vaccine

In a judgment of 22 June 2023, the Italian Administrative Court of Marche has rejected the plaintiff’s claim that he did not have an obligation to vaccinate and that the suspension from the job by the military administration was unlawful.

The Administrative Court applied the principles stated by the Italian Constitutional Court with the judgment 25/2023. The Constitutional Court had expressly stated that it is for the legislator to indicate which vaccines must be mandatory and the conditions for the application of the negative consequences of failure to vaccinate (see our post about this judgment).

The Administrative Court has held that the administration did not impose mandatory vaccination without a specific legislative provision but correctly applied the existing legislative provision without exceeding its powers. In this particular case the Administrative Court has held that the administration has correctly applied the legislation, requiring military officials to vaccinate in order to comply with the constitutional principles of solidarity that requires protection of third parties from the contagion of the virus. The Administrative Court reaffirmed the principle that mandatory vaccination has been required to health, education, military professions, and the police, to ensure the protection of collective health without excessively interfering with the individual right to self-determination (Italian Constitutional Court 25/2023).

The Court has also rejected the claim that the suspended employee should be entitled to alimony. The choice not to vaccinate determines negative personal and economic consequences that the party should bear once it has freely made the decision.

Reference: Tribunale Regionale Marche, 383/2023, 22 June 2023 / ECLI:IT:TARMAR:2023:383SENT.

Full text of the decision available at giustizia-amministrativa.it it