Greece / Council of State (Plenary) / 1400/2022

Anonymous (total of 46 petitioners), officers of the Special Unit for Natural Disasters Prevention and Response v. the Minister for Climate Crisis and Civil Protection
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Council of State (Plenary)
Type
Decision
Decision date
27/06/2022
  • Greece / Council of State (Plenary) / 1400/2022

    Key facts of the case:

    The case concerns a petition for the annulment of Act 28550 Φ 215.2/18.5.2021 of the Head of the Fire Brigade, ordering the mandatory vaccination of fire brigade officers serving in the Special Unit for Natural Disasters Prevention and Response (NDPR) against Covid-19.  

    The impugned act mandated the vaccination of all officers serving at the NDPR, implementing Decision 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism) against Covid-19, in order to safeguard [its] continuous operational capacity. Officers who did not comply with the mandate and schedule their vaccination within the deadline provided, would be dismissed from the Unit. The petitioners refused to comply and, as a result, were dismissed. They complained that their dismissal, which deprived them of a monthly hazard pay of 141.92 euros, was contrary to the principles of equality, non-discrimination, and proportionality, as well as their right to bodily autonomy. 

    The Council of State applied several Articles of the Greek Constitution on human dignity, equality, and freedom of the person, including freedom of movement and freedom from physical harm and coercion, public health, the establishment of the welfare state, and social solidarity. Moreover, the Court considered Articles 8 and 14 ECHR, 3(2) and 51 CFR, and the Oviedo Convention, as well as the obligations regarding the operation of the NDPR, stemming from Decision 1313/2013/EU and Commission Implementing Decision 2014/762/EU. 

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The Council of State was called to answer whether mandating the vaccination of fire brigade officers serving in the NDPR against Covid-19 amounted to a violation of their right to be free from medical interventions without their informed consent and to discriminatory treatment on the basis of their personal choices related to their private life.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Council of State acknowledged that the impugned act introduced a direct differential treatment of the petitioners based on their status as unvaccinated against Covid-19, and proceeded to assess whether this difference in treatment was permissible in light of the objectives pursued by the measure and the restrictions it imposed on their individual rights. In this regard, it noted that health is both an individual and a social right, and that the right to a prior informed consent may be subject to limitations for reasons of public interest, including for the protection of public health, provided that these limitations are prescribed by law and are in accordance with the principle of proportionality. 

    The Council of State found that the measure in question fell within the scope of the law establishing the Head of the Fire Brigade’s general mandate, and pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring the continuous operation of the NDPR at the time of the pandemic. It stressed that both domestic law and Decisions 1313/2013/EU and 2014/762/EU require the continuous operational capacity and availability of NDPR personnel at all times, in light of its crucial mission, and held that this capacity could be jeopardised by both the absences of its personnel due to infection from Covid-19 and by international travel restrictions imposed to those not holding a vaccination certificate. At this point, it should be noted that the Council of State expressly considered the Charter not to be applicable in the present case, as the above EU Decisions do not establish an obligation to ensure the vaccination of the national prevention and response mechanisms’ personnel and national strategies in relation to public health and the response to the Covid-19 pandemic fall under the Member States’ competence. 

    The Council of State further proceeded to assess the impugned measure in terms of its proportionality. It noted that the Sstate has a broad margin of appreciation on matters of public health, and that the Court’s proportionality assessment is limited to finding whether the measures adopted for its protection are demonstrably unsuitable to achieve the objectives pursued. It noted that the NDPR officers may, as of their role, be liable to additional restrictions to their rights than ordinary citizens, that vaccinations are the most effective way to combat Covid-19 in accordance with scientific consensus, and that the petitioners were not subjected to any adverse consequences other than the deprivation of the hazard pay they received as NDPR personnel. 

