Justice

In a recent judgement, the administrative court of Lazio has annulled the circular of the Ministry of Health concerning the domestic management of Covid-19 patients. It has in fact argued that the binding nature of the circular undermines the possibility of the physicians to freely select the most suitable therapy for the patient. The Council of State has a different opinion and, reforming the judgment of the TAR, has also ruled on the complex issue related to the relationship between the standardization of care and autonomy of the physicians. This contribution offers an overview on the rulings of the administrative courts on this topic and then focuses on a short analysis of the second instance judgment.

By judgment No. 2309 of 17 March 2021, the Council of State has further confirmed – overcoming the idea that the term for the conclusion of ARERA’s sanctioning procedure is merely ordinary – the peremptory nature of such term, therefore its overrun affects the challenged sanctioning measure, implying that it is unlawful. Indeed, the provision of a procedural time frame, to be determined by the Authority on a case-by-case basis, shall ensure that the time of sanction ascertainment is close to that of its punishment, thus meaning that the undue time lapse of the administrative action implies the unlawfulness of the sanction measure.

The essay singles out the problematic profiles of the decision by which the Consiglio di Giustizia amministrativa per la Regione siciliana ordered a preliminary investigation, before evaluating the existence of the non-manifest unfoundedness of the question of constitutional legitimacy raised by the appellant relating the Covid-19 vaccine mandates.

This article examines the ruling by which the German Federal Constitutional Court declared on 24 March 2021 that certain provisions of the Climate Protection Act of 12 December 2019 (KSG) are unconstitutional. The national climate protection targets and the annual permissible emission volumes up to 2030 that the provision envisages were found to be incompatible with fundamental rights, as they lack sufficient requirements for further emission reductions from 2031 onwards. The ruling recognises that every freedom is potentially affected by these future emission reduction obligations because almost all areas of human life are still depending by the emission of greenhouse gases and are therefore threatened by drastic restrictions that could occur after 2030 according to the current regulation. The legislator should therefore have taken precautions to mitigate these high burdens in order to safeguard fundamental rights in an innovative ‘intertemporal’ perspective, and thus also adequately guarantee the rights of future generations.

The Council of state refused the appeal against the judgement of the T.A.R. Lazio, which denied a protective order for suspension of the mandatory use of so-called Green Pass, in order to exercise certain activities as introduced by the Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 17th June 2021. The decision stresses the importance of the vaccination as one of the UE measures for citizens’ health protection, as well as the evaluation of a real or a merely potential risk of security in processing of sensitive data, or in ensuring right to privacy and non-discrimination.

With the decision n. 261/2021 of the 10th September 2021, the Administrative court of Friuli Venezia Giulia has ruled on relevant aspects related to the compulsory vaccination for healthcare personnel established by art. 4 D.L. 44/2021. The court has clarified that it is incorrect to claim that the vaccines used in the current vaccine campaign are still on trial, since they have been authorized by the Commission with a conditional marketing authorization, after EMA recommendation.

The Council of State confirmed the illegality of the resolution of the Municipality of Seregno which approved a complex corporate integration project between its subsidiary and A2A S.p.A.. The judgment is particularly interesting for two reasons. Firstly, it is confirmed that a public tender must be carried out in circumstances such as those of the present case, and secondly, it remains to be seen what consequences the ruling will have on the operation.

The paper analyzes judgment T-238/2020 whereby the General Court rejected the appeal filed by Ryanair DAC. With the appeal, the low-cost airlines sought to obtain the annulment of the European Commission’s decision C (2020) 2366 final approving state aid granted by the Kingdom of Sweden to airlines with Swedish licenses. The General Court rejected the appeal as the concession procedures and the purpose of the measure were considered compatible with EU law.

The French Council of State rules that the existing threat to national security currently justifies the generalized retention of data. It affirms also that the possibility of accessing connection data in order to fight serious crime allows, at the present time, the constitutional requirements of preventing breaches of law and order, and the tracking down of authors of criminal offences to be ensured. However, after examining the conformity with EU law of French rules on the retention of connection data, and verifying that the implementation of EU law (as interpreted by the European Court of Justice) does not jeopardize the requirements of the French Constitution, the French Council of State orders the Government to reassess regularly the threat that exists in France so as to justify the generalized retention of data, and to submit the use of these same data by the intelligence services to clearance provided by an independent authority.

With decision no. 6787 of November 3, 2020, the Council of State recognizes and analyzes the legitimacy of the National Anti-Corruption Authority to act, following the legislative amendment of art. 211 of the Code of public contracts (Legislative Decree no. 56/2017) which introduced paragraphs 1-bis and 1-ter to the aforementioned provision.