Commentary on Judgment No. 19921 of 2024: Disciplinary Sanctions in the Healthcare Sector

The judgment No. 19921 dated July 19, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, addresses a crucial issue regarding the disciplinary sanctions imposed on healthcare professionals. In particular, it highlights the importance of correctly drafting sanctioning measures and the consequences of any omission of fundamental information.

The Context of the Judgment

The case in question involves F. (A. F.) against O. (S. E. A.), where the Central Commission for Healthcare Professions had imposed a disciplinary sanction. The main challenge concerned the failure to indicate the date of deliberation in the sanctioning measure. This aspect raised questions about the validity of the measure itself.

Disciplinary sanction imposed on a healthcare professional - Failure to indicate the date of deliberation in the sanctioning measure - Nullity of the measure - Exclusion - Basis - Case. The omission of the date of adoption of the sanction in the decision pronounced against the healthcare professional does not entail its nullity, pursuant to Article 47 of Presidential Decree No. 221 of 1950, provided that the measure indicates that the sanction was adopted during the oral proceedings, since the aforementioned provision does not distinguish between the moment of deliberation and the moment of drafting the decision, which, in relation to Article 46 of the same Presidential Decree, according to which the device is reported in the minutes, must therefore, as a rule, be considered coincident.

Analysis of the Decision

The Court, in its ruling, clarified that the absence of the date of deliberation in the sanctioning measure does not determine the nullity of the measure itself. This is in line with the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of Presidential Decree No. 221 of 1950, which regulates disciplinary sanctions in the healthcare sector. The Court's decision is based on the consideration that the moment of deliberation and that of drafting the measure are generally coincident.

In this way, the Court emphasizes the need to ensure the functionality and effectiveness of the disciplinary procedure, avoiding that small bureaucratic omissions could compromise the entire process. This approach is essential to protect the rights of healthcare professionals, without undermining the seriousness of disciplinary sanctions.

Conclusions

Judgment No. 19921 of 2024 offers important insights into the functioning of disciplinary procedures in the healthcare sector. It reiterates that, although the form and correctness of measures are fundamental, it is essential that such procedures do not become an obstacle to justice. Healthcare professions must maintain high standards of responsibility, but it is equally important that procedural guarantees are respected to ensure a fair balance between discipline and the right to defense.

Bianucci Law Firm