    In light of the above, the petitioners’ claim was dismissed.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    21. Whereas, as far as the applicants argue that the contested regulation violates the provisions of Articles 2 par. 1, 5 par. 1 and 5 of the Constitution in combination with Articles 8 par. 1 of the ECHR and Article 5 of the Oviedo Convention, on the ground that their consent to be vaccinated is extorted under the threat of a sanction in case of their non-vaccination, these arguments must be dismissed as unfounded. And this is because, according to what has already been explained, the above provisions do not prohibit the introduction of restrictions on the right of the interested party not to undergo medical procedures without his free consent, when these restrictions are placed within the limits of the principle of proportionality for the imperative purpose of public interest, while, in addition, the executives of the security forces, including the uniformed personnel of the Fire Brigade, in the sense of the provisions set out in paragraph 7 of Law 4662/2020 concerning them, are not only subject to the general restrictions, which the law imposes on every citizen when exercising their rights, but they are also subject to specific additional restrictions on individual rights, which are constitutionally provided for (Art. 23 par. 2, 56 par. 1-2, 29 par. 3 of the Constitution) or tolerable, and if they further restrict their rights, as long as they are justified by the nature of the relationship that connects them with the State and the obligations arising from this relationship and, however, these restrictions do not negate, in their essence, the above rights (see Supreme Court 773/2017, 3356/2004 etc.). In the light of the above, the disputed limitation of the right to self-determination, which they are obliged to tolerate as part of their obligation to maintain good health when the possibility of the spread of a communicable disease can significantly undermine the operational readiness of critical units to deal with disasters to which they belong, does not violate the essence of the relevant fundamental right to self-determination, as long as the applicants serving in the Special Disaster Response Units (EMAK) are not forced to be vaccinated but retain the option not to be vaccinated, and the consequences of their choice (removal from the EMAKs while simultaneously remaining in the active service of the Fire Brigade and deprivation of the special allowance paid, in the amount of 141.92 euros), due to their non-punitive nature, nature, extent and limited duration, are not disproportionate in relation to the intended purpose. In addition, the above-mentioned reference to Article 3 para. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Freedoms of the European Union is not accepted as, in accordance with Article 51( 1) of the Charter, its provisions are applied by the Member States only when they apply the Union law. In this case, although the preamble of the contested act mentions decisions of the Union institutions (decisions 1313/2013//EU of 17 December 2013 and 2014/762/EU of 16 October 2014), no obligation to vaccinate employees follows from these decisions to the special units in question so that it can be considered that the subject of this case falls within the scope of EU law. On the other hand, the formulation of public health policy and, in particular, the national strategy for the covid-19 disease falls within the competence of the Member States (see the recommendation of the EU Council 2021/C24/01, cf. . CJEU order of 17.72014, C-459/2013, cf. and SC 1386/2021).