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

Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 11 March 2022, Resolucion No. 5681-2022

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Costa Rica
Case ID
Resolucion No. 5681-2022
Decision date
11 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
Supreme Court of Justice
Deciding body (Original)
Corte Suprema de Justicia
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Constitutional Court
Type of jurisdiction
Double jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Amparo (protective action) decision
Area
Vaccination
Further areas addressed
Industrial relations / Labor law
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available on nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr

Case analisys

General Summary

A person who worked for a hospital of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social) filed an Amparo action because this entity did not allow her to work since she did not have her COVID-19 vaccination. However, she indicated that she had a medical contraindication that prevented her from being vaccinated.

The Court considered that this person's fundamental rights were not being violated because the vaccination had been decreed as mandatory in the country. The Court found that it was not up to it to decide on the authority of the medical contraindication with the vaccine, and that her attendance to the hospital could jeopardize people's right to health.

Facts of the case

A woman worked in a state hospital of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, a public institution in charge of social security in the Republic of Costa Rica. There, she worked as a customer service employee.

In February 2022, her bosses told her that if she was not vaccinated against COVID-19, she would not be able to enter the workplace. The Claimant indicated that she could not receive the vaccine because she had a medical contraindication, certified by a physician, that prevented her from receiving it. In addition, she filed an Amparo action against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund and the Ministry of Health, requesting that her case be evaluated and not be forced to be vaccinated due to her health condition.

The Costa Rican Social Security Fund authorities indicated that the activities that the Claimant was carrying out without being vaccinated constituted a risk for those around her including co-workers and the community. They also indicated that the validity of the medical certification that contraindicated vaccination for her was under study.

Type of measure challenged
National government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
The Claimant requested not be forced to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because she had a medical contraindication that caused her to be exposed to a greater risk than benefit
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)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Expedited procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

First, the Court indicated that it recognized as justified the obligatory nature of the vaccine against COVID-19. It added that the National Commission on Vaccination and Epidemiology, according to its legal powers, had so defined it as a preventive measure to avoid the spread of COVID-19. In this regard, the Court pointed out that it could not be considered a discriminatory measure because it pursued lawful purposes such as the protection of public health. On the other hand, regarding the validity of the medical reports, the Court pointed out that it was not up to this jurisdiction to determine whether or not to validate the medical report provided by her private physician and that, in any case, this was being studied by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund.

However, the Court indicated that in this case, it had not been demonstrated that the beneficiary had been denied admission to the hospital but that she had been informed through an official letter to leave the workplace under the warning that she could not return to work until she demonstrated that she had been vaccinated. This was because she was attending to patients and users, and not being vaccinated could pose a risk to users and coworkers.

The Court indicated that the Claimant had not gone to work since the date of that order because she had been on vacation and on sick leave, so the effects of that decision had not been materialized.

In addition, the Court highlighted that since April 24, 2021, the medical authorities had warned the ward about the obligatory nature of the vaccine. However, she did not present her medical contraindications certificate until after the official notice notified her in February 2022.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court indicated that since there was no evidence of any action or omission on the part of the state hospital for which the Claimant worked that violated the fundamental rights of the beneficiary, it was appropriate to dismiss the amparo action.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

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
  • Health (public) v. access to health services
  • Health v. right to work
General principle applied
  • Non-discrimination
  • Reasonableness
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court indicated that the measure requiring the Claimant to be vaccinated was not discriminatory because it pursued lawful purposes such as the protection of public health.

The Court implicitly applied the principle of reasonableness to determine whether there was a legal justification or whether it was arbitrary that the claimant was being required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 because she was a worker and a public servant.

Author of the case note
Laura González Rozo, Researcher, Externado University of Colombia
Published by Laura Piva on 27 November 2022

More cases from Costa Rica

  • Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 6 April 2022, Resolucion No. 3754-2022
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Children's rights; Right to information)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 25 February 2022, Resolution No. 4850-2022
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 1 April 2022, Resolucion No. 7817-2022
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Other (Childrens' rights)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 18 March 2022, Resolucion No. 6411-2022
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to data protection; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 11 February 2022, Resolution No. 3474-2022
    Area: Procedural law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to access to justice, to a fair trial and to jury trial; Other (Right to due process)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 7 June 2022, Resolucion No. 13006-2022
    Area: Health law, detention and prison law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Prisoners’ rights; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Right to privacy; Right to private and family life
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Costa Rica

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 11 March 2022, Resolucion No. 5681-2022
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