Here is the official ruling: CausaCivile n. r. g. 45986 / 2020
Summary by Br. Alexis Bugnolo
Case n. r. g. 45986/2020 regarded a business which was fined for violating the Covid-19 Scamdemic controls in Italy, as they were imposed by the Prime Minister of Italy in DPCMs (Decrees of the President of the Council of Ministers– the Official title of the Prime Minister in Italy), and subsequently had to close operations, resulting in the inability of the leaser to pay the property owner rent.
The court absolved the defendant of responsibility in not being able to pay the rent from April to June, on the grounds of weighty constitutional principles:
- A state of emergency for health cannot be invoked for any reason to deprive Italian citizens of their liberty or constitutional rights.
- The violation of the rights of citizens by the decrees of the government is indisputed.
- The Decree on the State of Emergency was made without any reference to the necessity of such a declaration as regards means to prevent a pandemic.
- There is no Constitutional basis for the Government to claim to have authority to declare a state of emergency for a pandemic, seeing that the Italian Constitution limits this solely to states of military war on Italian soil.
- All governmental controls presuppose the State of Emergency which was unconstitutionally declared and which lacked necessary motivation for an administrative act.
- No administrative act has force of law when it is promulgated if at the time of promulgation the reasons for its enactment were hidden from the public, as this Government has notoriously done in regard to the discussions of the Technical Committee which it cited as justification for its administrative decrees, and are therefore invalid for violation of Art. 3 legge 241/ 1990.
- The Decrees of the Government lack all rationality, since distances which are declared unsafe in some circumstances are held to be safe in others.
- Therefore, the Decrees of the Government are irreparable vitiated by the violation of the requirements of having basis in reality as to their motivation.
This case regarded a sports complex which was leased by a business for such use, in which the leaser failed to pay rent in May and June, and the property owner sought to obtain such rent. The Court ruled that the leaser did not have to pay the rent, but that the owner of the property should enter in to mediation with the leaser for the ending of the lease.