M.C. and Others v Italy

Last updated

M.C. and Others v Italy
Decided 3 September 2013
Full case name Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie
Case5376/11
ECLI http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre?i=001-126137
ChamberDeuxième Section
Language of proceedingsFrench
Nationality of partiesItalian
Ruling
The Italian Government infringed the principle of the rule of law and the right to a fair hearing. The court required Italy to pay the supplementary compensation allowance with annual uprating. [1]
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
  • Permanent damage [2]

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. [3] [4] [5] The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy. [6] The effect of this ruling increased payments to the applicants by 40%. [7]

Contents

Background

The applicants were 162 Italian nationals who had either received blood transfusions or blood products contaminated with various blood-borne viruses. [1] 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. [8] 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. [9] Forty of the applicants or their relatives had haemophilia, a condition that requires frequent infusions of blood products. The other applicants were infected through blood transfusions carried out during hospital treatment.

A domestic legislative decree had been adopted in Italy in 2010 which led to a considerable loss in value of the compensation awarded to the applicants for their permanent damage. [10]

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. [11] 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. [12]

Applicant's situation

During the case, the health of several of the applicants deteriorated due to the viruses with which they were infected. The infection with contaminated blood and blood products had led to some developing 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 had a nervous breakdown leading to several suicide attempts. [13]

From the point the case application had been communicated to the Italian government, six applicants died. [14] 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, particularly how during the proceedings, six of them had died. [14] [15] 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. [16]

Relevant law

Under Law No. 210/1992, the applicants had already received compensation from the Italian Ministry of Health for the permanent damage they sustained as a result of their contamination. [2]

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. [17] Since February 1992, the entitlement under Law No. 210/1992 to compensation from the state for anyone who had been left with permanent injury from compulsory vaccinations had been extended to those who had been infected with HIV as a result of blood products and/or those with irreversible damage due to post-transfusion hepatitis. [18] The court was unable to identify any disparity in treatment between those who had been affected by post-transfusion hepatitis and those who had sustained permanent damage as a result of compulsory vaccinations. [19]

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. [20]

Judgment

The judges decided unanimously 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. [17] 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. [21]

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). [12]

By way of remedy, the Italian government was required by the ECHR to set, within 6 months, [22] 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. [23] The increase would also have to be paid to everyone in a comparable situation where the adjusted supplementary allowances had not been paid. [22]

Pilot judgment

Having regard to the number of people in Italy who were potentially affected, the Court decided in consequence to apply the pilot judgment procedure, and also noted the urgent need to provide the persons concerned appropriate redress at national level.

M. C. and Others v Italy (2013) [24]

This ruling was one of a limited number of pilot judgments made by the Court. [24] The potential number of people in Italy who were likely to be systemically affected by the same issue was taken into consideration by the Court and by way of consequence chose to implement the pilot judgment procedure. The respondent state was required to address not only the applicant case but all similar cases. [25] The Court "also noted the urgent need to provide the persons concerned appropriate redress at national level." [24]

Just satisfaction

In the main proceedings of 3 September 2013, the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was reserved and held over in its entirety since the court believed it was not ready to be decided. [16]

On 26 May 2016, the same 162 applicants returned to the ECHR to have their claims concerning "just satisfaction" under Article 41 of the Convention considered. [26] In relation to the question of the application of Article 41, all the applications were struck out of the list because the court had been informed of a "friendly settlement" which had been reached between the Italian Government and the applicants. [27]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Convention on Human Rights</span> International treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe

The European Convention on Human Rights is an international convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">European Court of Human Rights</span> Supranational court established by the Council of Europe

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights enumerated in the convention or its optional protocols to which a member state is a party. The court is based in Strasbourg, France.

Loizidou v. Turkey is a landmark legal case regarding the rights of refugees wishing to return to their former homes and properties.

Contaminated hemophilia blood products were a serious public health problem in the late 1970s up to 1985.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides a right to respect for one's "private and family life, his home and his correspondence", subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society". The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i> and <i>R (Carson & Reynolds) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and R v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were a series of civil action court cases seeking judicial review of the British government's policies under the Human Rights Act 1998. They related to the right to property under Article 1 of the First Protocol and prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the convention. In Reynolds's case, there was also Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the right to respect for "private and family life" to be considered, as well as Article 3 of the ECHR, the prohibition of torture, and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".

