Confirmed by the Supreme court the storage – issued by the gip of Milan last September 4 – complaint for injuries and abuse of office filed by the parents of a child with autism that in the opinion of the father and the mother would have to be developed because of the compulsory vaccinations
According to the Supreme Court, are not “amenable in the criminal courts,” the “ministerial directives based on the findings of the most recent epidemiological studies” that have excluded the connection the vaccine-autism and do not configure any crime.
In particular, the parents of this girl had lodged the complaint for injuries against persons unknown with regard to the enforcement of the vaccination of the small and the complaint for abuse of office in respect of the Commission doctor of the hospital of Milan, who initially, in February 2016, he had accepted the request for compensation for damage to health advanced by the father and mother of the little girl and then revoke it a few months later – in October 2016 – after “have adapted to the indications coming from the Ministry of Health” on the basis of more recent studies formed the basis for the link between vaccines and autism. According to the Supreme court, correctly, the gip of Milan filed the complaints – the injury was too late – “since the annulment in self-protection of the first measure was adopted in compliance with the ministerial directives, based on the results of the most recent epidemiological studies, then, in the context of a discretionary assessment, technical nature, and not criticized in the criminal courts”. For the ‘ermines’, just as “correctly” gip “has considered that the basis of valuation, made by scientific data, and the alignment to the same in the office of revision of the previous opinion expressed formed the basis for the injustice of the damage, and also to want to consider in finding a violation of the law, it lacked any indication that could suggest that the alleged behaviour is put in the context of the objective will of ‘abuse’, consisting in the want to intentionally cause undue damage”.
So the Supreme court – with the verdict 2983 – has declared “inadmissible as manifestly unfounded” claims of this pair of parents, which reminds us that “in the absence of a crime, it is useless to speak of the relevance and importance of integrative tests against a decree of storage issued ‘de plano’ after the presentation of an opposition”. Father and mother were also condemned to pay a thousand euro to the Cash in fines as is always the case, as the appeal are devoid of any legal basis..