Il Tribunale di Firenze ha sollevato il dubbio di costituzionalità relativamente alla norma della Legge 40 con la quale prohibiting access to sterile couples to heterologous fertilization. The request was made by a married couple whose partner was suffering from azoospermia due to treatments made during adolescence. The couple, after being treated in Switzerland and other foreign centers, Luca Coscioni Association has turned to be legally assisted in the application to perform the care in the country. The couple on the recommendation of the association shall appoint legal Lawyer Filomena Gallo and Prof. Gianni Baldini, who have urgent appeal at the Court of Florence.
"The judge has recognized the demands raised by the couple after finding profiles of manifest unreasonableness of absolute prohibition of heterologous PMA for the apparent discrepancy means-ends; of unlawful interference of the legislature in personal and intimate aspects of private life - says Professor Baldwin teaches Biolaw, Bioethics at the University of Florence - this sentence is in fact entirely consistent with previous rulings on the matter and believes that the article on the banning of heterologous fertilization is contrary to the Constitution and refers the case to the Court to provide the relevant declaration. This ruling acknowledges intervening approval of the Treaty of Lisbon - Baldini adds - which states that decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are directly applicable in our sort. "
The couple had asked for help after learning of the case of Austria, which had been condemned by the European Court of Human Rights concerning the prohibition of heterologous own. "We decided to take on this challenge despite being the most difficult of all those necessary to rewrite the law is 40 because we felt the time was right now and that we were finally making a European sensibility to this problem as evidenced by the Nobel given to Stockholm Edwards recognizing that this drug actually collecting petitions and deeply human aspirations - the lawyer said Filomena Gallo - The Florence Court has recognized that it is unreasonable and discriminatory not to allow those who are totally sterile achieve, using the techniques available, the procreative end torque. And that is why, if the Italian court considers that it can not carry out an interpretation of national law contrary to Community law, must raise the question of constitutionality emphasizing a clear conflict between the rule and human rights. "
conclude the defense lawyers: "There was no alternative to the referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court, because as has happened on other occasions, can be returned certainty and uniformity of decisions in this very delicate and crucial matter."
Mr. Filomena Gallo
333 4567091 335 5912109 Prof. Gianni Baldini
PRESS
Florence Court Order of September 1, 2010 GI Dr. D. Paparo
THE PROHIBITION OF heterologous fertilization (Article 4 l. 40/04) AND 'REVERSE OF CONSTITUTION
After more than two years from referral orders on the law Look at the 40/04 adopted by the Court of Florence, ordinances have allowed the Court to rewrite the art. 14 of the Act by eliminating the requirement of three embryos, their modern plant and the prohibition of cryopreservation of embryos, Florence always comes from the hole a shot, if possible, even harder than the law: for the first time in our country an ordinary court considers unconstitutional ban on assisted reproduction eterologoprevisto type of art. 4 l. 40/04, suspend the process and remitting the case to the Court.
The idea is offered by a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in April this year that has agreed with two Austrian couple who sought to make the PMA heterologous prohibited by state law as well as condemning the Austrian State to pay damages to need to eliminate this unlawful ban from the system.
STRUCTURE OF
Abstract
is recognition of the full validity and the merits of the rights asserted in the Italian by the applicant:
a) Condition of absolute sterility resulting in inability to procreate without the use of genetic material by others natural
b) unreasonable and discriminatory not to allow those who are absolutely sterile to achieve, using the techniques available, the procreative end torque;
c) and right to the genetic offspring born situations are not absolute and must be reconciled with the right to procreation and the establishment of a family;
d) the child's right to know their genetic origins must be balanced against the right to anonymity of the donor (as is provided for adoption);
Done
A married couple from 2004 in which the husband is suffering from severe azoospermia as a result of previous treatment dating back to childhood, leading to absolute sterility that makes it impossible to have a child, the only possibility is heterologous, given the prohibition in Italy to begin a long ordeal PMA heterologous abroad in countries where this method is permitted. After you have incurred substantial economic costs to address medical facilities abroad, learned of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights condemning the Austrian State to remove the ban on heterologous PMA contained in its law because it contravenes Art. 8 (right to respect of private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention, addressed the Medical Center of Florence Demetra srl \u200b\u200basking under that ruling the execution of the intervention of heterologous PMA.
Center refuses implementation of the action prohibited by the law 40/04 and the couple is directed by the association Luca Coscioni Aid provides civil legal assistance for the affirmation of the rights affected by the law 40/04. The couple is assisted by 'Mr. Filomena Gallo and Prof. Gianni Baldini of Florence, legal, however, couples and groups that led to the Consulta to rule on the unconstitutionality of Article. 14 L. 40/04.
With the use of art. 700 Code of Civil Defence of the couple claims that the Court of Florence, noted the decision taken by the European Court of Human Rights, 1st sect, SH and others v. Austria, April 1, 2010, considered the significance of the transaction in the trial, evaluated is impossible to make in the process of interpreting the adaptation of the rule in art. 4 c. 3 L. 40/04 with the provisions of the Convention and decided by the Court should dismiss the applicants' right to:
a) resort to methods of medically assisted procreation of heterologous type b) use the genetic material of the third anonymous donor purchased directly from the couple, or by center as required by Legislative Decree Legislative Decree 191/07 and 16/10, for fertilization of oocytes from Ms c) submit to an appropriate protocol for LDCs to ensure the highest chances of useful result is consistent with the provisions of the Constitutional Court ruling 151/09; c) to undergo a medical procedure performed according to techniques and methods compatible with a high level of protection of women's health in case d) have, pending the establishment of the main proceedings and a preliminary issue of the constitutionality of any opinion , the cryopreservation of embryos and for the cycle of PMA heterologous type.
