The contribution analyses an order of referral to the Constitutional Court made by the Court of Cassation as judge a quo, concerning the effectiveness of the right of defence in the compulsory health treatment procedure governed by articles 33, 34, 35 of Law no. 833/1978 (the law establishing the National Health Service, which incorporated Law no. 180/1978, the so-called “Basaglia law”). It appears that in the TSO procedure, there is a lack of clarity regarding the notification to the addressee of the mayor’s order and the communication to the patient of the validation of this order by the tutelary judge. Furthermore, the law does not provide for the right of a patient subjected to a measure restricting personal liberty, even if for health reasons and not for reasons of public order, to be “heard” by the tutelary judge. This deficiency in the legislation appears to constitute a violation of the right to defence under Article 24 of the Constitution, a right that the Constitution itself defines as «inviolable at every stage and level of the proceedings».
Il contributo analizza un’ordinanza di rimessione alla Corte costituzionale effettuata dalla Corte di Cassazione come giudice a quo, avente ad oggetto l’effettività del diritto di difesa nella procedura di trattamento sanitario obbligatorio disciplinata dagli artt. 33, 34, 35 della L. n. 833/1978 (la legge istitutiva del Servizio sanitario nazionale, la quale ha incorporato la L. n 180/1978, la cd. “legge Basaglia”). Nella procedura di TSO, infatti, non sono previste né la notificazione al destinatario dell’ordinanza del sindaco né la comunicazione al paziente della convalida di tale ordinanza da parte del giudice tutelare. Oltre a ciò, la legge non prevede che il paziente, sottoposto a un provvedimento restrittivo della libertà personale ancorché per motivi sanitari e non di ordine pubblico, abbia il diritto di essere “audito” dal giudice tutelare: tale deficit nella normativa pare configurare una violazione del diritto alla difesa di cui all’art. 24 Cost., diritto che la Costituzione stessa definisce «inviolabile in ogni stato e grado del procedimento».
Daly, E., Trattamento sanitario obbligatorio e diritto di difesa, <<CORTI SUPREME E SALUTE>>, 2024; (3): 1-20 [https://hdl.handle.net/10807/307781]
Trattamento sanitario obbligatorio e diritto di difesa
Daly, Enrico
Writing – Original Draft Preparation
2024
Abstract
The contribution analyses an order of referral to the Constitutional Court made by the Court of Cassation as judge a quo, concerning the effectiveness of the right of defence in the compulsory health treatment procedure governed by articles 33, 34, 35 of Law no. 833/1978 (the law establishing the National Health Service, which incorporated Law no. 180/1978, the so-called “Basaglia law”). It appears that in the TSO procedure, there is a lack of clarity regarding the notification to the addressee of the mayor’s order and the communication to the patient of the validation of this order by the tutelary judge. Furthermore, the law does not provide for the right of a patient subjected to a measure restricting personal liberty, even if for health reasons and not for reasons of public order, to be “heard” by the tutelary judge. This deficiency in the legislation appears to constitute a violation of the right to defence under Article 24 of the Constitution, a right that the Constitution itself defines as «inviolable at every stage and level of the proceedings».I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.