Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Brazil, Federal Supreme Court, 14 February 2022, Tutela Provisória na Reclamação Constitucional 51.644 Bahia

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Brazil
Case ID
Tutela Provisória na Reclamação Constitucional 51.644 Bahia
Decision date
14 February 2022
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
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Vaccination
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_PT available on www.stf.jus.br

Case analisys

General Summary

The Court analyzed a constitutional action ("Reclamação Constitucional (RCL)”) filed by the State of Bahia against a decision rendered by the Public Law Judge of the Court of Justice of the same state("Mandado de Segurança nº 8044358- 64.2021.8.05.0000"). The decision allowed an unvaccinated military policeman to work and receive his remuneration, contrary to a state decree that determined that public servants were to be vaccinated for Covid-19. According to the Court, the act/decision confronted the understanding from previous constitutional actions (ADI 6586 and 6587) where the mandatory vaccination against Covid-19 and its constitutionality was established. For the Court, the decision was against State Decree 20885/2021, which provided measures like removing public servants from their functions for violating the rights of public servants statutes and the Federal Act 13979/2020 about pandemic public management. The Court suspended the decision.

Facts of the case

In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, a military policeman of the State of Bahia filed a "mandado de segurança" to suspend vaccination requirements against Covid-19, which would allow him to continue to exercise his work and receive remuneration. This requirement was contemplated by State Decree 20885/2021, which determined that the vaccination of state public servants, under penalty of administrative sanctions and access to the workplace, under the terms of Act 13979/2020 and the understanding of the Federal Supreme Court in the ADI's 6586 and 6587. In the first instance, the judge of the civil section of public law of the Court of Justice of the State of Bahia (TJ-BA) granted the claims. According to the decision, mandatory vaccination violated fundamental rights provided for in the Federal Constitution, such as the right to work and the principle of human dignity. Furthermore, it was determined that the citizen's decision to be vaccinated should be an individual choice ("Mandado de Segurança nº 8044358- 64.2021.8.05.0000"). The State Government determined that the decision went against what the Federal Supreme Court stipulated in ADI 6586 and 6587. Furthermore, it alleged the potential risk of an uncontrolled dissemination of the virus if the restrictive measures were not adopted. In this sense, it sought the suspension of the effects of the decision declared in the first instance.

Type of measure challenged
National government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
To suspend the effects of the first instance decision “Mandado de Segurança nº 8044358- 64.2021.8.05.0000”
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Public
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Special / extraordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court analyzed three points to support its decision. The first concerned mandatory vaccination. The Court noted that the decision of the Court of Justice of the State of Bahia contradicted the understanding of the Federal Supreme Court in ADI 6586 and 6587, where it recognized the constitutionality of mandatory vaccination through indirect restrictions, as long as the measures complied with the criteria established in Act 13979/2020, on measures to combat pandemics. Second, the Court determined that, despite the speed with which the vaccines were produced, they were approved by the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa) and the World Health Organization (WHO), after numerous scientific studies that proved their efficacy and safety. Finally, regarding restrictive measures, the Court determined that the State Decree respected the criteria established in Act 13979/2020 and adopted reasonable and proportional measures that sought a constitutional balance between several rights, giving prevalence to public health.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The decision of the Court of Justice of Bahia (Mandado de Segurança nº 8044358- 64.2021.8.05.0000) did not record a pre-existing comorbidity of the military policeman that recommended he not be vaccinated. In this sense, the requirement did not threaten his physical or moral integrity. The Court admitted the claim to suspending the effects of the appealed decision. In addition, it considered the legal claim plausible, which consisted of the possible contradiction to what was decided by the Federal Supreme Court in ADI 6586 and 6587. The Court found there to be a danger of delay, considering the increase in the number of people infected by the new coronavirus.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
  • Freedom to conduct a business
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
  • Right to life
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • The right to health (Art. 6 Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988)
  • Right to life (Art. 5 Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988)
  • Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital (Art. 5 IX Brazilian Federal Constitution of 1988)
  • Freedom to conduct a business (Art. 5 XIII 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 v. freedom to conduct a business
  • Health (public) v. access to health services
  • Health v. right to life
Author of the case note
Researcher William Ivan Gallo Aponte, Externado University, Colombia; PUCPR, Brazil
Case identified by
William Ivan Gallo Aponte
Published by Sidnoma Nita Belemsobgo on 8 July 2022

More cases from Brazil

  • Brazil, Court of Justice of Santa Catarina, 12 April 2022, No. 5049107-50.2021.8.24.0000/SC
    Area: Utilities (energy, telecom, water - access to essential business/goods)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Brazil, Regional Uniformization Court of the Federal Special Courts of the 4th Region, 6 October 2021, No. 5053868-04.2020.4.04.7000
    Area: Utilities (energy, telecom, water - access to essential business/goods)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Right to basic conditions of life)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Brazil, Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul, 6 March 2022, Agravo de Instrumento No. 5028620-06.2022.8.21.0001
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Brazil, 2nd Public Treasury Court of Florianopolis, 17 March 2022, Mandado de Segurança No. 5025189-11.2022.8.24.0023/SC
    Area: Healthcare management (Covid related, excluding vaccination)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Brazil, 17th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo, 14 March 2022, No. 5005674-13.2022.4.03.6100
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to education; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Brazil, Supreme Court of Justice, 15 March 2022, Recurso em Mandado de Segurança No. 67.443
    Area: Tax Law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Brazil

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Brazil, Federal Supreme Court, 14 February 2022, Tutela Provisória na Reclamação Constitucional 51.644 Bahia
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies