Sanctions have become a hot topic these days and a cause of additional stress that falls in an objectively heavy period. We understand the situation perfectly, as with the Lorenzin Law, we too live the same and suffocating limitations of freedoms and with you we are fighting this authoritarian drift day by day. However, we want to reassure you on one point: we will win this war!
Let's now get to the heart of today's problem, since to date many of you have received the letter from the beloved Revenue Agency-Collection regarding the 100 euro fine.
Let's summarize the rule
All those who were previously obliged by Articles 4, 4-bis and 4-ter of Legislative Decree 1 April 2021, n. 44 (healthcare professionals, workers employed in residential, social-welfare and social-healthcare facilities, school personnel, personnel from the defense, security and public rescue sector, local police, magistrates, etc.) and anyone who has turned 50 or will turn 15 by 2022 June 7 is liable to a sanction under Legislative Decree 2022 January 1, n. 4, converted with amendments by Law 2022 March 18, n. XNUMX. You can read what has already been written previously , here as well as review the video in which we discussed the topic with lawyer Nardini , here ().
In essence, Legislative Decree 1/2022 provides for a one-off fine of €100 (therefore a single fine) for the above-mentioned categories if:
- the primary vaccination cycle is not started by 1 February 2022;
- the primary vaccination course is not completed by 1 February 2022;
- you do not get the booster, if you have to, by 1 February 2022.
The fine will be collected directly by the Revenue Agency-Collection, on behalf of the Ministry of Health through the notification of an enforcement order. The procedure is anything but "smooth" and requires as a first step the sending of a "notice" of the start of the procedure, exactly what many of you are receiving these days. This first letter is not a sanction!
The Revenue Agency-Collection, in the event that the ASL does not confirm the non-existence of the vaccination obligation, will notify within one hundred and eighty days a notice of debit with the value of an executive title, as previously stated.
What happens now?
Nothing special. You have 10 days from receiving the notice to notify the local ASL of any exemption or deferral or objective impossibility to proceed with the vaccination. In turn, the ASL will have an additional 10 days to verify and confirm any non-existence.
Otherwise, if the ASL If the taxpayer does not respond within the time limit, the Revenue Agency-Collection will proceed to impose and collect the expected fine of €100 within 180 days.
At this stage you have the possibility to request a possible contradiction with the competent ASL, as required by law, by sending it by registered mail or PEC (you will easily find the PEC or the address of your territorially competent ASL) a few simple lines with name and surname, reference to the communication received, and the formal request for an interview with the vaccinating doctor on the matter. If you have known us for a long time you will know that this is very similar to what you sent in relation to the objection process for mandatory vaccinations of Law 119/2017.
Corvelva has never provided pre-printed forms and if you are looking for this you will not find it with us. We are convinced that writing a few lines independently to ask for an appointment is within everyone's reach, furthermore, writing in a casual and natural way helps not to be identified as belonging to a predetermined group that sends en masse the same document that no one will read.
After sending the interview request to the ASL, as required by law, you will have to communicate to the Revenue Agency-Collection the fact that you have written to the ASL. It doesn't take much, you are asked to give notice of the submission of the communication to the ASL, naturally by entering your name and surname, tax code and perhaps citing the identification number that you find on the letter you received (you can find it as "Document no." at the beginning of the text). If for the ASL we cannot give you the contact since it is the territorially competent one, for the Revenue Agency-Collection it is easier for us since it is a:
Inland Revenue
via Giorgione n. 106
00147 Rome
Certified email:
We already tell you that sanctions will most likely be imposed regardless (if they manage to get them started since in half of Italy we are still waiting for the sanctions that were supposed to start in 2017) since the Legislative Decree 1/2022 provides that “The Revenue Agency-Collection, in the event that the competent Local Health Authority does not confirm the non-existence of the vaccination obligation (i.e. does not communicate anything, ed.)… shall, in derogation of the provisions contained in Law 24 November 1981, n. 689 (i.e. the law that regulates administrative sanctions, ed.) within one hundred and eighty days of the relative transmission, issue a notice of debit, with the value of an executive title.”
In fact, the derogation from the law of 24 November 1981, n. 689, could very likely lead to the initiation of sanctions regardless of the procedure you have undertaken with the ASL or the communications that the same should send to the Revenue Agency-Collection and knowing the wonderful efficiency of the Italian bureaucracy, we would not be surprised if they also imposed sanctions on some vaccinated people. We are already sitting with popcorn in hand.
Is it a crime to fail to comply with the vaccination requirement?
DO NOT. This is an administrative offence, not a criminal one. Not getting vaccinated is not a crime and has no consequences on the criminal record or any type of repercussions on the citizen's private life.
For the sake of completeness, let us remember that the derogation from the law on administrative sanctions, as we were saying, is only in the data transmission and in fact this type of fine is comparable to a fine for a violation of the highway code. Those who have children and in the last 30 years have not adhered to the vaccination schedule proposed by the Ministry of Health, have most likely received a similar fine (with a different procedure as issuing and collecting body but always linked to administrative sanctions) and this makes us say that at least for us they are not at all a novelty never seen in human history, on the contrary.