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    21. Επειδή, περαιτέρω, ο λόγος με τον οποίο προβάλλεται ότι με την προσβαλλόμενη κανονιστική ρύθμιση παραβιάζονται οι διατάξεις των άρθρων 2 παρ. 1, 5 παρ. 1 και 5 του Συντάγματος σε συνδυασμό με τα άρθρα 8 παρ. 1 της ΕΣΔΑ και του άρθρου 5 της Σύμβασης του Οβιέδο, διότι η συναίνεση των αιτούντων να εμβολιαστούν εκβιάζεται υπό τον φόβο για τις επικείμενες κυρώσεις-συνέπειες σε περίπτωση μη εμβολιασμού τους, πρέπει να απορριφθεί ως αβάσιμος. Και τούτο διότι, κατά τα ήδη εκτεθέντα, οι ανωτέρω διατάξεις δεν απαγορεύουν την εισαγωγή περιορισμών στο δικαίωμα του ενδιαφερομένου να μην υποβάλλεται σε ιατρικές πράξεις χωρίς την ελεύθερη συναίνεσή του, όταν οι περιορισμοί αυτοί τίθενται εντός των διαγραφομένων από την αρχή της αναλογικότητας ορίων και σταθμίσεων για την εξυπηρέτηση επιτακτικού σκοπού δημοσίου συμφέροντος, ενώ, εξάλλου τα στελέχη των σωμάτων ασφαλείας, μεταξύ των οποίων και το ένστολο προσωπικό του Πυροσβεστικού Σώματος, κατά την έννοια των εκτεθεισών στη σκέψη 7 διατάξεων του ν. 4662/2020 που τους αφορούν, δεν υπόκεινται μόνον στους γενικούς περιορισμούς, τους οποίους ο νόμος επιβάλλει σε κάθε πολίτη κατά την άσκηση των δικαιωμάτων τους, αλλ’ υπόκεινται, επί πλέον, και σε ειδικότερους πρόσθετους περιορισμούς των ατομικών δικαιωμάτων, οι οποίοι είναι συνταγματικώς προβλεπόμενοι (άρ. 23 παρ. 2, 56 παρ. 1-2, 29 παρ. 3 του Συντ.) ή ανεκτοί, και αν ακόμη περιστέλλουν εντονότερα τα δικαιώματά τους, καθόσον δικαιολογούνται από τη φύση της σχέσης που τους συνδέει με το κράτος και τις απορρέουσες από τη σχέση αυτή υποχρεώσεις και, πάντως, οι περιορισμοί αυτοί δεν αναιρούν, στην ουσία τους, τα ως άνω δικαιώματα (βλ. ΣτΕ 773/2017, 3356/2004 κ.ά). Ενόψει τούτων, ο επίμαχος περιορισμός του δικαιώματος αυτοπροσδιορισμού, τον οποίο υποχρεούνται αυτοί να ανέχονται ως μέρος της υποχρέωσής τους να διατηρούν καλή την κατάσταση της υγείας του όταν η πιθανότητα εξάπλωσης μεταδοτικής νόσου μπορεί να υπονομεύσει σημαντικά την επιχειρησιακή ετοιμότητα των νευραλγικής σημασίας μονάδων για την αντιμετώπιση καταστροφών στις οποίες ανήκουν, δεν προσβάλλει τον πυρήνα του σχετικού θεμελιώδους δικαιώματος του αυτοπροσδιορισμού, εφόσον οι αιτούντες που υπηρετούν στις ΕΜΑΚ δεν εξαναγκάζονται να εμβολιαστούν αλλά διατηρούν την επιλογή να μην εμβολιαστούν, οι δε συνέπειες της επιλογής τους (απομάκρυνση από τις ΕΜΑΚ με ταυτόχρονη παραμονή στην ενεργό υπηρεσία του Πυροσβεστικού Σώματος και στέρηση του καταβαλλόμενου ειδικού επιδόματος, ύψους 141,92 ευρώ), ως εκ του μη κυρωτικού χαρακτήρα, της φύσης, έκτασης και περιορισμένης χρονικής διάρκειας τους, δεν είναι δυσανάλογες σε σχέση με τον επιδιωκόμενο σκοπό. Εξάλλου, απορριπτέα είναι τα ανωτέρω προβαλλόμενα κατ΄επίκληση και του άρθρου 3 παρ. 2 του Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Ελευθεριών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης διότι, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 51 παρ.1 του Χάρτη, οι διατάξεις του εφαρμόζονται από τα κράτη μέλη μόνον όταν εφαρμόζουν το δίκαιο της Ένωσης. Εν προκειμένω δε, μνημονεύονται μεν στο προοίμιο της προσβαλλόμενης πράξης αποφάσεις των ενωσιακών οργάνων (αποφάσεις 1313/2013//ΕΕ της 17ης Δεκεμβρίου 2013 και 2014/762/ΕΕ της 16ης Οκτωβρίου 2014), ωστόσο από τις αποφάσεις αυτές δεν απορρέει υποχρέωση εμβολιασμού των υπηρετούντων στις επίμαχες ειδικές μονάδες ώστε να δύναται να θεωρηθεί ότι το αντικείμενο της παρούσας υπόθεσης εμπίπτει στο πεδίο εφαρμογής του ενωσιακού δικαίου. Εξ άλλου, η διαμόρφωση της δημόσιας πολιτικής στον τομέα της υγείας και, ειδικότερα, της εθνικής στρατηγικής για τη νόσο covid-19 εμπίπτει στην αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών (βλ. τη σύσταση του Συμβουλίου της Ε.Ε. 2021/C24/01, πρβλ. διάταξη ΔΕΕ της 17.72014, C-459/2013, πρβλ. και ΣτΕ 1386/2021).