Judgement

Exemption from the vaccination requirement: the Council of State ‘safeguards’ the right to choose one’s own paediatrician

Where there is a proven risk to the child’s health, vaccinations may be omitted or deferred only with a certificate from a specialist

Pediatrician makes vaccination to small boy. Angelov - stock.adobe.com

2' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

2' min read

Translated by AI
Versione italiana

Compulsory vaccinations may be omitted or deferred in the event of a proven risk to the child’s health only upon certification by a private paediatrician. Any other approach would be contrary to the relevant legislation (Article 1, paragraph 3, of Decree-Law No. 73 of 2017; Article 24 of Presidential Decree No. 272 of 28 July 2000) and with the Ministry of Health Circular No. 25233 of 16 August 2017, setting out operational guidelines for the implementation of the vaccination campaign. This was established by the Council of State (judgement No. 6671 of 2026), which upheld the judgement of the Lazio Regional Administrative Court No. 927 of 2026.

The background

The parents of a two-year-old girl challenged the refusal by the Bologna Local Health Authority (ASL) to recognise the certificate of exemption from compulsory vaccination issued by a general practitioner from the Palermo Provincial Health Authority. The Lazio Regional Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, pointing out that the girl’s medical condition had not been certified by the freely chosen paediatrician (PLS) as required by Article 1, paragraph 3, of Decree-Law No. 76 of 2017.

Loading...

The Council of State’s ruling

In their appeal, the parents argued that if the legislature had intended to restrict the authority to grant vaccine exemptions solely to paediatricians of the patient’s choice, it would have expressly provided for this. For this reason, in the absence of such a provision, the court of first instance should have recognised the primacy of the minor’s right to individual health over the public interest in vaccination coverage. This argument fell short of the mark. The Council of State, on the one hand, referred to the relevant legislation, which states that:

- for children aged 0 to 6, healthcare is provided exclusively by the PLS;

- for children aged between 7 and 14, parents may choose whether healthcare should continue to be provided by the PLS or by a general practitioner;

- for young people aged between 15 and 18, healthcare is provided

exclusively by your GP.

On the other hand, he pointed out that the PLS is familiar (more than anyone else) with “the medical history of the child, their family and the environment in which they are growing up”.

The Council of State also rejected the argument that the Ministerial Circular was null and void on the grounds of lack of authority. The Council noted that the Circular serves as a technical and operational guide to identify the conditions under which a compulsory vaccination may be omitted or deferred, and to provide healthcare staff with ‘evidence-based decisions that enable them to enhance the safety and appropriateness of the vaccination programme’.

Copyright reserved ©
Loading...

Brand connect

Loading...

Newsletter

Notizie e approfondimenti sugli avvenimenti politici, economici e finanziari.

Iscriviti