If you don't pay you have to appeal because otherwise you will receive a tax bill with all the related charges that range from increases of 30% up to double (it is not our field but we all know more or less how tax bills increase by themselves).
If you pay it ends there.
Does the Corvelva Association recommend paying?
No, but it's really annoying to see vultures already swooping down on the easy money thanks to bizarre theories artfully spread that would predict fraud or guilt on the part of those who pay, admissions of who knows what sins, seizures or other.
We are simply for freedom of choice and we apply the same principles with which we contest vaccination obligations in other aspects of the battle. Freedom and information!
We would like to tell you that those who do not feel like going before the competent ASL, in the very remote event that you are granted an appointment for a cross-examination, then before the justice of the peace (obligatory path to appeal) and those who do not have the economic means to be able to face this path and have economic risks, can calmly don't do it and but the darkest misfortunes will not befall him for this. In other words, one can choose to pay the administrative penalty for not having respected a law that provides for a one-off penalty as a consequence and this will not imply anything on the individual.
Is this fine different?
Yes, but as we have already said, the concern is certainly not in the "fine trap" that according to some who knows what it should anticipate: if anything, it is shameful that the Health Card system is used to register citizens, but this happens whether you appeal or do nothing because the technological schedule has already been built and the data has already been fished out and cross-referenced (we are not even sure that they are good enough to be able to do it without countless errors).
For those who want to challenge: you can try with a modest expense, however presumably higher than the sanction itself (single contribution for appeal to the Justice of the Peace €43 approximately + various expenses + possible lawyer who is not obligatory or necessary if one knows how to handle himself). However it makes sense in principle. However, keep in mind that in the event of a defeat, it would be necessary to appeal and go all the way to the Supreme Court and we cannot exclude that if the Justice of the Peace does not accept your appeal, he may go into compensation and charge you expenses that can range between 400 and 700 euros. If it is a matter of principle, it must be followed through to the end and there obviously the costs increase a lot.
So what do I do?
It costs nothing to send a registered letter or certified email to your ASL and for information to the Revenue Agency-Collection, referring to the letter received and requesting an information interview. You must also pay attention to the document you received because many require a specific procedure.
If you have any particular health conditions, you can already mention them in the registered letter/PEC, the same goes for recoveries and any other condition that in your opinion precludes you from proceeding with the vaccination). In short, you can report the reasons that push you not to undergo the inoculation but we always recommend not to refuse anything, only ask questions. The goal is to punish your doubt.
Then you can calmly decide what to do when the sanctions arrive. If they arrive at all!
We remind you, while many of you are panicking over a 100 euro fine, all of us in Veneto are still waiting for the fine that was supposed to arrive in 2017 and ranged from 100 to 500 euros per child. This should perhaps make you understand why we are very relaxed, also considering that if the first ones arrive, we are able to communicate a strategy to you in 24 hours and there is no reason to panic today.
That said, do not ask us today for the entire procedure for the appeal, we will have the opportunity to comment on it with the help of lawyers and jurists specialized in the subject and we will be able to provide you with more detailed information in due time, for now however, at least on this, we would really like you to sleep soundly.
Are they setting a precedent?
Sure, but the only real precedent is the method, the collection by the Revenue Agency-Collection and the cross-referencing of the data with the health card system. This is the real point. But, there is a huge but: the fact of paying or not paying does not change this arrangement. In fact, the cross-referencing has already occurred and it is not the payment that legitimizes it: it was the decree law. That's all.
It is therefore good and right to respond with valid reasons, but as a matter of principle. Then we will see when and if the act (sanction) arrives.
The seriousness of all this is not "what will happen to you if you pay", it is precisely that they have established an unprecedented method of identification and sanctioning process that directly uses a health data to collect, giving the task to the Revenue Agency-Collection. With a pinch of lucid prospective analysis, ID2020 with its digital identity, connected to this system is a serious precedent.
A side note
We conclude by underlining a couple of points that we have already expressed above but that we want to explore further: fines for failure to have mandatory vaccination have existed since vaccination has existed and you will forgive us if we, knowing the subject moderately well, do not support the fanciful line of "they create a precedent".
Let us recall the first law on compulsory vaccination, the so-called Crispi-Pagliani Law of 1888 (Law 22 December 1888, n. 5849) which made smallpox vaccination compulsory and which provided for a system of sanctions and even prison, or the compulsory anti-polio vaccination (Law 4 February 1966, n. 51) which provided for a fine of 100.000 lire, and also the famous compulsory vaccination for Hepatitis B (Law 27 May 1991, n. 165) which still provided for an administrative sanction in the event of non-compliance.
We don't even get into the issue of how we can't reach all defaulters, so if the argument is that if you pay you're setting a precedent, then give up because we can't reach everyone!
Another bizarre thesis that we see going around is about ethics and morals. They have been amorally violating every freedom and raping our constitution for two years and we should have a moral and ethical attitude about a sanction?! You appeal if you think you have to and you will have the support of many or you pay and absolutely nothing happens and it is quite outrageous to see that this issue is used as an emotional lever to collect money for appeals or consultancy! Do it, do it, but do not ask us to support these absurdities that see a sort of moral imposition!
Corvelva Staff
