| 00:01 | | Here we are, good morning. I couldn’t have refrained, of course, from commenting on |
| 00:07 | | the press statement about mandatory vaccination, released by the Constitutional Court last night. |
| 00:13 | | While waiting for the explanatory statements to be released, we can look at it with interest, |
| 00:17 | | because it draws some guidelines which can be interpreted in a certain way. |
| 00:25 | | It seems to me that this ruling deliberately means to help the government out, |
| 00:30 | | because they are politicized; they are not jurists, of course. |
| 00:34 | | In order to help the government out, they used an expedient. |
| 00:38 | | Also not to renege on the precedents from the nineties, |
| 00:41 | | on the basis of which, mandatory vaccination would have obviously been considered illegitimate. |
| 00:46 | | That’s why the Court expressly refers to the pandemic period only. |
| 00:51 | | As I assumed, they have probably focused on the temporary nature |
| 00:57 | | of mandatory vaccination, as a ploy to get through this. |
| 01:03 | | And a temporary mandatory vaccination is not an obligation, basically. |
| 01:06 | | Because the right to choose still stands. |
| 01:09 | | As you recall, all the suspended medical personnel have retained their jobs. |
| 01:15 | | And today they have been reinstated, thanks to the government’s decision. |
| 01:18 | | From the very first, the law 44/2021 has made mandatory vaccination a temporary measure, |
| 01:24 | | also to enable the Constitutional Court, afterwards, to make this ruling. |
| 01:29 | | In order to link it with something extraordinary and temporary, |
| 01:32 | | unrelated to the jurisprudence of Article 32 of the Constitution. |
| 01:35 | | That’s the interpretation we can give to this press statement. |
| 01:38 | | Which leaves the door open to future lawsuits, |
| 01:43 | | and which limits the effects of this ruling on lawsuits of the same sort. |
| 01:48 | | We will be waiting for the explanatory statements about this topic. |
| 05:03 | | International Law provisions still forbid to discriminate |
| 05:06 | | against those who refuse to undergo a medical treatment. |
| 05:09 | | The Charter of Nice establishes the freedom of giving one’s consent to medical treatments. |
| 05:13 | | A consent given under blackmail is not free, by definition. |
| 05:17 | | The game’s not over yet because ordinary courts can un-apply the internal provision, |
| 05:20 | | without forwarding the case to the Constitutional Court. |
| 05:23 | | So you can still win the case. This is an absolutely interesting aspect. |
| 06:42 | | And one more thing: The jurists who are for mandatory vaccination, |
| 06:46 | | those who think that people should live without a salary |
| 06:50 | | for not yielding to an imposition of a medical nature, |
| 06:54 | | and so therefore are willing to put individuals on a death list, |
| 06:57 | | should change profession. |
| 07:00 | | Even if they are members of the Constitutional Court. |
| 07:03 | | In fact that is an aggravating aspect: because they know what they are doing. It means theirs |
| 07:06 | | is an exclusively political choice. Goodbye, everyone.
|
