The appeal instance court in Latvia rejects an appeal of a civil servant about the requirement for compulsory vaccination against Covid-19
On 21 June 2022 Administrative district court of Latvia rejected an appeal of a civil servant about the requirement for compulsory vaccination against Covid-19. This was already the judgment of the second instance court. The first instance court also rejected the application. Judgement available at: https://manas.tiesas.lv/eTiesasMvc/nolemumi/pdf/481484.pdf
The judgment is based on the premises that there are either a single medical and several non-medical interventions for the limitation of a spread of infection, prevention of overloading the health sector and reducing preventable mortality while ensuring the importance of the state continuity of functions and services. The sole medical intervention is vaccination using registered Covid-19 vaccines. The non-medical interventions are remote work, testing, facemasks, distancing, hand disinfection, etc.. Leading public authorities in Latvia invited in the case such as: Centre for Disease Prevention and Control of Latvia, the Immunisation State Council, Ministry of Health all supported the vaccination since other non-medical interventions were less effective for prevention of infection than the vaccination.
Since all the relevant state authorities invited in the case argued in favour the vaccination as the sole most effective medical intervention, the court did not challenge the view of the most competent state authorities and rejected the appeal of the applicant.
Such a decision and a position of the state authorities is not a surprise. Reluctance to promote safe, effective and available prophylactic and therapeutic medical strategies, even advocated by the WHO, is a widespread practise. And it has to be admitted that the initial Covid-19 vaccines had one of the most effective drug marketing campaigns in recent history. However, neglect of applicable regulatory framework by the court is hard to explain.
Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (EctHR) provides a regulatory framework with regard to the compulsory vaccination. In Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia the EctHR stated: “In the field of health care, even in cases where the rejection of specific medical care may lead to a fatal outcome, the imposition of such a medical procedure on a mentally competent adult patient will undermine his or her physical integrity, contrary to the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention”. Whereas, in Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic the EctHR stated: “[..] where the view is taken that a policy of voluntary vaccination is not sufficient to achieve and maintain herd immunity, [..] domestic authorities may reasonably introduce a compulsory vaccination policy in order to achieve an appropriate level of protection against serious diseases.
Therefore, the only legitimate aim for enforcement of the compulsory vaccination is the attainment of herd immunity. And determination of the ability to secure the attainment of the herd immunity is the most important task in the case. This was not considered in the case.
Without going into detail, it was know for more than 10 years before Covid-19 vaccines and it is known since 2020 with regard the Covid-19 vaccines that intramuscular vaccines do not induce the required mucosal immunity in the upper respiratory tract to stop the spread and transmission of the airborne respiratory virus like SARS-Cov-2, therefore, intramuscular Covid-19 vaccines can’t be enforced as a compulsory medical intervention in order to curtail the pandemic. And there are safe, effective and available transmission prevention measures available. The same as safe, effective and available prophylactic and therapeutic medical strategies against Covid-19. Therefore, compulsory vaccination is not a proportional measure in a democratic society to stop the Covid-19 pandemic. For more on this: