Application to the ECtHR
26 May 2022 · difendersiora
With a ruling that was incredibly swift compared to standard timeframes, the ECtHR has declared the healthcare workers' application inadmissible. The absence of reasoning on the merits demonstrates the sloppiness of a decision that will remain an enduring disgrace to those who drafted it, certainly not to the healthcare workers who are fighting a fundamentally important battle. The statement of reasons consists of four lines. In which it is not even explained which of the many possible reasons rendered the application inadmissible. Nor does it explain why, in the judge's view, no violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention was discernible.
We will press on regardless, both in Italy, at the ECtHR (to which we may return), and before other international courts, until the travesty of compulsory experimental treatment has been eliminated.
For those wishing to get an idea of the application and the work carried out by Studio Fusillo, here are the documents. First of all, the application to the ECtHR. It must be completed on a pre-printed form with limited space, and therefore contains only a summary of the issues. We have omitted the opening pages containing personal details that are not of general interest.
Attached to the application is an accompanying report explaining the alleged human rights violations. This document too must necessarily be brief, but this does not prevent it from being comprehensive. As can be seen from the text, we have illustrated and documented that healthcare workers subjected to mandatory experimental medical treatment suffer violations of the following rights enshrined in the ECHR: Art. 2 (right to life: the conscious acceptance that certain individuals compelled to receive the vaccines in question may die constitutes an intentional attempt on their lives); - Art. 5 (personal liberty: the denial of moral freedom associated with the ability to decide whether or not to undergo medical treatment constitutes a violation of the right enshrined in the ECHR); - Art. 8 (respect for private and family life: the vaccine mandate cannot be deemed indispensable in a democratic society for the protection of health, as it lacks the requisite proportionality, particularly in relation to the excessive and extreme severity of the sanction); - Art. 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion: the use of so-called immortalised foetal cells in the development and production of the vaccines in question is irreconcilably in conflict with the Christian and Catholic prohibition of abortion, as summarised in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae; the mandate impedes the religious freedom of all Christian healthcare workers); - Art. 14 and Protocol No. 12 (prohibition of discrimination: the mandate imposed exclusively on healthcare workers constitutes manifest discrimination, given that they alone are subject to an obligation backed by a ban on working, whereas precautionary measures such as surgical masks or PCR tests exist that could ensure that duties are performed safely for patients by unvaccinated healthcare workers).
Then there is the list of annexes. As can be seen, 2,444 pages of documents were attached to the application. It is difficult to believe that the judge could have examined and assessed them in just a few hours on 12 May.
Here is the index of submitted documents
In the face of this vast volume of documents and pleadings, here is the ECtHR's decision. Four lines. In which it is not even explained which of the many possible reasons rendered the application inadmissible. Nor does it explain why, in the judge's view, no violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention was discernible.
Lastly, an excerpt from the Court's FAQs. The Court normally takes around a year to examine applications and provide a response to applicants. It is normal and proper that this should be so, given that the issues raised are significant. It is curious that, in the case of healthcare workers, they took only a few weeks instead.
Here are the Court's FAQs.
