Blood Transfusion Damages: The Court of Cassation (Order no. 15963/2025) Excludes the Deduction of Compensation Lost Due to Forfeiture from Damages**

The tragedy of infected blood transfusions has profoundly marked Italian healthcare history, bringing the issue of protection and compensation for victims to the forefront of debate. In this delicate context, the Court of Cassation, with Order no. 15963 of June 15, 2025, has provided an essential clarification that strengthens the position of those who have suffered damages, establishing that compensation not received due to forfeiture cannot be deducted from the damages owed. This ruling, by the Labor Section and presided over by Dr. F. Garri, with Dr. L. Cavallaro as rapporteur, is part of a jurisprudential framework aimed at ensuring full justice for affected individuals.

Compensation and Damages: Two Distinct Forms of Protection

To understand the scope of Order 15963/2025, it is crucial to distinguish between compensation and damages. Law no. 210 of 1992 provides for compensation, of an assistance nature, for those who have contracted infections (such as HIV, hepatitis B and C) as a result of transfusions or vaccinations. Alongside this measure, Italian law recognizes damages, based on the principles of civil liability (art. 2043 of the Civil Code), which aims to fully compensate for the harm suffered (biological, moral, existential damages).

Jurisprudence has often had to coordinate these two forms of protection. If compensation has been received, it can be deducted from patrimonial damages, but not from non-patrimonial damages, to avoid undue duplication. However, the ruling in question addresses a different and crucial scenario: the failure to receive compensation due to forfeiture.

The Legal Issue: Forfeiture of Compensation and Deduction from Damages

Order no. 15963/2025 examined the case where the injured party (P. v. M.) had not received the compensation under Law 210/1992 due to forfeiture of the right to claim it, pursuant to art. 3 of the same law. The Court of Appeal of Palermo had held that the amount of compensation not received should nevertheless be deducted from the damages, applying art. 1227, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, which requires the creditor to take action to avoid or limit the damage.

The Supreme Court quashed this decision with referral, establishing a clear principle to protect the injured party:

In proceedings initiated for compensation for damages from infected blood transfusions, the amount of compensation referred to in art. 1 of law no. 210 of 1992, which the injured party has not actually received because they forfeited, pursuant to art. 3 of the same law, the right to claim it from the competent administration, cannot be deducted under art. 1227, second paragraph, of the Civil Code from the amount of compensable damages.

This means that the failure to claim compensation due to forfeiture cannot lead to a reduction in damages. The Court of Cassation reiterates the assistance, rather than compensatory, nature of the compensation: it is not a component of the damage that the injured party should have “avoided” or “limited.” The right to full compensation for the offense suffered remains autonomous and cannot be conditioned by the loss of a benefit of a different nature. Art. 1227, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code does not apply, as there is no “fault” on the part of the injured party that could affect the full reparation of the damage. This orientation is in line with previous rulings (such as Cass. no. 8773 of 2022 and no. 3797 of 2019), which have consistently protected the position of victims.

Practical Implications and Legal Protection

The consequences of this Order are of great importance for those affected by damages from infected blood transfusions:

• **Full Compensation:** The right to damages will not be reduced even if the compensation provided by Law 210/1992 has not been obtained due to forfeiture.
• **Clarified Distinction:** The clear separation between the assistance function of compensation and the compensatory function of civil damages is reaffirmed, avoiding interpretative confusion.
• **Greater Certainty for Victims:** Those who have suffered damages can count on greater legal certainty, knowing that any administrative deadlines will not preclude full compensation.
• **Focus on Reparation:** The focus of justice is on the full reparation of the harm suffered, without penalizing victims for the non-receipt of other forms of support.

Conclusions

Order no. 15963 of 2025 by the Court of Cassation represents a bulwark for the protection of the rights of victims of infected blood transfusions. By reaffirming the autonomy and completeness of damages compensation with respect to assistance compensation, the Supreme Court offers an important point of reference. This ruling is fundamental for all those operating in the field of health law and civil liability, ensuring that victims receive the justice and support they deserve in the face of such serious and unjust harm.