Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Outcome of the decision
An individual (Plaintiff) claimed an employer's order on suspension from work without payment based on the refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 was unlawful. The Plaintiff asked for the annulment of the suspension order, recovery of loss earnings, and access to work.
The Court of the 1st instance dismissed the claim. Disagreeing with the Court's decision, the Plaintiff filed a claim with the Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision issued by the lower court.
Facts of the case
The Plaintiff’s argument was based on the statement that vaccination could not be mandatory and had a voluntary nature. Refusal to be vaccinated is a constitutional right. The Plaintiff added that he worked as a driver and his profession was not included in the list of work connected with a high risk of being infected by COVID-19 that required preventing vaccination.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
- Annulment of the decision taken by the Court of the 1st Instance
- Annulment of the employer's order of suspension with a compensation for loss earnings
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
Examining the current legislation, including sanitary and labor ones, the Court has concluded that anti-COVID-19 vaccination of the employer's personnel was mandatory for those who performed activities in the sphere of theatre, cinema and concert halls, provided no medical contraindications existed nor were employees recovered from COVID-19, that was envisaged by Resolution No. 4 issued by the Chief Public Health Officer of Kurgan Region of October 1, 2021.
The Court has noted that (i) preventive vaccination takes place in accordance with the Russian legislation; and the citizens, legal entities and entrepreneurs have to follow sanitary rules envisaged by the current legislation (Federal law No 52-FZ of March 30, 1999, Art. 35); (ii) absence of preventive vaccination can result in refusal to be hired or in suspension from work connected to the high risk of contracting an infectious diseases (Federal Law No. 157-FZ of September 17, 1998); (iii) COVID-19 was included in the list of diseases dangerous for around people (Government’s Resolution No. 66 of January 31, 2020), according to which vaccination against COVID-19 was included in the list of preventive vaccinations for disease control purposes (Ministry of Health Order No 1307н of December 19, 2020).
It was established that the employer performed theatre activities The Court has defined “suspension from work” as a temporary exclusion from performance labor duties envisaged by the labor legislation (Art. 76 of the Russian labor code) with an aim to prevent violations of labor discipline, safety, causing harm to the health of the employee and other citizens. Based on the above the Appeal Court has upheld the lower court’s decision. The claim was dismissed.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The decision of the lower court was upheld, the claim was dismissed.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
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 has stated that suspension from work is possible only based on the provisions of law and required to prevent causing harm to the health of other people.