MORE ON THE OVER-50 FINES

A ruling by the Velletri Justice of the Peace annulling a debit notice is circulating widely online. 
Judgments only take effect between the parties to proceedings. Therefore, the Velletri ruling concerns only the appellant and the contested debit notice. Anyone claiming that “everything is collapsing” is providing inaccurate information. 
Now, while any annulment of the shameful fines imposed on the unvaccinated should be welcomed, the Velletri ruling appears rather confused. The statement of reasons is confined to a single point, namely that AdER allegedly lacks the statutory authority to impose the penalty because jurisdiction lies with the Ministry of Health. The terminology is inappropriate (the judgment speaks of standing to bring proceedings when it is in fact a matter of statutory authority) and the argument advanced by the justice of the peace is flawed. 
Let us see why. Article 4-sexies(3) of Decree-Law 44/2021 states verbatim that “the imposition of the sanction is carried out by the Ministry of Health through the Agenzia delle Entrate-Riscossione”. It is therefore untrue that AdER lacks authority and, in any event, the issue of the fines concerns a question of principle—bodily autonomy in healthcare decisions—not a bureaucratic dispute over the division of administrative powers. 
Some have claimed that the ruling confirms the correctness of applying the procedure for challenging administrative sanctions. This, too, is mistaken. The judgment says nothing on the matter because the judge did not even address the issue. Had they conducted some research, they would have found that Article 4-sexies(6) expressly provides that AdER “shall proceed, by way of derogation from the provisions of Law 689/1981, by serving a debit notice having the effect of an enforceable instrument.” “By way of derogation” means that Law 689/1981 and the procedure for challenging administrative sanctions do not apply. Consequently, the thirty-day time limit for appealing administrative sanctions does not apply either, as is evident from the text of the debit notices, which make no mention of this deadline.  
Justices of the peace, of whom there are thousands, will decide each case according to their individual sensibility and legal culture. To date, the annulments that have been granted do not address the substance of the state’s assault on citizens’ bodily integrity and the principle of self-determination in healthcare. That is the real battle being fought. While there is much talk about the modest ruling of the Velletri Justice of the Peace, a ruling by the Court of Naples that dismantled the Constitutional Court’s judgments by declaring the military vaccination mandate unlawful is being met with total silence. 
Challenging the debit notices before 1 July 2023 is a pointless exercise. First and foremost, the judgments are subject to appeal—and on appeal one cannot represent oneself, but will require the assistance of a lawyer—so it remains to be seen whether AdER will appeal. Secondly, the fines are suspended, there is no risk of enforcement, and the debit notices must not be paid. Furthermore, any litigation carries the risk of losing and facing an adverse costs order; therefore, before taking on the risk of legal action, one must be certain that it is a necessary step. I do not believe it is right to advise people to take unnecessary risks. For now, it is better to wait and see whether the government will keep its promise to scrap the fines. If it does not, there will still be time to appeal the debit notices. Indeed, many justices of the peace are adjourning cases until after 30 June to see whether a definitive cancellation will have been enacted into law. When and if the time comes, I will make available to everyone, free of charge, the appeal templates and the instructions necessary to challenge the debit notices.