The court was asked to determine whether Article 4(1) of a law passed on 24 December 2020 is compatible with Articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, in that it allowed for the suspension of the limitation period of public action introduced by Article 3 of Royal Decree No. 3 of 9 April 2020 applies generally, without excluding procedures for which judgment has been delayed for reasons that are unrelated to the health crisis that justified the introduction of this suspension.
Through a class action, the plaintiffs alleged the gross negligence of the Government of Ontario (i.e., the Minister of Long-Term Care and the Chief Medical Officer of Health) in managing the spread of the pandemic, ultimately resulting in the death of thousands of elderly residents in provincially-regulated long-term care (“LTC”) homes.
In 2015, a company and other co-obligors purchased a cleaning franchise. Pursuant to the relevant asset purchase agreement, a portion of the franchise purchase price was to be paid in monthly installments from September 2018 to May 2022 and with a final balloon payment in May 2022.
On 12 January 2023, the European Court of Justice has decided in a dispute between two travellers and a German travel organiser, concerning the price reduction of a package tour, claimed as a result of restrictions imposed at the place of destination (Gran Canaria) in order to combat the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
In December 2022, a court in Germany has ruled that COVID-19 infections are not considered occupational injuries and that three female teachers and a financial officer who contracted the virus cannot claim benefits under the public sector pension scheme in North Rhine-Westphalia.
On 16 December 2022, the High Court of Calcutta heard a case filed by a Christian teacher who challenged a notice issued by his school which demanded submission of COVID-19 vaccine certificate in order to be able to work.
On 12 December 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio answered a question certified by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in the context of a COVID-related business interruption case.
During the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number of medically vulnerable and disabled individuals held pretrial at the Shelby County Jail filed a class action asserting claims under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution for unconstitutional punishment and unconstitutional confinement and for disability discrimination under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) on account of the prison’s inability to protect them against the risk of contracting COVID-19.
On 25 October 2022, the Provincial Court of Palma de Mallorca (Balearic Islands) upheld the judgment of a lower court ordering an insurer to compensate a rural hotel owner with almost €100,000 due to the establishment’s forced closure for COVID-19 restrictions in 2020.
On 9 December 2022, the Supreme Court rejected the appeal by the Public Prosecutor’s Office against the judgment of the High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands upholding the confinement of students in Mallorca during a study trip in 2021.
In January 2022, the Governor of Virginia signed Executive Order 2, which provided that parents could opt their children out of masking requirements in Virginia’s schools, even if the school or district had otherwise determined mandatory masking to be an appropriate COVID-19 prevention measure. In February 2022, the Virginia legislature enacted Senate Bill 739, which codified this requirement.
A company operating a restaurant in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which – like many similarly situated parties – suffered significant disruptions of its business activity on account of the COVID-19 pandemic and related closures, filed suit against its insurer claiming that the economic losses due to the loss of use of its business premises were covered under its commercial property insurance.
On 21 November 2022, the Punjab and Haryana High Court issued an order directed at a university, mandating it to reduce the rent price charged to students in hostels during the COVID-19 to 50% of the ordinary price.
On 22 November 2022, the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the lockdown restrictions for people to leave their home under the Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance as amended on 31 March 2020 (BayIfSMV) was disproportionate. The Court confirmed the judgment of the Bavarian Administrative Court that had considered it disproportionate as well and rejected the appeal by the Bavarian government.
The President and Executive Secretary of a Jalisco political party brought an action of unconstitutionality before the Supreme Court, requesting the invalidity of the norm that grants local governments exclusive and unilateral power to reduce the duration of electoral campaigns in cases of risk to public health and safety, as occurred due to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 1 December 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the reinstatement of a nurse sophrologist at the Institut Curie (a French cancer research and control center) in Paris, after she had been suspended in September 2021 for refusing to vaccinate. It is the first time in France that a healthcare worker who refused to vaccinate is reinstated.
During the outbreak of the pandemic, the Supreme Court of Illinois ordered all Illinois courts “to establish and periodically update, as necessary, temporary procedures to minimize the impact of COVID-19 on the court system, while continuing to provide access to justice”. In line with these directions, courts issued orders imposing a mask requirement in all courthouse locations.
The mother of a 10-year-old child commenced proceedings under part VII of the Family Law Act 1975, seeking that the father be restrained from causing or permitting the child from receiving any further doses of the vaccination against COVID-19.
The Pretoria High Court ordered the South African Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs to disclose, by 9 December, the records concerning the decision-making process for the regulations on COVID-19 lockdowns issued during the State of Disaster, lasting from March 2020 to April 2022, including the details about the reasons for the extension of this State of Disaster.
A paramedic in the New South Wales Ambulance Service challenged the public health orders requiring healthcare workers to receive COVID-19 vaccination issued by the Minister for Health and Medical Research under Section 7 of the Public Health Act 2010 (NSW), seeking declaration of their invalidity. In particular, the claimant submitted that due to his religious beliefs, he decided not to be vaccinated against the COVID-19 virus.
A former student of a public university in Florida filed suit against the latter on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated students in order to recover fees for on-campus services that were not provided to students during the pandemic.
With a judgment of 30 November 2022, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed a trial court decision holding that an insurer was obligated to provide business loss and extra expenses coverage to an insured for the direct physical loss of his dental practice that he suffered due to COVID-19 and the governmental orders issued in response to the pandemic.
Around 20,000 students have initiated a collective redress action against some of the United Kingdom’s major universities to obtain compensation for having received remote education during several months of the pandemic of COVID-19.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.