A Suprema Corte italiana e o Telefones Celulares

Italian Supreme Court and Mobile Phones
A Suprema Corte italiana e o Telefones Celulares
Contrary to recent media reports, the Italian Supreme Court has not ruled that
mobile
phones
cancer.
Ao
contrário
decause
relatos
recentes da imprensa, o Supremo Tribunal da Itália não
determinou que os telefones celulares causem câncer.
Background
Innocente Marcolini, a manager at an industrial plant in Brescia in northern Italy,
Contexto
claimed heMarcolini,
used his cellular
cordless
phones
for five to
six hours
a day
for 12
Innocente
gerenteand
de uma
fábrica
em Brescia,
norte
da Itália,
alegou
years.
In seus
2002,telefones
he was diagnosed
as having
a benign
tumour
the
trigeminal
ter
usado
celular e sem
fio de cinco
a seis
horason
por
dia
durante
nerve,
which
controls
muscles and como
sensations
12
anos.
Em 2002,
elefacial
foi diagnosticado
portador de um tumor benigno
no nervo trigêmeo, que controla os músculos faciais e as sensações.
In 2007, Marcolini filed a claim to the Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority
(INAIL,
Istituto
Nazionale
contro
gliaInfortuni
sul de
Lavoro),
seeking
Em
2007,
Marcolini
entrouAssicurazione
com uma ação
contra
Autoridade
Indenização
workers
compensation
for his
injuries.
Theem
Italian
workers
compensation
system is
dos
Trabalhadores
Italianos
(INAIL,
sigla
italiano),
em busca
de indenização
a no-fault por
system
which employees
do not have
to prove thatdeantrabalhadores
employer is
financeira
suasinlesões.
O sistema italiano
de compensação
negligent
or otherwise
at fault inno
order
compensation.
denied
é
um sistema
sem penalização,
qualto
osreceive
trabalhadores
não têmINAIL
de provar
que
Marcolini’s
claim.
In 2008, Marcolini
filed
a civil
suit against
decision
o
empregador
é negligente
ou culpado
para
receberem
umaINAIL’s
indenização.
A in the
Tribunal
of Brescia.
INAIL
rejeitou
o pedido de Marcolini. Em 2008, Marcolini entrou com uma ação
civil no tribunal de Brescia contra a decisão da INAIL.
Before ruling in favour of Marcolini in 2009, the Tribunal heard testimony from an
oncologist
and neurosurgeon,
whose evidence
primarily
based
upon three
Antes
de decidir
a favor de Marcolini,
em 2009,was
o tribunal
ouviu
o depoimento
studies
that
allegedly
showed
an
increase
in
tumor
risk
due
to
cell
phone
use. The
de um oncologista e neurocirurgião, cujas evidências foram baseadas
court decided, based
onestudos
the available
advice, that Marcolini’s
a cordless
principalmente
em três
que supostamente
mostraramuse
umofaumento
noand
a mobile
phonedevido
presented
a very
unique situation
that
have
“at least
jointly
risco
de tumor
ao uso
de telefones
celulares.
O may
tribunal
decidiu,
com
caus(ed)”
his injury
– a finding
forMarcolini
social security
– which
base
no parecer
disponível,
querelevant
o uso que
fez de purposes
um telefone
sem then
fio
resulted
in an celular
award of
80% of hisuma
former
salary.
e
um telefone
apresentou
situação
muito singular que pode ter "ao
menos conjuntamente causado" a sua lesão – uma descoberta relevante para
However,
the opinions
on in the
case have
subsequently
been de
heavily
fins previdenciários
– orelied
que então
resultou
em um
prêmio de 80%
seu
criticised.
In a paper by experts from the Italian National Centre of Epidemiology1,
salário anterior.
the following was said:
No entanto, as opiniões apoiadas no caso foram posteriormente fortemente
“Based
on artigo
the motivations
the verdict, it
the judge
relied
criticadas.
Em um
escrito porofespecialistas
doappears
Centro that
Nacional
de
1
on
seriously
flawed
expert
testimonies.
The
"experts"
who
served
in
this
Epidemiologia Italiano , foi dito o seguinte:
particular trial were clearly inexperienced in forensic epidemiology in
general,
as fundamentos
well as in the do
topic
at hand.
