Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Further areas addressed
Outcome of the decision
The Court heard a class action against the state public treasury, "Fazenda Pública do Estado de São Paulo", filed by a federal deputy against Decree 66241/2022, which required for the verification of vaccination against COVID-19 of state public agents. According to the Plaintiff, the decree presented defects of competence and illegality of the object. In addition, by implementing mandatory vaccination in the State, the norm departs from any technical opinion for its motivation.
The Court's analysis highlighted the importance of vaccination in Brazil and how the jurisprudence of the high courts has decided on the subject. For the Court, to deny the vaccine's efficacy is to deny science and belittle the work of scientists. Contrary to the claims, the Court condemned the Federal deputy for litigating in bad faith.
Facts of the case
A federal deputy filed a class action against the state public treasury, "Fazenda Pública do Estado de São Paulo". The federal deputy argued that Decree 66241/2022, which required proof of vaccination against COVID-19 of public agents, instituted an obligation for civilian and military state public servants, was tainted by the vices of non-compliance and illegality of object, disrespecting the principles of legality, morality, and publicity. The claim requested the immediate suspension of the effects and its annulment.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
Firstly, the Court found that the restriction made by the State does not go against the Constitution. The decree was harmonic with the legal system. It was consistent with the precedent of the Court (ADI 6586, case summary available on this website).
Public servants who do not get vaccinated will not be obliged to do so. On the contrary, they may not be vaccinated, but, in the meantime, they will have to stop frequenting public places and may lose their position for abandonment.
The Court determined that the petition was a legal adventure that had been misconceived. The efficacy of vaccines results from a set of worldwide efforts, studies, and investments, and its effectiveness is indisputable, highlighted the Judge. The Court established that if the precedents became binding and if, from their interpretation, they reveal legal norms, the mere filing of proceedings against the precedent, without the presentation of any consideration, is equivalent to litigating against the legal norm. In these terms, it is considered bad faith litigation by the Federal Deputy.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The claim was contrary to precedent. The Federal Deputy was aware of the binding precedent contrary to her claim.
After finding bad faith litigation, the Court sentenced the Federal Deputy to a fine established in minimum wages after prosecuting the State of São Paulo for demanding proof of vaccination from public agents.
Finally, it concluded that denying the efficacy of the vaccine is to deny science and underestimate the work of numerous scientists and researchers who dedicated hours and efforts to mitigate the effects of the pandemic.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Right to health, Art. 6, Brazilian Federal Constitution
- Freedom of movement of people, Art. 5, Brazilian Federal Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
On "type of procedure": the class action, "Ação Popular", (art. 5 LXIII Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988; Act. 4717/1965) is an instrument of the effectiveness of fundamental rights consisting in the declaration of nullity of acts of the public power harmful to the public patrimony or to an entity in which the State participates.