Brazil, 1st Federal Civil Court of the Judiciary Section of the State of Goiás, 23 February 2022, Ação Civil Pública Cível Processo, 1007566-22.2022.4.01.3500

First, the Court observed that the Public Defender's Office of the Union denied the punitive scope of the Resolution and, at the same time, imposed a sanction as a form of coercion on those who were not vaccinated. Second, it highlighted a point of contradiction in the Resolution which allowed for an exception. The rules did not apply to citizens in vulnerable situations who were prevented or hindered from being immunized, such as people without housing. Thirdly, it emphasized that the punishment was not only directed at people with the financial conditions to present medical proof and pay for Covid-19 tests but would also reach more vulnerable populations that required legal assistance from the Ombudsman's Office. Fourth, the Resolution was in violation of the human right to movement of people, goods, and capital, privacy, and work. The Resolution could only impose restrictions consistent with constitutional principles and the guarantee of rights in times of crisis. Finally, the Court highlighted the need to establish legal certainty when rules were established against constitutional provisions and it was determined that the terms of the Resolution were in violation of the rule of law. The Court generally emphasized that, although the obligation to be vaccinated in Brazil was mandatory, the mandatory nature cannot be imposed in terms of the established prohibition.