In any case, considered the scope of the European Court's ruling as a general canon of interpretation sub-constitutional value, set aside the art. 4 c. 3 L. 40/04 to conflict with the Articles. 8 and 14 of the ECHR, the effect dismiss the applicants' right as formulated above, and raise the question of the constitutionality of Article. 4 c. 3 L. 40/04 to violation of Art. 11 and 117 of the Constitution and the Constitution 2,3,13,32
spoke lent its support to the proceedings associations Luca Concioni for freedom of scientific research, Amica Cicogna, I want a baby and act apart from the association Liberididecidere.
The judge considered well-founded claims, and against the explicit pair of obligatory nature and inevitability of the law prevented a interpretazione diversa da quella letterale, sospende il processo e rimette gli atti alla Corte costituzionale.
Motivazione e dispositivo
Il giudice accogliendo le motivazioni dei ricorrenti cui pure il centro medico si associa, ritiene di condividere le motivazioni della Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo nella Sentenza 1 aprile 2010 pronunciata contro l’Austria rilevante, in punto di diritto, anche per il nostro ordinamento. In particolare:
Premesso che, come confermato dalla Sentenza Corte cost. 311/2009 in caso di contrasto tra norma interna e norma della Convenzione europea il giudice nazionale comune deve procedere ad una interpretazione della prima conforme a quella convenzionale. Quando l’eventuale contrasto non sia componibile in via d’interpretazione deve sollevare questione di legittimità costituzionale innanzi alla Consulta.
Nel caso di specie secondo il Giudice europeo e il Tribunale di Firenze il divieto di fecondazione eterologa risulta, illegittimo, irragionevole e discriminatorio per le seguenti ragioni. A) pur non essendovi l’obbligo per gli Stati di adottare una legislazione in materia di PMA ove questa vi sia la sua disciplina dovrà essere coerente in modo da prevedere una adeguata considerazione dei differenti interessi legittimi coinvolti; B) Il divieto assoluto di PMA eterologa configura una sproporzione fini-mezzi posto che esso non rappresenta l’unico modo per evitare il rischio di sfruttamento delle donne, di abuso delle tecniche, di realizzazioni di parentele atipiche configuardosi la scelta priva di giustificazioni ragionevoli; C)l’obiettivo di mantenere una certezza in materia di diritto di famiglia deve considerare che rapporti familiari atipici (non basati sulla discendenza biologica, come l’adozione) già sono ampiamente praticati con la conseguenza che l’ipotesi in esame dovrebbe considerarsi ex se del tutto lecita; D) Il diritto del bambino a conoscere la sua discendenza biologica non è un diritto assoluto, dovendo essere contemperato con altri interessi pubblici e privati coinvolti (diritto alla procreazione, diritto all’anonimato del donatore etc) anche attinenti alla privatezza della propria vita familiare (art. 8 CEDU e art. Cost 2:30) E) 'clear the discriminatory effect that the ban is likely to introduce problems between couples suffering from sterility / infertility patients with clinically surmountable and the absolute sterility (Article 14 ECHR and art. 3 Cost )
COMMENT
from the foregoing that the court taking seriously the request by the plaintiffs, believed to be impossible to make a direct application of the ECHR ruling, despite the formal accession to the ECHR system to the European Union established by Article . 6 of the Treaty of Lisbon on 01.12.2009 according to the judge, in contrast to rather supported by the Lazio Regional Administrative Court sent 1198/10 and 1220/10 Cons State, in assenza di specifico accordo che disciplini le modalità di funzionamento del sistema tale diretta applicabilità deve ritenersi esclusa-, verificata l’impossibilità di comporre il contrasto tra la stessa e la normativa interna (art. 4 comma 3 l. 40/04), ritiene che l’unica via sia quella della rimessione alla Consulta. Dunque dopo aver rilevato profili di manifesta irragionevolezza del divieto assoluto di PMA eterologa per l’evidente sproporzione mezzi-fini; di palese discriminazione tra coppie sterili in dipendenza della gravità della patologia; di illegittima intromissione del legislatore in aspetti intimi e personali della vita privata, il Tribunale di Firenze in assoluta coerenza con le proprie precedenti pronunce in materia, considers that Article. 4 c. 3 L. 40/04 is contrary to the Constitution and refers the case to the Court to provide the relevant declaration. Since
and the ECHR ruled unlawful and discriminatory ban on all PMA heterologous in violation of Articles. 8 and 14 of the Convention on Human Rights, welcomed the importance of pronunciation into domestic law, the proceedings of the consultations that may be subject to a penalty to open up unprecedented conflict with the Court and the Convention itself. So
another hard learned all'assetto Law 40/04 which is likely to lose another very important piece
Mr. Prof. Gianni Baldini
Mr. Filomena Gallo
0 comments:
Post a Comment