Selective
overviews se
of scientific
"Com
base nos
veredito,
o juiz
aparentemente
apoiou
evidence
concerning
cancer
risks
from
mobile
phone
use
were
provided,
em depoimentos seriamente equivocados de especialistas. Os "especialistas"
with misleading
interpretations
of findings
from relevant
que along
trabalharam
nesse estudo
particular eram
claramente
inexperientes em
epidemiologic
studies
dismissal
of the
Interphone
study
epidemiologia
forense
em (including
geral, bemthe
como
no tema
em questão.
Sínteses
results
on
the
grounds
of
purported
bias
resulting
from
industry
seletivas de evidências científicas sobre os riscos de câncer pelo uso funding).
de
The necessary
to proceed
to causal
at individual
telefones
celulares requirements
foram fornecidas
em conjunto
cominferences
interpretações
level dos
wereresultados
not taken de
into
account
and inappropriate
methods
to derivea
errôneas
estudos
epidemiológicos
relevantes
(incluindo
estimates
of
personal
risk
were
used.”
dispensa dos resultados do estudo Interphone em razão da suposta
parcialidade resultante do financiamento da indústria). Os requisitos
INAIL
subsequently
2009 ruling
to the aSupreme
Court ofnão
Italy
and it
necessários
paraappealed
procederthe
a inferências
causais
nível individual
foram
was this appeal that was ruled on in October 2012.
1
!"#$%&$'()'"*+,'!"#$%&'(&"#)*+,%#,-.*/"(0-1#%2-#*..+3&%(*"&'#*,(/("#*4#&#%,(/-5("&'#"-+,*5&#("#&#5*6('-#%-'-32*"-#
+1-,7#&#.&1-81%+9:#*4#%2-#.*53'-;#,-'&%(*"12(31#6-%<--"#1.(-".-#&"9#'&<1,''-(.'!"/+'0122'-"%345%621070892::3;0
levados em
conta eSupreme
métodos inadequados
a obtenção
Italian
Court and para
Mobile
Phonesde estimativas
de risco pessoal foram usados".
Contrary to recent media reports, the Italian Supreme Court has not ruled that
mobile
cause cancer.
A
INAILphones
posteriormente
recorreu da decisão de 2009 ao Supremo Tribunal da
Itália e foi essa a apelação rejeitada em outubro de 2012.
Background
Innocente Tribunal
Marcolini, rejeita
a manager
at an industrial
plant
in Brescia
in northern Italy,
Supremo
a apelação
da INAIL
por
duas razões
claimed
he
used
his
cellular
and
cordless
phones
for
five
to
six
hours
a day for
Na apelação, a jurisdição do Supremo Tribunal italiano se limitou a analisar
os 12
years. In 2002,
he was diagnosed
as pelo
having
a benign tumour on the trigeminal
processos
e procedimentos
utilizados
tribunal.
nerve, which controls facial muscles and sensations
A suprema corte negou a apelação, não porque uma ligação direta entre o uso
In 2007,
Marcolini
claim totenha
the Italian
Workers’
Compensation
Authority
do
telefone
celular filed
e os atumores
sido bem
estabelecida,
mas porque
ela
(INAIL, Istituto
contro
gli Infortuni
Lavoro), seeking
determinou
que Nazionale
o tribunal Assicurazione
de 2009 seguiu
corretamente
os sul
procedimentos
2
workers compensation
forlegislação
his injuries.
The Italian
workers compensation system is
necessários
exigidos pela
italiana
.
a no-fault system in which employees do not have to prove that an employer is
negligent
or otherwise
at fault
in order
to receive
compensation.
INAIL denied
A
INAIL apelou,
alegando
que as
testemunhas
especialistas
se basearam
Marcolini’s
claim.
In
2008,
Marcolini
filed
a
civil
suit
against
INAIL’s
decision
in the
fortemente em um grupo de pesquisa liderado pelo professor Lennart
Hardell,
Tribunal
of Brescia.
do
Hospital
Universitário de Orebro, na Suécia, que anteriormente havia
relacionado um aumento no risco de tumores benignos ao uso de telefones
Before ruling
in no
favour
of Marcolini
in 2009,
theem
Tribunal
testimony
from an
móveis
- e não
consenso
científico
geral ou
outrosheard
estudos
populacionais
oncologist
and
neurosurgeon,
whoseconcluído
evidence owas
primarily
based upon
three
e
evidências
científicas
que tenham
contrário.
