Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Outcome of the decision
This is an action ("agravo de instrumento") in ("Mandado de Segurança") filed by a citizen against an act of the Municipal Secretary of Health of Campinas. The citizen sought recognition of her right to vaccination with RNA vaccine against COVID-19. According to the claim, she had several side effects with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the second dose and required another manufacturer.
The claims were denied in the first instance. The Local Court determined that the protocols of the Ministry of Health had to follow and that there was no place for a preference since all the vaccines had the approval of the National Health Surveillance Agency ("Anvisa").
In the second instance, the State Court emphasized that, since vaccines were available, the right of the citizens to choose the type of vaccine could not be denied. Otherwise, the vaccination would be forced. The Court granted the Plaintiff's claims.
Facts of the case
During the vaccination campaign against COVID-19, a citizen was living in the municipality of Campinas, where she received the first dose of the "AstraZeneca," vaccine and requested the Municipal Secretariat of Campinas give her the second dose of the vaccine from a different manufacturer. According to the Plaintiff, she had side effects from the first dose, which led her to conduct extensive research on the vaccine and decide not to apply it.
The secretariat denied the request. The administrative authority explained that the vaccination campaign is planned in any way that follows the National Immunization Program (PNI) of the Ministry of Health and alterations are conditioned to eventual revisions of the guidelines/indications of the Ministry of Health. Also, there are no conditions for applying another vaccine to the Plaintiff.
The citizen went filed an action called "mandado de segurança" with the Court and the claim was denied, subject to administrative measures. Through an appeal filed by the Plaintiff, the Court heard the case.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court analyzed the documentation submitted by the Plaintiff. Mainly, the vaccine instructions and the information from the health authorities determined that if it is possible, the availability of options, and there is no way to privilege the decision of the public administration and not the individual's decision.
According to the Court, it does not matter that there are solid factual indications that vaccines are being well carried out. Even if there is not even a case of severe adverse reactions, it must be recognized that the individual, as far as her health is concerned, has the right to doubt and to undergo a medical or sanitary procedure by her own decision. The contrary would lead to the scenario of forced vaccination.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court understood the Plaintiff’s request as legitimate. Additionally, it emphasized that there is full availability of options for vaccination against COVID-19, and there is no reason for the government to deny the Plaintiff’s decision about her own life regarding what type of immunization she can be vaccinated with for the second dose. The Court granted the claims in favor of the citizen.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
On "type of measure challenged": The Municipal Health Secretariat of Campinas's decision, whereby the citizen was not granted the right to choose a different vaccine for the second dose.
On "type of procedure":
- Ordinary procedures: particular appeal “Agravo de instrumento". This appeal aims to prevent severe and irreversible damage to a party from an interlocutory decision. Even if a judge does not hand down a sentence, the decisions he makes during a lawsuit significantly impact the case's resolution (Civil Procedure Code, Act 1.3105/15, between articles 1.015 and 1.020)
- Special procedures: “Mandado de segurança”. Action to protect liquid and certain rights, not protected by habeas corpus or habeas data, whenever, illegally or with abuse of power, any natural or legal person suffers a violation or risk of suffering it by the authority (Art. 5 LXIX – LXX Federal Constitution of Brazil 1988; Act. 12016/2009 art. 1).