CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 9 juillet 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 44 July 2002 Salvetti v. Italy (dec.) - 42197/98 Decision 9.7.2002 [Section I] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Allegedly insufficient amount of compensation for handicaps resulting from compulsory inoculation: inadmissible In 1971 the applicant became severely disabled following a compulsory inoculation against polio. Pursuant to section 2 of Law no. 210 of 1992, persons who suffered from permanent disabilities by reason of compulsory inoculations were entitled to an allowance from the month that followed their claim and to a lump sum. In January 1993 the applicant claimed the compensation to which she was entitled. In 1996 the Constitutional Court declared section 2 of Law no. 210 unconstitutional on the ground that it did not provide for any compensation between the moment when the cause of action occurred and the award of the allowance. The impugned provision was amended following the judgment of the Constitutional Court to the effect that persons having been injured as a result of compulsory vaccinations were entitled to compensation for the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the award of the allowance. It represented 30 % of the allowance per year and up to 50 %, the exact proportion having to be determined by decree of the Ministry of Health, for persons suffering from several illnesses. In July 1997 the applicant lodged an application with the County Court alleging that the amended provisions of the law were unconstitutional by reason of the arbitrary reduction of the retrospective compensation and requesting a declaration of her right to obtain it without reduction. In January 1998 the County Court rejected her arguments relating to unconstitutionality. Inadmissible under Article 8: Having regard to the fact that private life includes a person’s physical and psychological integrity, the application had to be examined under Article 8. Compulsory inoculations as non-voluntary medical treatments amount to an interference with the right to respect for private life. (i)   As regards the circumstances relating to the inoculation having taken place in 1971, the recognition of the right of individual petition under Article 34 only took effect in Italy on 1 August 1973 and thus the applicant’s complaint relating to this aspect was incompatible ratione temporis . (ii)   As to the amount of compensation for injury to health resulting from the compulsory inoculation, even assuming that the level of compensation was relevant when examining whether the interference was necessary, this complaint was also incompatible ratione temporis . Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The Convention does not guarantee as such social and economic rights. Nor does it grant a right to compensation for injury to health having taken place before it entered into force in respect of a particular State or before the right of individual petition was recognised with regard to that State. In the present case, the applicant was entitled to a specific allowance due to injury to health. However, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 could not be interpreted as guaranteeing to the applicant an increase in the amount of the allowance. Even if she had a right to compensation, it did not imply compensation of a specific level: incompatible ratione materiae .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes