Chile, Supreme Court of Justice, 21 April 2022, Causa No. 10516-2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Further areas addressed
Outcome of the decision
General Summary
A person challenged the provisions that implemented the "Mobility Pass" in Chile, which is a document given to people who have completed their vaccination scheme against COVID-19, which is necessary to be able to do certain activities. According to the Claimant, this could infringe on the right to freedom of movement of persons. Therefore, it could be an arbitrary measure.
The Court determined that the measures challenged by the Claimant were taken by the health authority to prevent a greater damage, the spread of COVID-19. Consequently, these rules were reasonable and neither illegal nor arbitrary.
Facts of the case
One person questioned Exempt Resolution 644 of the Chilean Ministry of Health and Supreme Decree 190, particularly regarding the implementation of the "Mobility Pass," which is a document given to people who have completed their COVID-19 vaccination schedule. In particular, the Claimant considered that requiring this document to perform certain activities could be illegal and arbitrary.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
Firstly, the Court indicated that the Mobility Pass, its requirements, and the vaccination treatment had been implemented by the competent health authority, including the Institute of Public Health and a Committee of Experts composed of recognized professionals in the area.
It also added that the COVID-19 Vaccination Plan had the general objective of preserving the integrity of health services and preventing mortality in groups at higher risk of death and complications from COVID-19.
The Court noted that the Mobility Pass is based on technical and statistical evidence that the vaccine effectively prevents severe cases and death from COVID-19. The Court pointed out that the restrictions the Claimant must endure for not wanting to be vaccinated were not disproportionate nor unreasonable, since public health rights must take precedence over the individual interest of the Claimant.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court determined that the measures challenged by the Claimant were taken by the health authority to prevent a greater damage, the spread of COVID-19. Therefore, these rules were reasonable and neither illegal nor arbitrary.
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. 19.9, Chilean Constitution
- Freedom of movement of people, Art. 19.7, Chilean Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
- Proportionality
- Reasonableness
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court applied but did not explain how the principles of proportionality and reasonableness to determine that the measure of requiring the Mobility Pass to perform certain activities as legitimate and was not arbitrary or illegal because it pursued an objective of general interest, which was the preservation of public health and the non-propagation of COVID-19.
Other notes
On "type of measure challenged": the challenged measures are Exempt Resolution 644 of the Chilean Ministry of Health and Supreme Decree 190 implementing the "Mobility Pass".