O Supremo
Tribunal
studies that
showed
an increase
in tumor risk
cell
phoneum
use. The
rejeitou
esseallegedly
motivo para
a apelação
e determinou
que due
podetoter
havido
court
decided,
based
on
the
available
advice,
that
Marcolini’s
use
of
a
cordless
and
"vício de motivação" (parcialidade, por exemplo), mas não uma "violação
a mobiledaphone
técnica
lei". presented a very unique situation that may have “at least jointly
caus(ed)” his injury – a finding relevant for social security purposes – which then
resulted ino an
award of
80% ofitaliano
his former
salary.
Portanto,
Supremo
Tribunal
rejeitou
a apelação alegando que o
tribunal de Brescia seguiu os procedimentos apropriados no tratamento do caso
However,
the opinions
on in the 1case
have subsequently
been
heavilya
e que a suprema
corte relied
não reavaliaria
os méritos
do caso, nem
permitiria
1
criticised.
In
a
paper
by
experts
from
the
Italian
National
Centre
of
Epidemiology
introdução de estudos posteriores a 2009 nos quais a INAIL tenha se baseado. ,
the
following
said: a decisão do Supremo Tribunal no caso Marcolini não cria
Segundo
a leiwas
italiana,
um precedente vinculante.
“Based on the motivations of the verdict, it appears that the judge relied
on seriously
flawed
expert testimonies.
The "experts" who served in this
O consenso
da opinião
científica
especializada
particular
trial
were
clearly
inexperienced
in forensic
epidemiology
in da
A respeitada especialista em campos eletromagnéticos
e professora
emérita
general,
as well Patricia
as in theMcKinney,
topic at hand.
overviews
of scientific
Universidade
de Leeds,
disse Selective
em resposta
aos relatos
da
evidence
concerning
cancer
risksrelatórios
from mobile
phone use
were provided,
imprensa
a respeito
da decisão:
"Muitos
científicos
detalhados
e
alongsobre
with misleading
of findings
relevantmóveis
abrangentes
os riscos à interpretations
saúde decorrentes
do uso from
de telefones
epidemiologic
studies
(including
the Interphone
study
não conseguiram
encontrar
uma
ligação the
comdismissal
tumores of
cerebrais.
As taxas
de
on the
of purported
bias décadas,
resulting from
industry
funding).
tumoresresults
cerebrais
nãogrounds
aumentaram
nas últimas
apesar
do crescente
necessary
to proceed
to causal
inferences
at oindividual
número The
de usuários
derequirements
telefones móveis
e embora
as evidências
para
uso a
3
levelrequeiram
were not taken
into account and inappropriate methods to derive
longo prazo
mais pesquisas".
estimates of personal risk were used.”
Essa afirmação também é coerente com o parecer das agências de saúde e
4
INAIL subsequently
appealed
thedo2009
ruling
to the Supreme
Court Mundial
of Italy and
órgãos
especializados
ao redor
mundo,
incluindo
a Organização
de it
was this appeal that was ruled on in October 2012.
1
!"#$%&$'()'"*+,'!"#$%&'(&"#)*+,%#,-.*/"(0-1#%2-#*..+3&%(*"&'#*,(/("#*4#&#%,(/-5("&'#"-+,*5&#("#&#5*6('-#%-'-32*"-#
+1-,7#&#.&1-81%+9:#*4#%2-#.*53'-;#,-'&%(*"12(31#6-%<--"#1.(-".-#&"9#'&<1,''-(.'!"/+'0122'-"%345%621070892::3;0
Italian Supreme Court and Mobile Phones
Saúde, que conclui: "Um grande número de estudos têm sido realizados ao
longo
de duas
últimas
décadas
para
os telefones
Contrary
to recent
media
reports,
theavaliar
ItalianseSupreme
Courtcelulares
has not ruled that
representam
um
riscocancer.
potencial à saúde. Até o momento, nenhum efeito
mobile phones
cause
adverso para a saúde foi estabelecido como sendo causado pelo uso do telefone
5
celular”.
