Estonia / Estonian Supreme Court / Case No. 2-21-12706/92, CJEU Case C-219/24

A et al v the City of Tallinn
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Estonian Supreme Court
Decision date
12/03/2024
  • Estonia / Estonian Supreme Court / Case No. 2-21-12706/92, CJEU Case C-219/24

    Key facts of the case: 

    The claimants held various operative positions at Tallinn Emergency Service (kiirabi) and refused to be vaccinated during the Covid-19 pandemic. The City of Tallinn gave a deadline to submit certificates of vaccination and gave a warning that if someone does not present such certificate, the employment contract will be terminated. The claimants did not submit such certificates and their employment contracts were terminated. The first and second instance courts decided in favor of the claimants, stating that the City of Tallinn had no discretion to set unilaterally the requirement for vaccination as a condition to continue the employment. The Supreme Court made a reference for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU. 

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    The Supreme Court asked the following questions:

    Can Article 14(3) of Directive 2000/54/EC 1 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work and points 1 and 2 of Annex VII thereto, read in conjunction with Recital 8, Article 1(1) and Article 3(1) and (2) of that directive, be interpreted as compatible with a provision whereby employers are entitled to require their employees who are exposed to biological agents to undergo vaccination?

    Explanatory questions:

    (a)    Does vaccination constitute a measure of health protection at work within the meaning of Article 14(3) of Directive 2000/54/EC which the employer may order in the context of an existing employment contract without the consent of the worker exposed to biological agents?

    (b)    Is it compatible with Article 1(3), Article 6(1) and (2)(a) and (g), and Article 9(1)(a) and (b) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC  of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work and with Article 3(1), Article 31(1) and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union for an employer to make vaccination compulsory in the context of an existing employment contract? 

    Outcome of the case: 

    The case is pending and waiting for the response from the CJEU. 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    9. The Court considers that the settlement of the civil case requires the request for a preliminary ruling for the interpretation of Article 14(3) and Annex VII(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/54/EC in conjunction with Article 1(1) and (3) 89/391/EEC with the provisions of Art. 1(3), Art. 6 and Art. 9(1)(a) and (b) and the provisions of Art. 3, Art. 31(1) and Art. 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 267 paragraph 1 point b of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

    13. According to Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2016/C 202/02), everyone has the right to privacy, while in the field of medicine and biology, the requirement of free and informed consent given by the person concerned in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law must be respected (paragraph 2 point a). According to Article 31(1) of the Charter, every employee has the right to working conditions that are appropriate for his health, safety and dignity. Pursuant to Article 52(1) of the Charter, the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognized by the Charter may be restricted only by law and considering the nature of the said rights and freedoms.

    20. When resolving the case, the Court had doubts as to whether the national normative system, which allows the employer to impose a vaccination obligation on its employees without their consent as a prerequisite for the continuation of the employment relationship, is in accordance with the framework directive and the directive on biological hazards, also taking into account the right to privacy provided for in Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

    21. Article 3(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights also refers to the conclusion that medical intervention in a person's bodily integrity is permissible only with the person's voluntary consent.

    As a result of the above, when deciding the case, the collegium had a doubt whether the provisions of the Framework Directive and the Biological Hazards Directive allow, taking into account the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to take the position that the employer can require vaccination from employees at risk of biological hazards in order to ensure occupational health and safety (i.e. establish a vaccination obligation in an existing employment relationship without the employee's consent). 

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    9. Kolleegium leiab, et tsiviilasja lahendamine eeldab eelotsuse taotlemist direktiivi 2000/54/EÜ art 14 lg 3 ja VII lisa p-de 1 ja 2 tõlgendamiseks koostoimes sama direktiivi p-s 8, art 1 lg-s 1 ja art-s 3 ning direktiivi 89/391/EMÜ art 1 lg-s 3, art-s 6 ja art 9 lg 1 p-des a ja b ning põhiõiguste harta art-s 3, art 31 lg-s 1 ja art 52 lg-s 1 sätestatuga (Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu art 267 lg 1 p b).

    13. Euroopa Liidu põhiõiguste harta (2016/C 202/02) art 3 järgi on igaühel õigus isikupuutumatusele, kusjuures meditsiini ja bioloogia valdkonnas tuleb eelkõige mh austada asjaomase isiku seaduses ettenähtud korra kohaselt antud vaba ja teadliku nõusoleku nõuet (lg 2 p a). Igal töötajal on harta art 31 lg 1 kohaselt õigus töötingimustele, mis on tema tervise, ohutuse ja väärikuse kohased. Hartaga tunnustatud õiguste ja vabaduste teostamist tohib harta art 52 lg 1 kohaselt piirata ainult seadusega ning arvestades nimetatud õiguste ja vabaduste olemust.

    20. Kolleegiumil tekkis asja lahendades kahtlus, kas riigisisene normistik, mis võimaldab tööandjal kehtestada temaga töösuhtes olevatele töötajatele nende nõusolekuta töösuhte jätkumise eeldusena vaktsineerimiskohustuse, on kooskõlas raamdirektiivi ja bioloogiliste ohutegurite direktiiviga, arvestades ka põhiõiguste harta art-s 3 sätestatud õigust isikupuutumatusele.

    21. Ka põhiõiguste harta art 3 lg 2 p a viitab järeldusele, et meditsiiniline sekkumine isiku kehalisse puutumatusesse on lubatav üksnes isiku vabatahtlikul nõusolekul.

    Eeltoodust tulenevalt tekkis kolleegiumil asja lahendades kahtlus, kas raamdirektiivi ja bioloogiliste ohutegurite direktiivi sätted võimaldavad põhiõiguste harta põhimõtteid arvestades asuda seisukohale, et tööandja võib töötervishoiu ja tööohutuse tagamiseks nõuda bioloogilistest ohuteguritest ohustatud töötajatelt vaktsineerimist (st kehtestada olemasolevas töösuhtes vaktsineerimiskohustuse ilma töötaja nõusolekuta).