Baysayeva v. Russia was an April 5, 2007, European Court of Human Rights ruling in the case of forced disappearance of a Chechen man Shakhid Baysayev, which unanimously held Russia responsible for serious violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. The decision was the latest in a series of judgements against Russia in cases connected to the war in Chechnya.

<i>Lautsi v. Italy</i>

Lautsi v. Italy was a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights, which, on 18 March 2011, ruled that the requirement in Italian law that crucifixes be displayed in classrooms of schools does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Contaminated blood scandal in the United Kingdom</span> The historical contamination of blood products in the UK with HIV and hepatitis C virus

The contaminated blood scandal, also known as the infected blood scandal, was a British medical scandal in which a large number of people were infected with hepatitis C and HIV, as a result of receiving contaminated blood or contaminated clotting factor products. Many of the products were imported from the US, and distributed to patients by the National Health Service throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Most recipients had haemophilia or had received a blood transfusion following childbirth or surgery. It was estimated that more than 30,000 patients had received contaminated blood, resulting in the deaths of at least 3,000 people. In July 2017, Prime Minister Theresa May announced an independent public inquiry into the scandal, and its findings are due to be reported in May 2024.

Article 18 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) states:

The restrictions permitted under this Convention to the said rights and freedoms shall not be applied for any purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed.

<i>Chiragov and Others v. Armenia</i> International human rights case

Chiragov v. Armenia was an international human rights case regarding the rights to property of Azeri nationals in the Nagorno-Karabakh region of former Soviet Azerbaijan. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Armenia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by six Azerbaijani nationals on 6 April 2005. The applicants alleged, in particular, that they were prevented from returning to the district of Lachin in territory occupied by the respondent Government, that they were thus unable to enjoy their property and homes located there, and that they had not received any compensation for their losses.

Osmanoğlu and Kocabaş v. Switzerland was a case heard by the European Court of Human Rights in a chamber judgement concerning whether mandatory mixed-gender swimming for girls against the will of their Muslim parents who objected on religious grounds violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights by contravening religious freedom. On 10 January 2017 the court unanimously found that the convention had not been violated.

Assanidze v. Georgia is a decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the illegal incarceration of a Georgia national by the Ajarian authorities in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2004 the Court found in favour of Assanidze, recognising breaches to his right to liberty and right to a fair hearing under European Convention on Human Rights. As a result, the Court ordered that Assanidze be released "at the earliest possible date" and awarded €150,000 in damages. It was the first case against Georgia ruled upon by the European Court of Human Rights.

<i>Carson and Others v The United Kingdom</i> (2010) European Court of Human Rights case

Carson and Others v The United Kingdom [2010] ECHR 338 was heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), in Strasbourg on 16 March 2010 on appeal from the European Court of Rights (ECHR), Fourth Section before Jean-Paul Costa (President), Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Peer Lorenzen, Françoise Tulkens, Josep Casadevall, Karel Jungwiert, Nina Vajić, Dean Spielmann, Renate Jaeger, Danutė Jočienė, Ineta Ziemele, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Päivi Hirvelä, Luis López Guerra, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, Zdravka Kalaydjieva.

<i>A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another</i> Consumer law case involving claimants infected with hepatitis C

A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, also known as the Hepatitis C Litigation, was a landmark product liability case of 2001 primarily concerning blood transfusions but also blood products or transplanted organs, all of which were infected with hepatitis C, where liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC) even in the absence of the ability to test to ascertain which blood transfusions were defective. The claimants were 114 individuals, six of whom were considered lead plaintiffs and given close consideration by the judge, Mr Justice Burton. Several of the claimants were minors who had become infected with Hepatitis C in the course of their treatment for leukaemia. The defendants were the National Blood Authority (NBA) and in respect of Wales, the Velindre NHS Trust, Cardiff. The court found that the UK government should have implemented measures to screen donated blood for HCV by March 1990, rather than September 1991, and that surrogate testing should have been introduced within the United Kingdom no later than 1 March 1988.

In the case of Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy, before the European Court of Human Rights, the Grand Chamber of the Court found in February 2012 that by returning migrants to Libya, without examining their case, the state of Italy exposed the migrants to the risk of ill-treatment and amounted to a collective expulsion. The case concerned 24 migrants from Somalia end Eritrea that were travelling from Libya to Italy that were intercepted at sea by Italian authorities who sent them back to Libya.

