Costa Rica, Constitutional Court, 9 August 2022, No. 18514-2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
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
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
A worker of a public psychiatric hospital filed an amparo action against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund because, since February 2022, he had been suspended from his job, without pay, for not having been vaccinated against COVID-19, even though the Costa Rican government had determined that this vaccine was mandatory for workers at both public and private companies.
The Court indicated that the Claimant's fundamental rights had not been violated because the mandatory nature of the vaccine against COVID-19 had been defined by the National Commission of Vaccination and Epidemiology, by Costa Rican legislation. It added that this was a measure taken to protect the public health of the Costa Rican population; therefore, it was justified.
Facts of the case
The Claimant was a person who worked in a public psychiatric hospital attached to the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. In February 2022, this person was suspended from work, without pay, for not having been vaccinated against COVID-19. This was because the Costa Rican government had determined that the vaccine was mandatory for people in the public and private sectors.
The Claimant indicated that he had not refused to be vaccinated but was undergoing studies to determine if he had any medical contraindications.
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
First, the Court referred to the mandatory nature of the vaccine against COVID-19. In this regard, it pointed out that vaccination is part of the essential health care that the Costa Rican State must guarantee to individuals to protect their fundamental right to health. In addition, it indicated that safeguarding public health and preventing diseases is a constitutionally legitimate purpose that can justify the obligatory nature of vaccines.
Furthermore, the Court said that the mandatory application of the vaccine against COVID-19 in the public and private sector personnel had not been defined by the employers of the individuals, but by the National Commission of Vaccination and Epidemiology, by the country's legal system.
The Court indicated that the mandatory nature of vaccinations was not new, since when the Civil Code was issued, in 1885, it was established that any person could refuse to undergo a medical or surgical examination or treatment, except for cases of mandatory vaccination or other measures related to public health.
Consequently, the Court stated that it was incorrect to affirm that there had been a violation of the Claimant's fundamental rights because the competent authority defined the mandatory application of the vaccine against COVID-19 for public and private sector employees. Therefore, the patron was entitled to request proof of his workers' vaccination schedule against COVID-19 to demonstrate that they had complied with the legislative requirements.
Finally, the Court said people had the right to work safely and in healthy conditions. Therefore, since the constitutionality of the regulation that made the vaccination against COVID-19 mandatory was confirmed, and since the legal system empowered the employer to ensure safety and health in the workplace, it was the employer's responsibility to take the corresponding measures per the country's legislation in the case of workers who did not want to be vaccinated against COVID-19. It added that the only exception was workers who, due to a duly declared medical contraindication, could not receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court indicated that the Claimant's fundamental rights had not been violated because the mandatory nature of the vaccine against COVID-19 had been defined by the National Commission of Vaccination and Epidemiology, by Costa Rican legislation. It added that this was a measure taken to protect the public health of the Costa Rican population; therefore, it was justified.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
- Right to work
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Right to work, Art. 56, Constitution of Costa Rica
- Right to health, Art. 46, Constitution of Costa Rica
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court implicitly applied the reasonableness principle to determine whether there was a legal justification for the Claimant to be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because she was a worker in a public hospital.
