With Law 210/92 the Italian legislator made the vaccination obligation lawful by guaranteeing financial compensation to the subject who had experienced adverse reactions following the administration of the vaccine. Every vaccine on the market, even if it has received a positive evaluation on safety and efficacy by the EMA and AIFA, presents side effects, some of which are chronic in nature. Precisely to protect citizens from these unwanted effects, the Italian State guarantees compensation based on the severity of the pathology acquired from the administration of the vaccine. In 2021, with a specific law, the Italian State has allocated 50 million euros for the year 2022, to be paid to all those who have acquired vaccine-related pathologies and which, in the following years, these subjects will tend to grow given mass vaccination occurred due to the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to providing for vaccine-related pathologies, the law also provides compensation to those who have received transfusions of infected blood.
Related Posts
Affittasi ufficio in via…
Lo Studio legale-economcio Daniele, nella sede di via Pisa 6 Pescara, offre l'affitto di uffici per professionisti quali Avvocati o Commercialisti. Per informazioni scrivere alla mail segreteriastudiodaniele@proton.me .
Read more
Inazione ambientale
Le magistrature europee in questi giorni hanno sentenziato un nuovo istituto poco riconosciuto, se non addirittura mai, nelle giurisdizioni italiane. Si tratta della inazione ambientale rientrante nel diritto ambientale e…
Read more
Lawyers' strike of 4 March 2024 - Undue compression of the right of defense committed by the PM
On 01/31/2024 the UCPI resolved the following document:
“We learned with dismay the news of the investigation opened by a Milanese prosecutor against the defender of an accused while the trial for a serious murder was underway before the Court of Assizes. It was subsequently learned that one of the two prosecutors, who supported the accusation in the trial against Alessia Pifferi, keeping his colleague in the dark about his initiative, decided to investigate the lawyer Pontenani, defender of the accused, for the sole reason fact of having used the reports drawn up by two psychologists of the prison in which Pifferi is confined, who were themselves investigated for the crime of forgery, in order to support the existence of an intellectual development deficit in their client and to ask for it subjection to psychiatric evaluation. An appraisal which was subsequently ordered by the Court of Assizes and which is currently underway. According to the accusatory hypothesis, the psychologists' reports would in fact contain false declarations on the prisoner's mental conditions instrumentally aimed at obtaining a psychiatric assessment and it is for this reason that during the investigations, telephone and environmental wiretaps were ordered against them, as well as the search of their homes. It is news in the press today that, while one of the two prosecutors in charge of the accusation, as she was kept in the dark about the initiative in question, has decided to renounce the assignment of the file, in the context of the trial pending before the Court of Assise, the defendant's defender declared that he did not want to give up the defense although it was registered on the initiative of the same PM opposing her in that trial. We cannot fail to consider that this investigation, sensationally inserted within an ongoing debate, ends up altering the ordinary balance of the trial and compromising the serenity of those, judges and experts, who will have to express their assessments, bringing out how, once again, the defensive function and who exercises it appear delegitimized by the same unilateral initiative of the PM, aimed at affirming the existence of a contribution by the defender in the hypothesized illicit conduct of third parties, which highlights, if there were still a need , not only the procedural disparity between prosecution and defense, but also the substantial confusion between the position and role of the defender and the figure of the client. For these reasons, without wanting to go into the merits of the procedural matter, we must stigmatize what happened and underline how unacceptable any undue compression of the constitutionally guaranteed right of defense is, regardless of whether it is pursued, inside or outside the trial. We will monitor to understand what in particular justified the registration of the colleague in the register of suspects and finally in what context these initiatives developed, because, if this is what awaits the trial of the future with one party, the Prosecutor, who investigates the other part in an open debate, on the sole basis of an uncontrolled investigative hypothesis, we can celebrate the requiem not only of the accusatory rite, but of justice as such."
Therefore we inform you that on 4/3/2024 the lawyers of the Daniele law-economic firm will participate in the national strike.
Read more
