Search
document

Document text Analytics

A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY and 2 other applications

Doc ref: 46382/13;30286/15;40550/16 • ECHR ID: 001-182284

Document date: March 19, 2018

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 6

A.S. AND OTHERS v. ITALY and 2 other applications

Doc ref: 46382/13;30286/15;40550/16 • ECHR ID: 001-182284

Document date: March 19, 2018

Cited paragraphs only

Communicated on 19 March 2018

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 46382/13 A.S. and Othe rs against Italy and 2 other applications (see list appended)

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicants are Italian nationals. They contracted infectious diseases through blood transfusions, or are the heirs of individuals who had contracted such diseases.

The applicants, or their deceased relatives, brought civil proceedings against the Health Ministry seeking an award of damages.

Such proceedings were eventually discontinued as time-barred.

QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES

1. Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:

- having regard to the relevant legislation, was the compensatory remedy introduced by article 27bis of Law Decree no. 90 of 24 June 2014 (converted into Law no. 114 of 11 August 2014) applicable to the applicants ’ situation?

- if so, was such a remedy an effective remedy in respect of the applicants ’ complaints under Articles 2 and 6 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the procedural obligation under Article 2 of the Convention in the context of health care ( Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal [GC], no. 56080/13, §§ 214-221, ECHR 2017), has the action for damages, as provided in law and applied in practice, constituted legal means capable of establishing the facts, holding accountable those at fault and providing appropriate redress to the victim (see also Arskaya v. Ukraine , no. 45076/05, § 66, 5 December 2013)?

In particular, did the fact that the applicants ’ proceedings for damages were declared time-barred constitute a limitation of their right to a court in breach of the respondent State ’ s procedural obligations under Article 2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vo v. France [GC], no. 53924/00, § § 92-94, ECHR 2004 ‑ VIII)?

3. Did the limitation period and the dies a quo – as determined and applied in the present cases – restrict the applicants ’ right to a court in a manner compatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Eşim v. Turkey , no. 59601/09, §§ 18-21, 17 September 2013; and Howald Moor and Others v. Switzerland , nos. 52067/10 and 41072/11, §§ 70-73, 11 March 2014)?

No.

Application no.

Lodged on

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

Represented by

46382/13

11/07/2013

A.S.

18/06/1973

Ariano Irpino (AV)

R.S .

17/12/1953

Ariano Irpino (AV)

L.S .

02/03/1972

Ariano Irpino (AV)

Giovanni ROMANO

30286/15

23/07/2014

E.V.

16/11/1966

Roma

Anton Giulio LANA

40550/16

20/06/2016

A.Z.

15/09/1942

Pontoglio

Vanessa VOLPI

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant