“Yes” to compulsory vaccination against the coronavirus to those serving in the EMAC and to nursing and medical staff of health care facilities, said the Council of State, paving the way for other groups.
The publication of the decisions is expected to take place next April, while according to an announcement by the President of the SETE, D. Skaltsounis, on Friday 26 November 2021, the Plenary Session of the Council of State met in a conference of the two cases, namely, those serving in the Special Disaster Response Units (SDUs), with Counsel Panagiota Karli as rapporteur and the medical, paramedical, nursing, health and other health care personnel of health care structures, with Counsel Vassilios Androulakis as rapporteur.
According to the announcement, the court held that in the specific context, compulsory vaccination is constitutional and lawful. In fact, the decision was unanimously taken on the case of EMAK, which, among other things, notes that “vaccination is imposed on the employees of the PC serving in the EMAK to ensure uninterrupted operational operation and full availability of the staff of these services, which have a special mission and special conditions of exercise of duties”. The only obligation of the State is to publish the decision of the Chief of the PS in the Official Gazette, an action which had been omitted.
For the applications filed by health professionals, the judgment was delivered by a majority, with three State Councillors voting against. According to the announcement, the decision was made on the grounds that: “Compulsory vaccination (Article 206 of Law 4820/2021) is not contrary to the constitutional or supra-legislative provisions invoked because, in the present case, it: a) is imposed on the specific professional group in the context of the constitutional obligation to demonstrate social solidarity, and in particular with regard to medical and nursing staff, due to their increased responsibility in terms of safeguarding the health of patients”.
The full statement reads as follows:
Ι. On the application for annulment concerning the EMCDDA, the Court of Justice:
1) It held (unanimously) that the contested act of the Chief of the Fire Brigade (CF), in so far as it provides that only vaccinated personnel serve in the Fire Brigade and sets a deadline for the scheduling of the vaccination of those who have not been vaccinated or have scheduled their vaccination in order not to be removed from these services, constitutes a regulatory administrative act.
2) It decided (unanimously) that although the above act was published on the internal website of the PC, it should have been published in the Government Gazette.
3) Furthermore, the Court, in view of the importance of the issues raised, proceeded to examine them and held, inter alia, (by a minority of three members) that the contested act was not contrary to the constitutional or supra-legislative provisions relied upon, because (a) vaccination is required of the staff of the FP who are employed by the NSCs in order to ensure the uninterrupted operational functioning and full availability of the staff of those services, which have a specific mission and specific conditions of service; (b) it is provided for by a substantive law and, in particular, by the contested regulatory act, which was adopted pursuant to Article 79(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations; (c) it is provided for by the contested regulation; (d) it is provided for by Article 79(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations; and (e) it is provided for by Article 79(1)(b) of the Staff Regulations. 13 of Law No. 79 (13). 4662/2020, in conjunction with other provisions of that law, which authorise the Chief of the General Staff to adopt in good time, as an additional temporary condition in circumstances of a pandemic, for the good health of the members of the National Guard, the vaccination against the covid-19 coronavirus, (c) is based on valid scientific data from official bodies in Greece (National Vaccination Committee, EODY) and internationally, according to which vaccination is the most effective way of controlling the spread of the disease, while the benefits of vaccines outweigh any side effects, which are extremely rare.
4) It was also held that the vaccination requirement does not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination, because the difference in treatment based on vaccination is based on an objective criterion, mainly because of the reduced frequency and intensity of disease and transmission of the disease by vaccinated persons compared to unvaccinated persons, which is not disputed by the applicants either.
5) Finally, the Court, applying Article 50 para. 3(a) of Decree Law 18/1989 and weighing the legal interests of the parties, decided (unanimously) to postpone the adoption of the final decision and to grant the Administration a period of one month from the notification of the decision of the Plenary to publish the act of the Chief of the PC in the Government Gazette.
II. As regards the nine applications for annulment relating to medical, paramedical, nursing and other staff employed in health care establishments (applications by PDOEDIN, the Association of EKAB employees and the natural persons liable), the Court of Justice
1) rejected some as unacceptable.
2) The remaining applications were rejected (with a minority of 3 members) on the grounds, inter alia, that the compulsory vaccination (Art. 4820/2021) is not contrary to the constitutional or supra-legislative provisions relied upon, because, in the present case, it: a) is imposed on the specific professional group in the context of the constitutional obligation to demonstrate social solidarity, in particular with regard to medical and nursing staff because of their increased responsibility for safeguarding the health of patients; b) is provided for by law; c) is based on valid scientific data accepted by the vast majority of the competent scientific bodies; d) is based on the scientific evidence of the medical and nursing staff; e) is based on the results of a study carried out by the Commission; f) is based on the results of a study carried out by the Commission; g) is based on the results of a study carried out by the Commission; h) is based on the results of a study carried out by the Commission; and h) is based on the results of a study carried out by the Commission. Furthermore, it was held (by a minority of 5 members) that suspension of work without payment of full pay is constitutionally permissible.
It was also held that the obligation to vaccinate only medical, paramedical, nursing and other staff does not infringe the principle of equality in relation to other categories of workers and that the procedure foreseen for monitoring and checking compliance with the obligation to vaccinate against coronavirus does not infringe the legislation on the protection of personal data.
III. Publication of the decisions is expected by April next year.