Background
Innocente Marcolini, a manager at an industrial plant in Brescia in northern Italy,
claimed he used his cellular and cordless phones for five to six hours a day for 12
years. In 2002, he was diagnosed as having a benign tumour on the trigeminal
Outubro de 2012
nerve, which controls facial muscles and sensations
In 2007, Marcolini filed a claim to the Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority
(INAIL, Istituto Nazionale Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro), seeking
workers compensation for his injuries. The Italian workers compensation system is
a no-fault system in which employees do not have to prove that an employer is
negligent or otherwise at fault in order to receive compensation. INAIL denied
Marcolini’s claim. In 2008, Marcolini filed a civil suit against INAIL’s decision in the
Tribunal of Brescia.
Before ruling in favour of Marcolini in 2009, the Tribunal heard testimony from an
oncologist and neurosurgeon, whose evidence was primarily based upon three
studies that allegedly showed an increase in tumor risk due to cell phone use. The
court decided, based on the available advice, that Marcolini’s use of a cordless and
a mobile phone presented a very unique situation that may have “at least jointly
caus(ed)” his injury – a finding relevant for social security purposes – which then
resulted in an award of 80% of his former salary.
However, the opinions relied on in the case have subsequently been heavily
criticised. In a paper by experts from the Italian National Centre of Epidemiology1,
the following was said:
“Based on the motivations of the verdict, it appears that the judge relied
on seriously flawed expert testimonies. The "experts" who served in this
particular trial were clearly inexperienced in forensic epidemiology in
general, as well as in the topic at hand. Selective overviews of scientific
1
Lagorio ET
AL., An Italian
Court recognizes
the risks
occupational
of a trigeminal
neuroma
in aprovided,
mobile
evidence
concerning
cancer
fromorigin
mobile
phone use
were
telephone user:
a case-study
of the complex
relationships between
science and
laws,relevant
Med Lav. 2001 Maralong
with misleading
interpretations
of findings
from
Apr; 102 (2): 144-62
2
epidemiologic
studies
(including
the2012,
dismissal
of the Interphone study
Corte di Cassazione,
sez. Lavoro,
sentenza
3 - 12 ottobre
n. 17438:
http://www.quotidianosanita.it/allegati/allegato1850707.pdf;
(pág.resulting
6 da decisãofrom
do Supremo
Tribunal:
"A
results on the grounds of purported bias
industry
funding).
alegada precedência que, segundo o recorrente, deve ser dada aos resultados de outros grupos de pesquisa
The
necessary
requirements
to
proceed
to
causal
inferences
at
individual
(...), mais uma vez se resume a um pedido de reexame do julgamento quanto ao mérito, o qual o Supremo
were
taken para
intorealizar".)
account and inappropriate methods to derive
Tribunal delevel
Cassação
não not
tem poderes
3
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/SMC2/expert-reaction-to-italian-ruling-on-brain-tumours-and-mobileestimates of personal risk were used.”
5
1
phone-use/
4
Ver, por exemplo: Norwegian Institute of Public Health, FHI-Rapport 2012:3
INAIL subsequently appealed the 2009 ruling to the Supreme Court of Italy and it
(http://www.fhi.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=238&trg=MainLeft_5895&MainArea_5811=5895:0:15,2829:1:0:0:
::0:0&MainLeft_5895=5825:99168::1:5896:1:::0:0;
Swedish2012.
Council for Working Life and Social Research,
was this appeal that was ruled on in October
RF EMF and ill Health: 10 Years Research Summary (http://www.fas.se/en/News/2012/10-years-of-researchon-the-health-risks-ofradiofrequency-fields/);UK Health Protection Agency, AGNIR Report 2012:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/NationalPressReleases/2012PressReleases/120426Mobilephones
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html
!"#$%&$'()'"*+,'!"#$%&'(&"#)*+,%#,-.*/"(0-1#%2-#*..+3&%(*"&'#*,(/("#*4#&#%,(/-5("&'#"-+,*5&#("#&#5*6('-#%-'-32*"-#
+1-,7#&#.&1-81%+9:#*4#%2-#.*53'-;#,-'&%(*"12(31#6-%<--"#1.(-".-#&"9#'&<1,''-(.'!"/+'0122'-"%345%621070892::3;0