Search
document

Document text Analytics

PASSANNANTE v. ITALY

Doc ref: 32647/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4321

Document date: July 1, 1998

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

PASSANNANTE v. ITALY

Doc ref: 32647/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4321

Document date: July 1, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 32647/96

by Giuseppina PASSANNANTE

against Italy

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 1 July 1998, the following members being present:

MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President

N. BRATZA

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 20 March 1996 by

Giuseppina PASSANNANTE against Italy and registered on 19 August 1996

under file No. 32647/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is an Italian national currently residing in

Cesenatico, Forlí. She is represented before the Commission by

Mr Domenico Baldassarre, her husband.

The facts of the present case, as submitted by the applicant, may

be summarized as follows.

The applicant, who suffers from migraines, wished to book a

neurological examination. Thus, on 18 March 1996 the applicant phoned

the public hospital in Cesena and she was told that she would have to

call back the following August to book the specialist's examination.

She was further told that, on the other hand, if she wished to pay for

the examination at a cost of 150,000 Italian liras she could have an

appointment with the neurologist on 22 March, that is to say four days

later.

The two options which the applicant was offered pertain to two

different systems: the reduced-fee-paying medical examination (the

patient pays a reduced and pre-fixed amount called "ticket") is a

service provided for by the public health service while the fee-paying

examination is of a private nature. As a matter of fact, the Italian

public health service is based on compulsory contributions which

entitle those who pay them to certain services, among which medical

examinations within public hospitals. However, a doctor who works in

a public hospital, after having completed his due working hours for the

hospital, can exercise privately his profession within the hospital

facilities, if the hospital allows him to do so. The hospital retains

a certain percentage of the doctor's fees as a "rent", for letting him

use its structures. However, despite taking place in a public

structure, such activity remains of a private nature.

The applicant, who could not afford to pay 150,000 liras but

found it exorbitant having to wait five months only to book the

examination, decided not to see the doctor at all.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that she has to wait about five months

in order merely to book a specialist's visit in an Italian public

hospital while she would be able to see the same specialist in the same

hospital in only four days if she were to pay 150,000 Italian liras.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that she has to wait five months in order

to book a reduced-fee-paying visit in a public hospital while she would

wait only four days for a paying visit.

The Commission first recalls that private life, within the

meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention, includes a person's

physical and psychological integrity (see Eur. Court HR, X and Y v. the

Netherlands judgment of 26 March 1985, Series A no. 91, para. 22 and,

mutatis mutandis, Eur. Court HR, Botta v. Italy judgment of 24 February

1998, para. 32, to be published in Reports of Judgments and Decisions,

1998).

The Commission notes that the applicant was offered the choice

between two options: either she could make use of the public health

service and pay a reduced and fixed fee (the so-called "ticket") but

wait five months to book the medical examination or she could see the

doctor privately, within four days, paying 150,000 Italian liras.

The Commission recalls that, while the essential object of

Article 8 (Art. 8) is to protect the individual against arbitrary

interference by the public authorities, it does not merely compel the

State to abstain from such interference: in addition to this negative

undertaking, there may be positive obligations inherent in effective

respect for private life (see Eur. Court HR, Stjerna v. Finland

judgment of 25 November 1994, Series A no. 299-B, p. 61, para. 38 and

Eur. Court HR, Botta judgment of 24 February 1998, para. 33, cited

above).

The Commission notes the Italian public health service is based

on compulsory contributions which entitle those who pay them to certain

services, among which medical examinations within public hospitals.

Therefore, the Commission considers that, in such circumstances where

the State has an obligation to provide medical care, an excessive delay

of the public health service in providing a medical service to which

the patient is entitled and the fact that such delay has, or is likely

to have, a serious impact on the patient's health could raise an issue

under Article 8 para. 1 (Art. 8-1) of the Convention.

The Commission notes the absence under domestic law of time-

limits within which a person should be granted the required medical

service.

However, although the applicant submits that she had to wait five

months in order merely to book the medical examination, she did not

prove nor even allege that the above delay had a serious impact on her

physical or psychological conditions.

The Commission further notes that the applicant, after the

telephone conversation with the hospital's operator, apparently

renounced from seeing the doctor which indicates, in the Commission's

opinion, that she did not consider the medical visit crucial for her

health.

Therefore the Commission considers that the circumstances of the

present case are not such as to warrant the conclusion that the delay

of the public authorities raises a serious issue under Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention and that the present application is

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

Secretary President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant