Brazil, Federal Supreme Court, 6 April 2022, No. ‎946/MG‎

Case overview

Country
Brazil
Case ID
No. ‎946/MG‎
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Federal Supreme Court
Deciding body (Original)
Supremo Tribunal Federal
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Federal Court
Instance
Interim procedure
Area
Vaccination
Vulnerability groups
Children
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_PT available on www.portal.stf.jus.br
General Summary

‎The legislature of the municipality of Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, issued ‎Act 13691/2022, which provided that no person could be prevented from ‎entering, staying, and frequenting any place, public or private, for not ‎being vaccinated against COVID-19. Also, the Act prohibited mandatory ‎vaccination. Subsequently, the political party, "Rede de Sostenbilidade", ‎filed a suit seeking suspension the Act. The Plaintiff alleged an offense ‎to several constitutional principles, such as life and health as well as ‎priority protection of children, adolescents, and the elderly. At the time, ‎the Court valued its precedent on mandatory vaccination and the need for ‎decisions involving health issues to be guided by the principles of ‎prevention and precaution. On these terms, the Court suspended the Act.‎

Facts of the case

The Legislative Branch of the Municipality of Uberlândia, Minas Gerais, ‎issued Act No. 13.691/2022, which prohibited mandatory vaccination ‎against COVID-19 in the entire municipal territory and prohibited the ‎application of restrictions and sanctions against unvaccinated persons, ‎including public servants. Faced with this Act, the political party, "Rede ‎Sustentabilidade", filed a constitutional action (ADPF), alleging that the ‎Act disregarded the precedent of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) on ‎mandatory vaccination. In addition, it argued that the municipality ‎extrapolated the supplementary legislative competence regarding the ‎measures of restriction of freedom adopted in the fight against the ‎COVID-19 pandemic. In this sense, the political party requested the ‎suspension of the effects of the Act.‎

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Suspend the effects of the law
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a qualified entity in the interest of a specific group of claimants for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

First, the Court analyzed the admissibility of the claim, specifically, the ‎compliance with the procedural requirements necessary for granting the ‎precautionary measure. Secondly, in the specific case, the Court ‎highlighted the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgency of ‎assessing the issue. It highlighted the rates of infection and deaths in ‎Brazil.

Subsequently, it recognized its legitimacy to establish mandatory ‎vaccination by adopting indirect inductive measures, such as restricting ‎activities and access to establishments. It reiterated its jurisprudence, in ‎that constitutional principles must guide matters related to health ‎protection.‎

Conclusions of the deciding body

For the Court, the municipal Act established provisions contrary to the ‎parameters set by the Federal Supreme Court. Additionally, it ignored ‎constitutional principles by preventing mandatory vaccination and the ‎adoption of indirect measures to encourage people to get vaccinated. The ‎Court found that the municipal Act contradicted the medical and ‎scientific consensus on the importance of vaccination to reduce the risk ‎of infection by COVID-19. In this sense, constitutional action was ‎granted, given the public health emergency risk. ‎

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 of 1988‎
  • Freedom of movement of people, goods, and capital, Art. 5, Brazilian ‎Federal Constitution of 1988‎
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. freedom of movement of persons
  • Health (public) v. access to health services
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court did not apply any general principle nor weighting technique.

Author of the case note
William Ivan Gallo Aponte, Researcher, Externado University of Colombia; PUCPR, Brazil‎
Case identified by
William Ivan Gallo Aponte