Italian Court Rules Covid Vax Mandates Unconstitutional.

A third year nursing student, with natural immunity has challenged the vax mandate of the University of Palermo has had a notable win in the Italian administrative courts

An Italian court has ruled that Italy’s mandatory Covid vaccination program is ‘unconstitutional’ due to the “serious or fatal adverse effects” posed by the experimental jabs.

Sicily’s Court of Administrative Justice stated that any death due to the jab is enough to render the mandate completely illegal in Italy.

The ruling passes the decision to the Constitutional Court, which will now have to rule on the issue.

https://www.studiosparti.it/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Ordinanza-rimessione-alla-Corte-Costituzionale-CGA-N.-01272_2021-REG.RIC_..pdf

Now, with a bit of help from google translate…… some points raised:

ITALIAN REPUBLIC
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COUNCIL OF JUSTICE FOR THE SICILIAN REGION
Jurisdictional Section

1. The appellant, after having stated that he was enrolled in the third year of the nursing degree course at the University of Palermo and that, in order to complete his studies, he should have participated in the internship within the health facilities, states that this was prevented by the University (as he was not vaccinated against the Sars-CoV-2 virus),

The appellant deduced that he could not undergo the inoculation of the vaccine both due to the experimental nature of the same, and because in the past he had
contracted the Sars-CoV-2 virus, for which he believes he enjoys antibody memory and perennial natural immunity, and on the other hand, if he undergoes the inoculation, he would risk dying from A.D.E. (acronym for Antibody Dependent Enhancement), a phenomenon (described in detail in the technical advice produced by the applicant) of a severe reaction of the immune system, which led to a death in the Municipality of Augusta, according to the results of the criminal investigations.
The court seised rejected the precautionary request having held "(...) that, with a view to balancing the opposing interests and in the current state of affairs, the public interest in avoiding having non-persons attending health facilities appears to be prevalent vaccinated, exposing health workers and patients present there to the risk of contagion ".

2. With the appeal, the erroneousness of the order was complained, having regard to the defects found in the application:

- absolute lack of power on the part of the Rector, who could not introduce limitations to the right to study and treatment of vaccination data not provided for by any law;
- violation of recital no. 36 of EU regulation 953-2021 and art. 1, paragraph 6, of the d.l. n. 111 of 6.8.2021 (the so-called green certification is obtained not only following vaccination, but also by virtue of medical certification, where Covid has already been contracted, as in the case of the applicant, or swab);
- violation of art. 4 d.l. n. 44/2021 (converted into law no. 76/2021), from which no vaccination obligation for university students would arise;

- incorrectness of the ordinance in the part in which it is alleged that an unvaccinated subject would expose health professionals and patients to the risk of contagion;

- the experimental gene therapy currently being administered is based on the S-protein of the "spikes" of the viral strain originating in Wuhan, which by now is no
more in circulation, the coronavirus, having undergone tens of thousands of mutations;

there could be no vaccination obligation concerning experimental drugs, such being the sera in question, subjected to pharmacovigilance (passive and inactive), for which the holder of the marketing authorization is asked to provide the final report on the studies clinical;

- it would not be possible in our legal system to impose a vaccination obligation based on experimental drugs, thereby preventing the EU regulation 2014, art. 28 et seq., And art. 32 last paragraph of the Constitution, which prohibits treatments contrary to human dignity;

- in the VIII AIFA report, serious adverse events were reported in over 13% of cases; moreover, the European database “Eudravigilance”, based exclusively on passive supervision, includes as many as 23,000 deaths and over 2 million adverse events;

- in fact, in the session of the European Parliament no. B9-0475 / 2021 of 23.9.2021 the establishment of a "European Compensation Fund for the victims of" vaccines against COVID-19 "was proposed";

- the figures relating to death and adverse events caused by vaccines would be largely underestimated due to the fact that passive pharmacovigilance is based on spontaneous reporting;

- the large number of deaths and serious invalids following the administration of the experimental drugs in question (e.g. in the United Kingdom the mortality of young people in 2021 would have increased by 47% compared to the same period last year, especially for myocarditis) would exclude the configurability of a "vaccination obligation" pursuant to art. 32 of the Constitution;

- where the vaccination obligation is therefore considered applicable to students,
 the constitutional illegitimacy of art. 4 d.l. n. 44/2021 and for the violation of art. 117 of the Constitution, namely for the non-compliance with the Nuremberg Treaty on free consent to trials, and for the violation of art. 3 of the Constitution;

- contrary to what is stated in the defense of the University, there would be irreparable prejudice to the right to study because the appellant has taken all the other exams and exhausted the lessons to be followed;

- the appellant re-proposes the grounds of appeal not examined at first instance (invalidity derived from illegality of the declaration of a state of emergency; illegality of the extension of the state of emergency contained in art.1 of Legislative Decree 23.7.2021 n. 105; overestimation of the deaths due to Covid-19, as can also be seen from the ISS report updated to 19.10.2021, as every death that occurs in the absence of a clear cause of death other than Covid-19 is attributed to Covid-19 "and" for the purposes of evaluation of this criterion, pre-existing pathologies including cancer, cardiovascular pathologies, diabetes are not to be considered causes of death other than Covid ");

- invokes the principle of primacy of EU law with reference, among other things, to informed consent and the processing of personal data.

3. With an initial memorandum, the appellant reiterated the non-collectability of the vaccination obligation, given the natural immunity obtained as a result of the healing.
He then highlighted the continuous increase in deaths and those affected by adverse events, as recorded in the “Eudravigilance” database, evident also in Italy, despite the limitations of passive surveillance.

