Constitutional Court
4 October 2023
No KT83-N9/2023
Facts
The applicants, the Kaunas and Vilnius Regional Courts, applied to the Constitutional Court after the suspension of criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of appeals by persons convicted under Article 302(1) of the Criminal Code (Taking of a stamp, seal or document or use of a stolen one) for having presented a COVID-19 certificate (“galimybių pasas”) issued in the name of someone else to the employee monitoring compliance with quarantine measures in order to gain access to a closed commercial premises (a supermarket or a cocktail lounge).
Complaint
In the applicants' view, the contested legal regulation, which is laid down in a sub-legislative act, restricts the freedom of choice of individuals, which can only be exercised by law. According to the applicants, the Law on Civil Protection does not provide that, in the event of a declared state of emergency, the freedom of choice of individuals may be restricted. Moreover, according to the applicants, the restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals imposed by the contested Government Decision were not temporary. The applicants also considered that legal regulation, which restricted access to contact services to persons who fulfilled the criteria laid down in the Decision, violated the principle of equal treatment of persons, as enshrined in the Constitution. According to the applicants, both persons who had been vaccinated and other persons could be carriers of COVID-19, and there was therefore no reason to treat them differently. The applicants also had doubts about two of the criteria laid down in the Decision, namely the requirement to have been vaccinated with a specified vaccine or to have a negative result in a certain test, which, according to the applicants, infringed the liberty of the individual and the integrity of the person.
Court‘s ruling
The Court stated that rights and freedoms may be temporarily restricted in cases where, on the basis of specific information available at the time, there are grounds for believing that irreparable harm to the values enshrined in the Constitution, such as human health and life, will result from the failure to take timely and effective measures.
In the context of the constitutional requirements for the imposition of measures restricting the rights and freedoms of the individual in the event of an exceptional situation in the State, measures to control the spread of contagious human diseases in society must not be of a kind that would make it impossible for a person to satisfy, even temporarily, the necessities of life, such as the purchase of food, medicines, access to essential personal health care services, etc. Such measures must only be temporary and the legal framework that establishes them must be kept under constant review and reassessed as to whether it is necessary to continue applying them.
The Court finds that, on the basis of the scientific data available at the time and the information provided by the experts, the Government had reason to believe that there was a disparity in the chances of contracting and spreading COVID-19 between persons who had been vaccinated with the vaccine in question, who had contracted COVID-19 or who had a negative result in a certain test, and persons over 16 years of age who did not meet the criteria, and persons who did not, and who could be considered to be at a reduced risk of contracting and spreading COVID-19 at that time. Therefore, the Government, considering the prognosis for the spread of COVID-19 and the emergence of new, more infectious strains of the virus, could have decided to introduce a legal regulation which restricts the provision of services to persons who do not meet the criteria set out in the contested Decision in places where people are more likely to congregate. By introducing such a legal regulation, the Government pursued a constitutionally important objective and a public interest - the protection of human health.
The Court held that the Decision was not contrary to the Constitution and that the relevant provisions of the Decision were not contrary to Article 8 of the Law on Civil Protection.