Key facts of the case - The Regional Government of Puglia allocated resources to family planning clinics (“Consultori familiari”) aimed at the integration of their staff with gynecologists and obstetricians who had not raised conscientious objection to abortion - under article 9 of the Act 194/1978. For this purpose, a competitive selection procedure was launched but it was restricted to non-conscientious objector specialists.
The reason why the regional administration chose to introduce this “expulsive clause” was the occurrence, in some clinics, of episodes such as the refusal, by conscientious objectors, to issue the document certifying the pregnancy that allows a woman - once spent the time thinking of a week - to apply a public hospital or a private structure for abortion or, in some cases, for the contraceptive coil or the so-called "morning-after pill".
Some gynecologists and obstetricians have appealed to the regional court of Puglia, alleging discrimination on the basis of their ethical choice.

Main reasoning of the court - The legal question that the administrative court was called upon to solve can be summarized as follows: can the regional administration, faced with the need to enhance the quality of care provided by Family planning clinics, especially in relation to abortion, reserve the participation in selection procedures only to non-conscientious objectors, excluding doctors and obstetricians who have raised conscientious objection pursuant to Article 9 of Act 194/1978?
In the past, the question has already been arisen in relation to the recruitment of non-conscientious objectors in public hospitals where voluntary interruption of pregnancy was practiced. The difference compared to previous cases is that the structure called “consultorio” carries out clinical exams and advisory activities preliminary to the possible decision of the woman to abort: family planning clinics are not entitled to practice abortion.
The Court considered the so-called "expulsion clause" unlawful, based on the assumption that the physical practice of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy is the only activity that a conscientious objector can legitimately deny to perform. So the activities practiced in the family planning clinics are not among those that can be legitimately denied opposing conscientious objection.
Hence the presence of conscientious objectors in these centres is not an obstacle to the providing of their services. Therefore, their exclusion is unjustified and creates an unacceptable discrimination. The “expulsive clause” violates the constitutional principle of equality (article 3 of the Constitution), the principles on which the consciousness objection is based (Articles 19 – freedom of religion - and 21 of the Constitution) and is in conflict with Article 4 of the Constitution, concerning the right to work.