<i>Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan</i>

Sargsyan v. Azerbaijan was an international human rights case regarding the rights of Armenian refugees displaced from former Soviet Azerbaijan because of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights on the case originated in an application against the Republic of Azerbaijan lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Minas Sargsyan on 11 August 2006. He was forced to flee his home in the village of Gulistan in Shahumyan region of former Soviet Azerbaijan, together with his family, because of the Azerbaijani bombardments of the village and was not allowed to return and unable to get any compensation from the Azerbaijani authorities. Even though the applicant died in 2009, as did his widow, Lena Sargsyan, in 2014, his children, Vladimir and Tsovinar Sargsyan, represented him in court to continue the proceedings.

<i>CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care</i> Judicial review permission appeal challenging non-inclusion of hepatitis B

CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86 was an appeal against the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review to challenge the infected blood support scheme administered by the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) for non-inclusion of those infected with chronic Hepatitis B virus. The appeal was based on the grounds that the exclusion of those infected with HBV from the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) was unreasonable and discriminatory, contrary to article 14 when read in conjunction with article 8 and article 1 protocol 1 (A1P1) of the ECHR. The appellant also claimed that there was different treatment and that the failure to include those infected with HBV was unreasonable, and that the original application for review should not have been deemed out of time.

In 1994, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service Board (BTSB) informed the Minister for Health that a blood product they had distributed in 1977 for the treatment of pregnant mothers had been contaminated with the hepatitis C virus. Following a report by an expert group, it was discovered that the BTSB had produced and distributed a second infected batch in 1991. The Government established a Tribunal of Inquiry to establish the facts of the case and also agreed to establish a tribunal for the compensation of victims but seemed to frustrate and delay the applications of these, in some cases terminally, ill women.

