Il giudice e lo scienziato fallibile. Riflessioni a margine di un precedente

A ruling by the European Court of Justice on a question of health damage caused by vaccines has fueled discussions on the relationship between law and science and the debate on the judge’s requirement for free evaluation of evidence. The first part of this contribution traces the scientific and doctrinal background of the case which gave rise to the Court's ruling. In the second part, the author analyzes the main reasons stated by the Court and highlights that most of its critics seemed inspired by a predominantly emotional reading of the consequences that can be drawn from the judgment at both a procedural and a theoretical level. Special attention is paid to the weight that a predominantly “Popperian” model of science can have on judicial decisions