Article 12 - Freedom of assembly and of association
Key facts of the case:
Mr B., a nursing auxiliary in the Angoulême hospital was suspended from his duties by the decision of the head of the hospital from 15 September 2021 until he provided proof of vaccination or contraindication to vaccination. Mr. B. asked the summary hearing judge of the Poitiers administrative court to suspend the execution of this decision of 13 September 2021 and to enjoin the Angoulême hospital to authorise him to participate on the institution's technical committee (comité technique d'établissement - CTE) of 4 October 2021 and allow him to move freely within the hospital in the scope of his union duties.
By order No. 2102419 of 24 September 2021, the summary hearing judge of the Poitiers administrative court denied his motion.
On 29 September 2021, Mr B. referred the matter to the summary hearing judge of the State Council on the basis of Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice (code de justice administrative) according to which "Upon receipt of a motion in this regard justified by the urgency of the matter, the summary hearing judge may order all measures required to safeguard a fundamental freedom which a legal entity under public law or a body under private law responsible for the management of a public service is said to have constituted a seriously, manifestly unlawful infringement in exercising of one of its powers. (...) ".
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Does the scope of the vaccination obligation imposed by the law of 5 August 2021 extended to all the staff of a health institution falling within the scope of Article 12(1), including those staff carrying out trade union duties, constitute a disproportionate infringement of trade union freedom?
Outcome of the case:
The State Council denied Mr B.'s motion. It considered that through Article 12 of the law of 5 August 2021, the legislator intended to protect people admitted to health institutions and social and medico-social institutions, who are particularly vulnerable to the Covid-19 virus. For this reason, the vaccination obligation also applies to administrative staff, who are not in direct contact with patients, since they necessarily interact with health professionals in contact with patients. This also applies to staff who carry out their trade union duties on the premises of such an institution. In view of the seriousness of the epidemic, the extension of the scope of the vaccination obligation imposed by the law of 5 August 2021 to all the staff of a health institution falling within the scope of Article 12(I) 1°, including those staff carrying out a trade union duty, cannot be regarded as disproportionately infringing the trade union freedom guaranteed in particular by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Social Charter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The decision of 13 September 2021 by which Mr B.'s duties were suspended until he provided proof of vaccination or contraindication to vaccination did not constitute a serious and manifestly unlawful infringement of trade union freedom, since he carried out his trade union duties within the hospital and accompanied other staff to meetings with the hospital's management, as well as held meetings and distributed leaflets on the hospital's premises.
4. On the one hand, Article 12 of the law of 5 August 2021 defined the scope of the Covid-19 vaccination obligation by adopting, in particular, a geographical criterion to include all people carrying out their duties in a number of mainly health institutions and social and medico-social institutions. The legislator's intention was to protect people in these institutions who are particularly vulnerable to the Covid-19 virus. For this reason, the vaccination obligation also applies to staff, and administrative staff in particular, who are not in direct contact with patients, since they necessarily, given their place of work, interact with health professionals in contact with patients. This is also the case for staff in hospitals who are granted a discharge, or even a full discharge, from their duties for trade union reasons when they carry out their trade union duties on the premises of such an institution. It follows that, in view of the seriousness of the epidemic, the extension of the scope of the vaccination obligation imposed by the law of 5 August 2021 to all the staff of a health institution falling within the scope of Article 12(I) 1°, including those staff carrying out a trade union duty, cannot be regarded as disproportionately infringing the trade union freedom guaranteed in particular by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Social Charter and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
5. On the other, it results from the investigation before the urgent applications judge of the administrative court that while Mr A..., a nursing auxiliary within the Angoulême hospital, benefits, for the year 2021, from a total discharge of service duties for trade union reasons, he nevertheless carries out his trade union duties within the confines of this hospital institution where the trade union premises are located. It follows that he falls within the scope of the vaccination obligation provided for by the provisions of 1° of Article 12(I) of the law of 5 August 2021, referred to in point 3, without being able to be regarded as merely carrying out an ad hoc task within the meaning of III of this Article. As a result, the contested decision of 13 September 2021 by which the head of the Angoulême hospital, on the basis of Article 14(III) of the law of 5 August 2021, referred to in paragraph 3, suspended him from his duties until he provided proof of vaccination or contraindication to vaccination, does not constitute a serious, manifestly unlawful infringement of trade union freedom. Mr A... is therefore not entitled to claim that the urgent applications judge of the Poitiers Administrative Court wrongly rejected his motion, through the contested order.
4. D'une part, l'article 12 de la loi du 5 août 2021 a défini le champ de l'obligation de vaccination contre la covid-19 en retenant, notamment, un critère géographique pour y inclure toutes les personnes exerçant leur activité dans un certain nombre d'établissements, principalement les établissements de santé et des établissements sociaux et médico-sociaux. Le législateur a ainsi entendu protéger les personnes accueillies par ces établissements qui présentent une vulnérabilité particulière au virus de la covid-19. C'est pourquoi l'obligation de vaccination concerne aussi des personnels, notamment administratifs, qui ne sont pas en contact direct avec les malades dès lors qu'ils entretiennent nécessairement, eu égard à leur lieu de travail, des interactions avec des professionnels de santé en contact avec ces derniers. Il en va ainsi aussi des personnels des établissements hospitaliers qui bénéficient d'une décharge, même totale, d'activité de service pour raison syndicale dès lors qu'ils exercent leur activité syndicale dans les locaux d'un tel établissement. Il s'ensuit que, eu égard à la gravité de l'épidémie que connaît le territoire, l'extension du champ de l'obligation de vaccination imposée par la loi du 5 août 2021 à l'ensemble des personnels d'un établissement de santé entrant dans le champ du I 1° de son article 12, y compris ceux y exerçant une activité syndicale, ne saurait être regardée comme portant une atteinte disproportionnée à la liberté syndicale garantie notamment par la convention européenne de sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales, la charte sociale européenne et la charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne.
5. D'autre part, il résulte de l'instruction devant le juge des référés du tribunal administratif que si M. A..., aide-soignant au sein du centre hospitalier d'Angoulême, bénéficie, pour l'année 2021, d'une décharge totale d'activité de service pour raison syndicale, il exerce toutefois son activité syndicale dans l'enceinte de cet établissement hospitalier où est situé le local syndical. Il est ainsi conduit à accompagner d'autres agents lors d'entretiens avec la direction de l'hôpital ainsi qu'à animer des réunions ou distribuer des tracts dans les locaux de l'établissement. Il s'ensuit qu'il entre dans le champ de l'obligation vaccinale prévue par les dispositions du 1° du I de l'article 12 de la loi du 5 août 2021, citées au point 3, sans pouvoir être regardé comme se bornant à exercer une tâche ponctuelle au sens du III du même article. Dès lors, la décision contestée du 13 septembre 2021 par laquelle le directeur du centre hospitalier d'Angoulême, sur le fondement du III de l'article 14 de la loi du 5 août 2021, cité au point 3, l'a suspendu de ses fonctions jusqu'à la présentation d'un justificatif de vaccination ou de contre-indication à la vaccination ne porte pas d'atteinte grave et manifestement illégale à la liberté syndicale. M. A... n'est par suite pas fondé soutenir que c'est à tort que par l'ordonnance attaquée, le juge des référés du tribunal administratif de Poitiers a rejeté sa demande.
