Costa Rica, Supreme Court of Justice, 11 March 2022, Resolucion No. 5681-2022
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
Link to the full text of the decision
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
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 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.
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.
