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

Russian Federation, Judicial Chamber on civil cases of Kurgan Region Court, 10 March 2022, No. 33-578/2022‎

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Russian Federation
Case ID
No. 33-578/2022‎
Decision date
10 March 2022
Deciding body (English)
Judicial Chamber on civil cases of Kurgan Region Court
Deciding body (Original)
Судебная коллегия по гражданским делам Курганского ‎областного суда ‎
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Vaccination
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_RU available on www.oblsud--krg.sudrf.ru
Other cases in the same cluster
No. 2-12901/2021 ~ М-11599/2021‎ - ‎1st instance court - Kurgan City Court‎ - 2021-12-23

Case analisys

General Summary

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
Local government measure
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
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
Ordinary procedures
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. ‎

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Right to work
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Right to work, Art. 37, Russian Constitution‎
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v. right to work
General principle applied
Rule of law
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. ‎

Additional notes

Additional resources
Link_RU to www.kurgansky--krg.sudrf.ru
Author of the case note
Dr. Tatiana Shaburova, UNITO
Published by Chiara Naddeo on 19 September 2022

More cases from Russian Federation

  • Russian Federation, Fourth Appellate Court of the General Jurisdiction, 1 March 2022, No. 66a-552/2022‎
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Russian Federation, Penza Region Court, 19 January 2022, No. 3а-4/2022 (3a-160/2021) ~ М-149/2021‎
    Area: Vaccination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to data protection; Right to education; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health); Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Russian Federation, Sixth Cassation Court of the General Jurisdiction, 16 December 2021, No. ‎16-8826/2021‎
    Area: Health, right to information and freedom of expression
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of expression
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Russian Federation, First Cassation Court of the General Jurisdiction, 7 February 2022, No. 8а-750/2022[88а-5461/2022]‎
    Area: Health and freedom of association/public gathering/religion
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Russian Federation, Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the Eight Cassation ‎Court, 26 January 2022, No. 8а-26404/2021[88а-1640/2022-(88а-23780/2021)]
    Area: Freedom of movement of people
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly; Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Russian Federation, Novosibirsk Region Court, 13 January 2022, No. 3а-15/2022 (3а-139/2021;) ~ М-200/2021
    Area: Freedom of movement of people
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Russian Federation

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Russian Federation, Judicial Chamber on civil cases of Kurgan Region Court, 10 March 2022, No. 33-578/2022‎
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