References

  1. 1 2 "M.C. and Other v. Italy". Juridical Current. 16 (3): 137–140. 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2022.
  2. 1 2 Information Note on the Court's case-law (PDF) (Report). Council of Europe. August–September 2013. p. 19. 166. Retrieved 15 April 2021. All received (or had received) compensation for the permanent damage sustained as a result of that contamination.
  3. ↑ M.C. and Others v Italy [2013] ECHR 802 , [2013] ECHR 5376/11, [2013] 802, ECtHR
  4. ↑ "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". EU Business Ltd. Buckinghamshire, UK. 3 September 2013. Retrieved 26 April 2020.
  5. ↑ "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". The Morning News. 4 September 2013. p. 8. Retrieved 26 April 2020– 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[ sic ]" charge.
  6. ↑ "Italy ordered to pay more for bad blood victims". Expatica . France. 3 September 2013. Retrieved 5 September 2021. Angelo Magrini, head of an association of victims, said it was an "important victory", estimating around 60,000 people in Italy were contaminated by blood transfusions.
  7. ↑ Richards, Jenni; Butlin, Sara Fraser (3 April 2023). "Note by Counsel to the Inquiry on Financial Assistance Internationally" (PDF). infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk. Retrieved 21 June 2023. The Court upheld the complaint in MC and others v Italy (Appin No. 5376/11) as a breach of Article 6, Article 1 Protocol 1 and Article 14. As a result, payments to the infected increased by 40%.
  8. ↑ "Fair compensation for victims of infected blood scandal - Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights - www.coe.int". Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights. September 2013. Retrieved 18 June 2023. In 2010, the government ended inflation-adjusted compensation after thousands of victims tried to apply for it... ...The authorities did not react to the ruling. As a result, victims who were previously entitled to an annual revaluation either lost their adjusted payments – amounting to around €200 per month for some people...
  9. ↑ "Recent Remedies Decisions from the European Court of Human Rights" (PDF). justiceinitiative.org. Open Society Justice Initiative. June 2015. p. 8. Retrieved 21 June 2023. The applicants were Italian nationals who contracted HIV, Hepatitis B, or Hepatitis C as a result of contaminated blood transfusions.
  10. ↑ Sundholm, Miranda (26 April 2021). "4.2". Addressing Systemic Human Rights Violations at the European Court of Human Rights (PDF) (LLM). p. 46. Retrieved 21 June 2022– via National Library of Finland. They all received compensation for the permanent damage sustained, but in 2010, a legislative decree that resulted in the drastic reduction of the amount of compensation was adopted in Italy.
  11. ↑ "Decreto-legge del 31/05/2010 n. 78 (Articolo 11)" (pdf) (in Italian). Dipartimento delle Finanze. 31 May 2010. [13]. Retrieved 29 April 2020. 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...
  12. 1 2 ECHR. M.C. and Others v. Italy (Report). Council of Europe. 5376/11. Retrieved 29 April 2020. Information Note on the Court's case-law No. 166
  13. ↑ M.C. and Others v Italy, 802 5376/11 , 32(ECHR3 September 2013)("Un requérant souffre d’une dépression nerveuse et a tenté plusieurs fois de se suicider. (An applicant endured a nervous breakdown and attempted suicide several times.)").
  14. 1 2 "Recent Remedies Decisions from the European Court of Human Rights" (PDF). justiceinitiative.org. June 2015. pp. 7–8. Retrieved 18 June 2023– via Open Society Justice Initiative. During the course of the proceedings, six of the applicants died.
  15. ↑ "European Court of Human Rights Information Note 166" (PDF). echr.coe.int. Council of Europe. September 2013. p. 20. The pathologies from which the applicants suffered or had suffered, six of them having died in the course of the proceedings, had to be taken into account in this context.
  16. 1 2 "Pilot judgment: Italy must pay adjusted supplementary allowances in accidental contamination of blood cases" (PDF) (Press release). Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights. HUDOC. 3 September 2013. ECHR 248 (2013). Retrieved 18 June 2023. The Court attached particular attention to the fact that the IIS represented more than 90% of the total allowance paid to the applicants.
  17. 1 2 ECHR. M.C. and Others v. Italy (Information Note on the Court's case-law No. 166) (Report). Council of Europe. 5376/11. Retrieved 29 April 2020. 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...
  18. ↑ Fineschi, V; Cateni, C; Fanetti, PL; Turillazzi, E. (1998). "No-fault compensation for transfusion-associated hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV infection: Italian law and the Tuscan experience". Transfusion. 38 (6): 596–601. doi:10.1046/j.1537-2995.1998.38698326340.x. PMID   9661694. S2CID   21545630 . Retrieved 15 April 2021.
  19. ↑ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11 , [10]-[16](ECHR3 September 2013)("La Cour constitutionnelle releva aussi qu'aucune disparité de traitement ne pouvait être décelée entre les personnes affectées par des hépatites post-transfusionnelles et celles ayant subi un dommage permanent à la suite de vaccinations obligatoires (cette dernière catégorie bénéficiant également de la réévaluation de l'IIS en application de la loi no 229/2005 - paragraphes 12 et 13 ci-dessus), puisqu'il s'agissait de deux situations qui n'étaient pas comparables.").
  20. ↑ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11 , [10]-[16](ECHR3 September 2013).
  21. ↑ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11 , [85]-[86](ECHR3 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").
  22. 1 2 "The European Court of Human Rights condemns Italy for not having paid adjusted supplementary allowances in accidental contamination of blood cases". unipd-centrodirittiumani.it. Human Rights Centre -  University of Padua. 9 September 2013. Retrieved 5 September 2021. Within six month[ sic ] from the definitive sentence, Italy will have to indicate a binding date for returning the adjusted supplementary allowances not only to the applicants, but to everyone in the same situation, definitively resolving the structural problem.
  23. ↑ Affaire M. C. et Autres c. Italie, 5376/11Par ces motifs, la cour, à l'unanimité , [11](ECHR3 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...").
  24. 1 2 3 "M.c. and Others V. Italy". Juridical Current. 16 (3): 137–140. 1 June 2013. Pilot judgment: Italy must pay adjusted supplementary allowances in accidental contamination of blood cases.
  25. ↑ Rainey, Bernadette; McCormick, Pamela; Ovey, Clare (2021). Jacobs, White, and Ovey: the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press. pp. 47–48. ISBN   978-0-19-884713-7.
  26. ↑ "Judgments and decisions of 26 May 2016" (PDF) (Press release). Strasbourg: HUDOC. Registrar of the Court. 26 May 2016. ECHR 172 (2016). Retrieved 21 June 2023. Today's judgment concerns the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention.
  27. ↑ M.C. and Others v. Italy, 459 (ECHR26 May 2016)("Depuis son arrêt au principal, la Cour a été informée d’un règlement amiable conclu entre le Gouvernement et les requérants, quant aux demandes de ces derniers au titre de l’article 41 de la Convention. (Since its judgment in the main proceedings, the Court has been informed of a friendly settlement concluded between the Government and the applicants, with regard to the latter's claims under Article 41 of the Convention.)").
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.