[3][4][5] The Strasbourg ruling sets an important precedent for higher monthly compensation payments to be paid to the 60,000 or so victims of contaminated blood transfusions in Italy.
This indemnity component (IIS) was to be subject to reassessment based on the annual rate of inflation and was intended to prevent or reduce the effects of currency devaluation.
However, the Italian government made interventions as to the re-assessment of this supplementary allowance (the IIS) as they believed that it was not possible to uprate the amount in line with inflation.
210/1992 to compensation from the state for anyone who had been left with permanent injury from compulsory vaccinations had been extended to those who had been infected with HIV as a result of blood products and/or those with irreversible damage due to post-transfusion hepatitis.
[18] The court was unable to identify any disparity in treatment between those who had been affected by post-transfusion hepatitis and those who had sustained permanent damage as a result of compulsory vaccinations.
[20] The judges decided unanimously that the applicants had suffered damage to their property of a disproportionate character due to the adoption by the Italian government of Legislative Decree No.
[12] By way of remedy, the Italian government was required by the ECHR to set, within 6 months,[22] a time–limit by which the State must undertake to guarantee the payment of the re–assessed IIS to any applicant entitled to the compensation under Law no.
[22] Having regard to the number of people in Italy who were potentially affected, the Court decided in consequence to apply the pilot judgment procedure, and also noted the urgent need to provide the persons concerned appropriate redress at national level.
[24] The potential number of people in Italy who were likely to be systemically affected by the same issue was taken into consideration by the Court and by way of consequence chose to implement the pilot judgment procedure.
"[24] In the main proceedings of 3 September 2013, the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was reserved and held over in its entirety since the court believed it was not ready to be decided.