News Supreme Court Judgments June 2018

Health care provider who treats with homeopathy may be legitimately suspended

In ruling no. 27420/2018, the Supreme Court ruled the legitimacy of the measure of suspension from practice for a doctor who causes the death of a patient by persisting in treating him in an alternative way.

The doctor, in particular, had resorted to telephone diagnoses without visiting a child in person, failed to prescribe antibiotic treatment even after examining him, and persisted in giving him homeopathic medicines. This had violated the indications of medical protocols, under which after five days from when the ineffectiveness of homeopathic therapy has been established, one must switch to traditional therapy.

The screenshot counts as evidence

The hard copy of the screenshot (by which is meant the process of saving in image form what is displayed on a computer or cell phone screen) is valid evidence, even if it lacks official attestation.

The Supreme Court, in ruling no. 8736/2018, thus deemed legitimate the acquisition of a screenshot as decisive evidence as part of a libel trial to which a newspaper editor was held accountable for some articles concerning a political figure.

The Supreme Court also clarified that “computer data contained in a computer is among the documentary evidence, and no special guarantee is required for the extraction of this data; consequently, any freely acquired document has the value of evidence, even if it lacks certification, it will then be up to the judge to freely assess its reliability.”

Losing wedding photos is not a moral injury

The bride and groom are entitled to compensation for pecuniary loss in case of loss of wedding photos caused by the photo studio in charge of the service. On the other hand, no compensation is due for the moral and existential damage allegedly resulting from the injury of a hypothetical right “to memory” or “to remembrance.”

In ruling no. 13370/2018, the Supreme Court thus ruled on the appeal of a woman who had sued a photography studio in order for it to be ordered to compensate her for damages due to the non-delivery of the commissioned wedding photo shoot.

The Supreme Court in this regard pointed out that “while the significance of the wedding date for the bride and groom is undeniable, and while it is certainly a situation capable of creating emotional upheaval, the damage under consideration does not rise to a level of seriousness that would affect interests of constitutional standing.”