According to the court, there was no legal basis for establishing the vaccination obligation with an internal act of the administration and the vaccination obligation cannot be considered a proportional measure either.
The Court explained that, although the obligation set out in the Directive cannot be considered a direct vaccination obligation, it is in effect equivalent to the vaccination obligation. The obligation to present the certificate provided for by the directive essentially means the obligation of vaccination for a healthy and not sick person, since vaccination is a prerequisite for the continuation of the employment relationship. To the extent that obtaining such a certificate in a situation where the person had not suffered from the disease required self-vaccination, the ordinance was essentially aimed at forcing one to be vaccinated.
According to the Court, the establishment of an obligation of intensive vaccination in the defense forces cannot be implemented by an internal act of the administration, since it interferes with the physical integrity of the person and thus violates the person’s right to protection of health and freedom to choose field of activity, profession or place of work.
The requirements set out in the Occupational Health and Safety Act are governed by rules that do not arise from the obligation to vaccinate military and defense force employees, and the TTOS rules do not give the employer the right to require vaccination. vaccination obligation, nor are the conditions under which this obligation is permitted at all. The Court held that, on the basis of this general authorization, it is neither legitimate nor permissible to impose a vaccination obligation, which significantly violates the fundamental rights of the person.
The Court also held that the establishment of the vaccination obligation is not a proportional measure in its content. According to the Court, however, the vaccination obligation, established as a prerequisite for maintaining service and employment in the defense forces, interfered extremely intensely with the physical integrity of people, and it was a restriction with which achieving the required purpose was also possible through the use of measures that less intensely limit the fundamental rights of individuals.
The ruling has not entered into force.
Comment Read comments (7)
2023-12-10 12:05:38
court-the-defense-forces-imposed-mandatory-vaccination-without-legal-basis