorization.
New scientific evidence suggests that SARS-COV-2 vaccination has generated a higher number of collateral negative effects than what was detected in the past. Hence, according to the referring court, deeper scrutiny concerning the balance with the right to work, the right to education, freedom of expression should be carried by the legislator and required to the administration. Furthermore, it is questioned whether mandatory vaccination was based on sufficient scientific evidence, whether the duty to inform those subject to mandatory vaccination was adequately defined and, whether an appropriate monitoring regime was required to the administration to ensure that collateral negative effects of vaccination are promptly and effectively detected. According to the referring court the legislative choice of mandatory vaccination should be subject to continuous review in light of the evolution of medical and scientific knowledge and legislation should require precautionary and mitigation measures related to the effects of vaccine.