He insisted on the objection of constitutional illegitimacy of the rules as raised in the precautionary appeal and in the light of further considerations made in memory.


On the merits, he highlighted the groundlessness of the arguments made by the appellant as "centered on personalistic and substantially unproven axioms, especially in light of the objective data that emerged during the investigation".

12.5. As for the cd. informed consent, the general discipline is contained in the l. 22 December 2017, n. 219, which, in article 1 establishes that <in compliance with the principles set out in articles 2, 13 and 32 of the Constitution and articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, protects the right to life, health, dignity and self-determination of the person> <no health treatment can be started or continued without the free and informed consent of the person concerned, except in cases expressly provided for by law>.

The content of the fifth paragraph of Article 1 is then related to the affirmation of these principles, according to which every person capable of acting has the right to refuse, in whole or in part, any diagnostic assessment or health treatment.

14.4. As already noted with the order of this Council no. 38/2022, at the current regulatory state the vaccination obligation does not exist in the event of an ascertained danger to health, in relation to specific and documented clinical conditions, certified in compliance with the provisions of the circulars of the Ministry of Health regarding exemption from vaccination anti SARS-CoV-2 available to deal with the SARS-Cov-2 virus belong to three types (traditional type, inactivated virus; protein vaccines; vaccines based on the use of DNA or RNA), they focused on the third type of drugs, for the first time administered on a large scale, whose mechanism, different from conventional vaccines (and which should determine, in their opinion, their inclusion in the category of gene therapies, such as defined in point 2.1 All.I, p.IV, of Directive 2001/83 / EC), provides for the release in the tissues and organs of active ingredients that induce the relative cells to produce the viral protein which will then be recognized by the immune system, triggering the antibody production processes.

- “numerous international studies report an increase in general mortality in the post-vaccination period”, inexplicable in the presence of the protective measures introduced in 2021 and considered the so-called "Harvest effect" on the elderly and frail over the year 2020, and anomalous data relating to mortality in countries with high vaccination rates;

- the European data base Eudravigilance shows, as of February 2022, a significant number of serious and fatal events, "never seen before with other vaccines", however probably underestimated, both due to the low efficacy of spontaneous pharmacovigilance, and because the correlation is systematically excluded in the presence of other pathologies; aggravated phenomenon, as regards the reports from Italy, also in relation to the recommendation referred to in the AIFA note of 9 February 2021;

- as would also be inferred from the examination of the Pfizer vaccine sheet, where it is specified that no genotoxicity and carcinogenicity studies have been carried out, because they are not required by the WHO guidelines , noting that, however, the exemption was foreseen for vaccines with a classic formulation, for which at most a couple of administrations over the life span are expected, while in the case in question repeated administrations are foreseen, in short times and for currently indefinite periods, amplifying the risk by virtue of the accumulation effect;


 - the lack of screening on vaccinators is contested, in relation to the potential sources of risk, including a concomitant Covid-19 infection, despite the case of a deceased soldier, a few hours after vaccination, for ADE (acronym for antibody dependent enhancement), as demonstrated during the autopsy;

- the reliability of the pharmacovigilance system is contested in the current circumstances, considering that, in the case of new technologies, it is essential to identify pathophysiological phenomena activated by the drug; the reports are carried out only in the presence of a reasonable suspicion of the correlation with the administration of the vaccine, while they should be made in any case, referring to a commission of multidisciplinary experts the ascertainment of the causal link;
- the third AIFA report shows that, in the context of the current vaccinovigilance, it is used the third AIFA report shows that, in the context of the current vaccinovigilance, an algorithm built and validated by the World Health Organization is used, which takes into account the temporal relationship between vaccination and event; from reading the report it is clear that vaccines are excluded from liability in the event of deaths of subjects with previous pathologies such as cardiovascular, oncological, respiratory diseases, which, however, according to the Consultants, constitute the majority of human diseases in Western countries; furthermore, in their opinion, the exclusion criterion from the calculation of deaths occurring after 14 days from the vaccination would be arbitrary.

For this and other reasons which, for the sake of summary, are not reported here, the party concludes in the sense of the illegality, in relation to the constitutional parameter, of the imposition of the vaccination obligation, especially for subjects who, like the appellant , have already contracted the virus.

16. The parameter of constitutional legitimacy.

16.1. The jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court in the matter of compulsory vaccinations is firm in affirming that art. 32 of the Constitution postulates the necessary reconciliation of the right to health of the individual person (also in its content of freedom of care) with the coexisting and reciprocal right of other people and with the interest of the community.
In particular, the Court specified that - without prejudice to the need for the vaccination obligation to be imposed by law - the law imposing health treatment is not incompatible with art. 32 of the Constitution under the following conditions:
- if the treatment is aimed not only at improving or preserving the state of health of those subjected to it, but also at preserving the state of health of others;
- if it is foreseen that it will not negatively affect the state of health of the person who is obliged, except for those consequences "which appear normal and, therefore, tolerable";
- and whether, in the event of further damage, the payment of a fair compensation in favor of the injured party is envisaged, regardless of the parallel compensation protection (Constitutional Court, judgments n.258 of 1994 and n.307 of 1990 ).
In particular, as stated by the judgment of 22 June 1990, n. 307, the constitutionality of regulatory interventions that make certain health treatments mandatory (in this case it was the polio vaccine) is subject to compliance with the following requirements:
<the treatment is aimed not only at improving or preserving the state of health of those subjected to it, but also at preserving the state of health of others, since it is precisely this further purpose, relating to health as an interest of the community, to justify the compression of that self-determination of man inherent in everyone's right to health as a fundamental right.