Sanctions: let's take stock
Sanctions have become a hot topic these days and a cause for further 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!
We now come to the merits of today's problem, since today you are many who have received the letter from the beloved Revenue Agency-Collection regarding the 100 euro fine.
Let's summarize the norm
All those who were previously obliged by articles 4, 4-bis and 4 ter of the Decree-Law 1 April 2021, n. 44 (practitioners of the health professions, workers employed in residential, social-welfare and social-health structures, staff of the school, of the defense, safety and public rescue sector, of the local police, magistrates, etc.) and anyone over 50 years of age or so completes by June 15, 2022 is subject to a sanction on the basis of the Decree Law January 7, 2022, n. 1, converted with amendments by Law 4 March 2022, n. 18. You can read what has already been written previously here as well as reviewing the video in which we discussed the subject with the lawyer Nardini here ().
In essence, Legislative Decree 1/2022 provides for a one-off penalty of € 100 (therefore a single penalty) to the aforementioned 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 sanction will be collected directly by the Revenue Agency-Collection, on behalf of the Ministry of Health through the notification of an enforceable title. The procedure is anything but "smooth" and provides as a first step just the sending of a "notice" to start the procedure, exactly what you are receiving in many these days. This first letter is not a sanction!
The Revenue-Collection Agency, 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 debit notice with the value of an enforceable title, as previously mentioned.
What happens now?
Nothing in particular. You have 10 days from receipt of the notice to notify the local health authority of any exemption or deferral or the objective impossibility of proceeding with the vaccination. In turn, the ASL will have a further 10 days to verify and confirm any non-existence.
Otherwise, if the ASL does not respond within the set time, the Revenue-Collection Agency will proceed with the imposition and collection of the envisaged penalty, of € 100, within 180 days.
At this stage you have the opportunity to request a possible dispute with the competent ASL, as required by the law, by sending it by registered letter 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 vaccinator in this regard. If you have known us for some time you will know that this is very similar to what you have sent in relation to the objection process for mandatory vaccinations of Law 119/2017.
Corvelva has always not supplied pre-printed items and if you are looking for this from us you will not find it. We are convinced that writing a few lines independently to ask for an appointment is within everyone's reach, moreover, writing in a casual and natural way helps not to be identified as belonging to a predetermined group that sends the same document en masse that no one will read.
After sending the request for an interview to the ASL, always as required by law, you will have to communicate to the Revenue-Collection Agency the fact that you have written to the ASL. It does not take much, you are asked to give notice of the presentation of the communication to the ASL, naturally by entering your name and surname, tax code and perhaps quoting the identification number that you find on the letter you received (you can find it as "Document n." at the beginning of the text). If we cannot give you the contact for the ASL as the territorially competent one, for the Revenue-Collection Agency it is easier for us being one:
via Giorgione no. 106
We already tell you that sanctions will most likely be imposed regardless (always if they manage to get them to leave since in half of Italy we are still awaiting the sanctions that were due to start in 2017) since Legislative Decree 1/2022 provides that "The Revenue-Collection Agency, in the event that the competent local health authority does not confirm the non-existence of the vaccination obligation (that is, it does not communicate anything ed) ... notwithstanding the provisions contained in the law of November 24, 1981, n . "
In fact, the derogation from the law of 24 November 1981, n. 689, could lead with high probability to start the sanctions regardless of the procedure you have undertaken with the ASL or the communications that the same should send to the Revenue-Collection Agency and knowing the wonderful efficiency of the Italian bureaucracy, we would not be surprised if sanctions were also imposed on some vaccinated. We are already seated with popcorn in hand.
Is not complying with the vaccination obligation a crime?
DO NOT. This is an administrative offense, not a criminal one. It is not a crime not to get vaccinated and it has no consequences on the criminal record or any type of repercussions on the citizen's private life.
For the sake of completeness, we remind you that the derogation from the law on administrative sanctions, as we said, is only in data transmission and in fact this type of fine is comparable to a sanction for an infringement of the highway code. Those who have children and in the last 30 years have not adhered to the vaccination calendar proposed by the Ministry of Health, most likely received a similar sanction (with a different procedure as a provider and collector but always linked to administrative sanctions) and this makes us say that at least for us they are by no means a novelty never seen in human history, quite the contrary.
