Damage from blood transfusions: commentary on ordinance no. 535 of 2025

The recent ordinance no. 535 of January 9, 2025, by the Court of Cassation offers important clarifications regarding settlements for damages from blood transfusions and the assumption of infected blood products. In particular, the Court ruled 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.

Context of the ruling

The Court's decision falls within a sensitive legal area, that of liabilities arising from transfusions of infected blood. In these situations, victims often find themselves having to deal with a Public Administration that, by law, must follow rigorous procedures. The ordinance emphasizes the importance of the written form "ad substantiam" for the validity of settlement agreements.

In general. In matters of damages from blood transfusions or from the assumption 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" for the settlement agreement, to be concluded in a single context and with the involvement of the bodies authorized to commit the will of the Public Administration, as well as the need, to conclude the settlement, for a complex investigative phase, which requires acquiring appropriate documentation on the existence of the factual elements of the dispute and, therefore, to carry out a discretionary evaluation, both on the "whether" and on the "how much," regarding the interest in mutual concessions with the counterparty.

Legal implications

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

• Necessity of the written form for the validity of the agreement.
• Discretionary evaluation by the Public Administration.
• Complexity of the investigative phase for the collection of documentation.

Conclusions

In conclusion, ordinance no. 535 of 2025 represents an important reference for those facing the issue of damages from blood transfusions. 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 an intricate legal context.