From the very beginning of the health dictatorship, I have maintained that the rules adopted in Italy are incompatible with European Union law and therefore inapplicable!
Finally, in an important ruling, the Court of Padua, in a case represented by Prof. Augusto Sinagra, Advocate, has decided to refer to the EU Court of Justice the interpretative question concerning the compatibility of the conditional marketing authorisation of vaccines against the Covid-19 disease with European regulations on medicinal products.
Indeed, a new medicinal product may be authorised for marketing, even before the conclusion of clinical trials, only when there is no other approved treatment. We know, on the contrary, that for the Covid-19 disease there are many effective, officially approved treatments.
Furthermore, the Court of Padua has asked the EU Court of Justice to rule on whether a vaccine authorised only provisionally, pending the completion of clinical trials on its safety and efficacy, may be made mandatory.
Finally, an Italian court has recognised the necessity of assessing the illegal measures of the Italian government in light of European law, which takes precedence over domestic legislation.
This is proof that the path set out by my legal actions is the right one.
I was among the first to advocate the European route, often criticised without any foundation. Justice is slow, but it arrives relentlessly.
Praise goes to Prof. Augusto Sinagra, Advocate, who obtained this crucial ruling from the Court of Padua. In the proceedings I initiated as well, both individual and collective, I have asked from the very start for a referral of this and other interpretative questions to the EU Court of Justice.
Until now, judges had been unwilling to turn to the EU Court of Justice, and I hope that the example of the Court of Padua encourages them to do so.
The end of the health dictatorship is drawing near.
Many people are asking us whether it is not possible to apply directly to the EU Court of Justice. Obviously, one cannot. As in the case of the ruling of the Court of Padua, a judge must refer the matter to the Court. Lawyers can only request it, but they have no direct access to the EU Court.
Let us also remember that the EU Court of Justice is a different court from the ECtHR. The latter, the European Court of Human Rights, has its seat in Strasbourg, is not an organ of the European Union, and rules on violations of the fundamental rights established by the European Convention on Human Rights.
The EU Court of Justice has its seat in Luxembourg, is the supreme court of the European Union, and rules on the interpretation of Union law. In particular, it has jurisdiction to rule on whether European rules should be interpreted as being incompatible with national provisions that conflict with the superior principles of Union law.
For example, as I have always maintained, any mandatory medical treatment, including swab testing, is incompatible with Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides for the necessity of free and informed consent for any medical treatment.
Alessandro Fusillo, Advocate