Italy: Constitutional Court's decisions on medical device payback

In brief

Following the public hearing held on 22 May 2024, on 22 July 2024, the Italian Constitutional Court issued two judgments (judgment No. 139/2024 and judgment No. 140/2024) to decide the various appeals concerning the legitimacy of medical device payback regulation, i.e., the system under which medical device companies are required to contribute to the coverage of the NHS deficit in the years 2015-2018. 


Contents

In depth

In a nutshell the Constitutional Court issued a Solomonic decision whereby it declares the payback system itself legitimate, as aimed at covering the NHS deficit for public health and social purposes and, on the other hand, it grants a 52% reduction on the amount to be paid by all medical device companies, including those who have pending litigation against such a system. Below is a brief summary of the relevant points of the decisions.
 
By the first judgment (judgment No. 139/2024), the Constitutional Court, upon explicit requests and arguments raised by the Campania region, stated that the provisions of the Law Decree 34/2023, granting the 52% reduction of the payback system only to companies waiving their claims before the Rome Administrative Court are illegitimate and in contrast with the Italian Constitution, since these provisions discriminate companies that decided to challenge in court the payments orders to protect their rights and interests. In this respect, the Constitutional Court expressly pointed out that "The payback mechanism does not appear disproportionate in light of the significant reduction to 48% of the amount originally charged on companies, a reduction now unconditionally recognized for all companies " (see judgment No. 139/2024). As a consequence, the 52% reduction for the payback related to the years 2015 - 2018 shall be granted to all medical device companies, including those which still have pending proceedings before the Rome Administrative Court.
  
By the second judgment (judgment No. 139/2024), the Constitutional Court, stated that the payback system is compliant with the Italian constitutional framework. In particular, the Constitutional Court ruled out that "The payback itself presents several critical issues, but it is not unreasonable with reference to Article 41 of the Italian Constitution, as far as the period 2015- 2018 is concerned. It, in fact, places on companies for that time frame a solidarity contribution, correlated to reasons of social utility, in order to ensure the supply of medical devices necessary for the protection of health in an economic and financial situation of serious difficulty".
 
It is worth noting that, according to the Constitutional Court, the payback system is legitimate also because it does not trigger retroactivity of rules of law. Indeed, according to the Constitutional Court, paragraph 9-bis of Article 9-ter of law decree no. 78/2015, introduced in 2022, merely made operative and effective a prior obligation - binding the medical device companies - to pay-back a portion of the profit from the sale of medical devices. The Constitutional Court clarified that such obligation does not unlawfully / unconstitutionally affect the private parties' reliance on maintaining the sale price of medical devices.
 
The administrative legal proceedings before the Administrative Court will proceed with the discussion of the merits of the relevant cases and, therefore, with the Court's analysis of the claimants' arguments (e.g., wrong calculation, illegitimate inclusion of services in the payment orders, etc.). For the time being no payment is due by those companies benefiting of the suspension orders issued by the Administrative Court.


Copyright © 2024 Baker & McKenzie. All rights reserved. Ownership: This documentation and content (Content) is a proprietary resource owned exclusively by Baker McKenzie (meaning Baker & McKenzie International and its member firms). The Content is protected under international copyright conventions. Use of this Content does not of itself create a contractual relationship, nor any attorney/client relationship, between Baker McKenzie and any person. Non-reliance and exclusion: All Content is for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal and regulatory developments. All summaries of the laws, regulations and practice are subject to change. The Content is not offered as legal or professional advice for any specific matter. It is not intended to be a substitute for reference to (and compliance with) the detailed provisions of applicable laws, rules, regulations or forms. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any action or refraining from taking any action based on any Content. Baker McKenzie and the editors and the contributing authors do not guarantee the accuracy of the Content and expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of the consequences of anything done or permitted to be done or omitted to be done wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the Content. The Content may contain links to external websites and external websites may link to the Content. Baker McKenzie is not responsible for the content or operation of any such external sites and disclaims all liability, howsoever occurring, in respect of the content or operation of any such external websites. Attorney Advertising: This Content may qualify as “Attorney Advertising” requiring notice in some jurisdictions. To the extent that this Content may qualify as Attorney Advertising, PRIOR RESULTS DO NOT GUARANTEE A SIMILAR OUTCOME. Reproduction: Reproduction of reasonable portions of the Content is permitted provided that (i) such reproductions are made available free of charge and for non-commercial purposes, (ii) such reproductions are properly attributed to Baker McKenzie, (iii) the portion of the Content being reproduced is not altered or made available in a manner that modifies the Content or presents the Content being reproduced in a false light and (iv) notice is made to the disclaimers included on the Content. The permission to re-copy does not allow for incorporation of any substantial portion of the Content in any work or publication, whether in hard copy, electronic or any other form or for commercial purposes.