Transfusion Damage: Commentary on Order No. 535 of 2025

The recent Order No. 535 of January 9, 2025, by the Court of Cassation provides important clarifications regarding settlements concerning damages from transfusions and the use of infected blood products. In particular, the Court has established that the Ministry of Health is not obliged to accept the settlement proposal put forward by the injured party, highlighting the legal and practical complexities associated with such agreements.

The Context of the Ruling

The Court's decision falls within a delicate legal framework concerning responsibilities arising from infected blood transfusions. In these situations, victims often find themselves dealing with a Public Administration that, by law, must follow strict procedures. The order emphasizes the importance of the written form "ad substantiam" for the validity of settlement agreements.

In general, in matters of damages from transfusion or from the use of infected blood products, the Ministry of Health is not obliged to accept the settlement proposal put forward by the injured party, given the necessity of the written form "ad substantiam" of the settlement agreement, which must be concluded in a single context and with the involvement of the bodies authorized to commit the Public Administration's will, as well as the requirement, to finalize the settlement, of a complex investigative phase that necessitates obtaining appropriate documentation regarding the existence of the factual elements of the dispute and, therefore, conducting a discretionary assessment, both on the "whether" and the "amount," regarding the interest in mutual concessions with the opposing party.

Legal Implications

The Court confirmed that the Director's Decree of November 17, 2003, which establishes the amounts recognizable in settlement, does not constitute a formal act of settlement. This is fundamental for understanding how the Public Administration manages compensation requests, highlighting that each proposal must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The legal norms involved, such as Article 1965 of the Civil Code, require that the settlement be made with the consent of both parties, involving a thorough analysis of the situation.

  • Need for written form for the validity of the agreement.
  • Discretionary assessment by the Public Administration.
  • Complexity of the investigative phase for document collection.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 535 of 2025 represents an important reference for those facing the issue of damages from transfusion. It clarifies not only the responsibilities of the Ministry of Health but also the procedures that must be followed to reach a valid settlement. Victims of such damages must therefore be aware of the complexities related to their situation and consider the importance of qualified legal assistance to navigate such a complex legal context.

Bianucci Law Firm