CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 22 April 2024   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 37284/23 RUCKI against Latvia and 5 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 4 April 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern the Covid-19 related restrictions and the applicants’ rights to respect for private life. On 9   October 2021 the Government declared an emergency situation from 11   October 2021 until 28   February 2022 and adopted a general administrative act which as from 15   November 2021 allowed employees and officials of State and municipal authorities (including capital companies) to perform their work duties only if they had presented a certificate of primary or booster vaccination against Covid-19 or a certificate of recovery (Order No.   720 of the Cabinet of Ministers “On the Declaration of Emergency Situation”, paragraph 5.3.). A refusal to comply with those requirements resulted in a suspension and a loss of pay. On 1   March 2022, after the revocation of the emergency situation, those restrictions were lifted. At the material time, the applicants held one of the following posts: a civil servant, a pre-school teacher, a public transport driver, a nurse, a security manager and a border guard. They were warned by their employers of the consequences of a failure to comply with those requirements. One of them obtained a certificate of vaccination against Covid-19. The others who had refused to comply with those requirements were initially suspended from work, some of them were put on furlough and one was dismissed from work. Some of them obtained a vaccination or recovery certificate at a later date after having faced negative consequences. Some were reinstated after the restrictions were lifted. Most of the applicants brought proceedings before the administrative courts to challenge the above-mentioned Order. Their claims were dismissed by final decisions of 30   May, 8   June, 11   July, and 28   August   2023. One of the applicants brought proceedings before the administrative courts to challenge his suspension from work and to seek reimbursement of salary arrears. His claim was dismissed by a final decision of 26   September   2023. The applicants raise complaints under Article   8 of the Convention alleging that the obligation to obtain a certificate of vaccination against Covid-19 breached their personal integrity, had an impact on their professional lives and was overall disproportionate. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vavřička   and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos.   47621/13   and 5 others, §   263, 8   April 2021)?   2.     If so, was that interference “in accordance with the law”, pursued one or several legitimate aims, and “necessary in a democratic society”, in terms of Article   8 §   2 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Vavřička   and Others , cited above, §§   265-66 and 272-75)?   3.     In particular, were there less restrictive measures available to purse the legitimate aims? Considering that many different professions were affected by implemented measures complained of by the applicants, was the principle of proportionality respected regarding, in particular, the applicants who were civil servants, pre-school teachers, public transport drivers, nurses, security managers and border guards?       APPENDIX No. Application no. Introduction date Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Final decision date 1. 37284/23 30/09/2023 Rucki v. Latvia Sandra RUCKA 1968 Riga Latvian Kristīne RUCKA 1999 Riga Latvian Gunārs RUCKIS 1966 Riga Latvian 31/05/2023 2. 37528/23 06/09/2023 Tatarinceva v. Latvia Olga TATARINCEVA 1981 Riga Latvian 08/06/2023 3. 40029/23 08/11/2023 Beierbahs v. Latvia Raimonds BEIERBAHS 1967 Riga Latvian 11/07/2023 4. 234/24 14/12/2023 Saliņa v. Latvia Maija SALIŅA 1977 Tilžas parish Latvian 28/08/2023 5. 672/24 15/12/2023 Poplavskis v. Latvia Romāns POPLAVSKIS 1986 Griškānu parish Latvian 28/08/2023 6. 2792/24 15/01/2024 Razminovičs v. Latvia Jānis RAZMINOVIČS 1980 Ilūkste Latvian 26/09/2023