If you don't pay you have to challenge because otherwise you will receive a tax bill with all the necessary charges ranging from increases of 30% up to double (it is not our field but we all know well or badly how the tax bills rise by themselves).
If you pay it ends there.
Does the Corvelva Association recommend paying?
No, but there is a lot on the chestnuts to see that the vultures are already rushing to the easy collection thanks to bizarre theories spread artfully that would foresee malice or guilt for those who pay, admissions of unknown sins, foreclosures or other.
We stand simply for freedom of choice and apply the same principles by 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 hypothesis 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 possibilities to be able to tackle this path hce has economic risks, it can quietly don't do it e not for this reason will the blackest calamities fall upon him. In other words, you can choose to pay the administrative offense for failing to comply with a law that provides for a one-off penalty as a consequence and this will not affect 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 they have already built the technological schedule and the data have already been fished and crossed (we are not even sure that they are good enough to know it do without countless mistakes).
For those who want to challenge: it can be tried with a modest expenditure, however presumably higher than the sanction itself (single contribution for appeal to the justice of the peace about € 43 + various expenses + possible lawyer who is neither mandatory nor necessary if one knows how to manage). However, it makes sense in principle. Keep in mind, however, that in the event of losing you should have recourse and get to the Supreme Court and we cannot exclude that in the event that the same Justice of the Peace does not accept your appeal, he can go into compensation and charge you with expenses that can range between 400 and 700 euros. . If it is a matter of principle, it must be carried out to the end and obviously the costs go up a lot there.
So what do I do?
It costs nothing to send a registered letter or PEC to your ASL and to the Revenue-Collection Agency for information, referring to the letter received and asking for an informative interview. You must also pay attention to the document that has come to you because many have a specific process.
If you have particular health conditions you can already mention them in the registered letter / PEC, the same applies to healings and any other condition that in your opinion precludes you from the possibility of proceeding with the vaccination). In short, you can report the reasons that push you not to undergo the inoculum but we always advise not to refuse anything, just ask questions. The aim is to have your doubt punished.
Then you will calmly decide, when the sanctions arrive, what to do. Always it arrives!
We remind you, while many of you are panicking about 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 euro per child. This perhaps should 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 today to panic.
Having said that, do not ask us today the whole process for the appeal, we will be able to comment on it with the help of lawyers and jurists specialized on the subject and we will have the ability to provide you with more detailed information in due course, for now, however, at least on this. , we would really like you to sleep soundly.
Are they setting a precedent?
Of course, but the only true precedent is the method, the collection by the Revenue-Collection Agency and the crossing 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 structure. In fact, the crossing has already taken place 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 gravity 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 procedure that directly uses a health data to collect, giving the task to the Revenue-Collection Agency. With a pinch of lucid perspective analysis, ID2020 with an attached 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 a little above but that we want to discuss them better: the fines for non-compulsory vaccination have existed since vaccination has existed and you will forgive us if we, knowing moderately well the topic, do not go along with the imaginative line of "Create a precedent".
We 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 sanctioning regime and even prison, or the compulsory nature of vaccination. antipoliomyelitis (Law 4 February 1966, n. 51) and which provided for a fine of Lire 100.000, and again the famous compulsory vaccination for Hepatitis B (Law 27 May 1991, n. 165) where an administrative sanction was still provided in case of non-compliance.
We don't even go too far into the fact that we can't reach all defaulters, so if the thesis is that if you pay, you create a precedent, then give up because we won't be able to reach everyone!
Another bizarre thesis that we see turning is about ethics and morals. For two years they have violated all freedom and rape our constitution in an amoral way and we should have a moral and ethical attitude on a sanction ?! It is resorted to if you believe you have to do it and you will have the support of many or you pay and simply absolutely nothing happens and it is quite outrageous to see that this theme is used as an emotional lever to raise money for appeals or consultations! Do it, do it, but don't ask us to support this nonsense that sees a kind of moral imposition!