expect green lane To access the e . bar Restaurants, which he decided to do France, will be compatible with constitution Because it would be an appropriate, proportionate and temporary measure in connection with the epidemiological emergency which, moreover, is not only Italian but international. Honorary President of the Counseling Cesar mirabileThere is a fundamental difference, from a legal point of view, between an option like this, and a compulsory vaccination, for example.
“We are not talking about an obligation but about a burden or a requirement to carry out a particular activity. There must be a reasonable demand, that is, there must be a risk that carrying out this activity could lead to the spread of an epidemic. After all, those who worked in the Public establishments, bars or restaurants, once, obtained a health certificate to prove that they were free of tuberculosis when this disease was highly prevalent and contagious.”
The green lane for bars, restaurants and trains? From Greece to Austria, here are the countries where it’s mandatory
However, there are those who spoke of an unconstitutional measure. Can you explain why you think it isn’t?
“It is not an absolute prohibition that affects a person’s freedom, if you want to do certain activities that endanger the people you are dealing with in connection with that activity, that is reasonable.”
Leaving legal language aside, do you mean that since we are not compelled or not to do certain activities, if we decide to practice them, it would be reasonable to ask us for testimony in the event of an epidemic?
“The benchmarks are always the same, and the question is: is it an adequate, necessary and proportionate constraint? Let me give you an example: We saw it in the Premier League final Italy – England People are not far away, without masks and screaming, a big party for the virus. In these situations can someone entering the playing field be required to have the green pass or the passive buffer? No one forbids me to leave the house if I do not have it, no one can ask me about it if I am in my car, but if I go to a crowded place, or enter the hospital, put a ban or a burden to ensure that health is an appropriate, reasonable and temporary limit.”
In short, it is a commitment compatible with constitution?
“Exactly. An individual’s right to health also means that I cannot be harmed by others, and that there is an interest in society and others in not being infected. Another thing is if there is compulsory vaccination, in which case a legislative basis will be needed, it will be needed Law “.
We also know that health is a territorial issue, so can regions go in any particular order or is the principle of the collective good established by the state dominant?
“The principles have already been determined by a ruling of the Constitutional Court at the beginning of this year in a dispute between the state and the Autonomous Region in the Aosta Valley. The issue of the epidemic is the exclusive jurisdiction of the state, and therefore measures can be taken by the state, and the territories cannot leave. Of course, Again, there may be a judgment on the appropriateness, adequacy and proportionality of these measures. If there is any non-functional or excessive pressure on rights, there may be a conflict.”
The green corridor of restaurants, bars and trains in Italy? pressure on my bike. Not from Salvini. Watermelon: “chilling”
Is this a conflict that can only be resolved by the Constitutional Court?
“Exactly, the regions can resume if they believe that their domain has been invaded and the state if the region adopts measures that are not in line with the unified plan. In this case, in my opinion, they will be due to the spread of the epidemic not only a national but international affair, and Article 117 of the Constitution remains , even after the amendment of Chapter Five, includes “international prevention” within the exclusive rights. The competences of the state.”