The complainants had applied to the courts concerning the requirement to present a coronavirus vaccination certificate and in a separate, but related, case, quarantine regulations on arrival in Estonia.

The individuals exhibited proven coronavirus antibodies, which rendered both the existence of a previous coronavirus-positive test result, and the requirement for no more than 180 days to have elapsed after a negative test result, irrelevant, so far as the court was concerned.

The first-tier Tallinn Administrative Court said Friday that: "The data provided to the court by the Health Board shows convincingly that the likelihood of people who have already had the disease falling ill again, including seriously illness and hospitalizations, is significantly lower than it is for people who have been vaccinated."

The court held in the first case heard that, for the purposes of the application of the applicants Individuals who present proof of the presence of antibodies, must be treated identically to those who have provided proof of vaccination or proof of recovery, in respect of Government Order No. 305 of August 23 2021, BNS reports.

In the second case the court heard, point 5 (1) of Government Order No. 212 from May 28 2021 must be suspended with regard to the following restriction: "...and no more than 180 days have elapsed since the SARS-CoV-2 test confirming the diagnosis or the date on which the diagnosis was confirmed."

Lawyer Jaanika Reilik-Bakhoff said the court found that the 180-day limit applied in the determination of coronavirus-recovered persons was inconsistent with both studies and national empirical data, adding that the respondent's objection that vaccinated persons enjoyed higher levels of protection was not relevant in the context of coronavirus-recovered persons. 

Interim legal protection is required in these cases.

Lawyer Kalev Aavik said that other complaints have been lodged concerning the legality of the order in the context of the widest possible range of applicants, where applicants refers to individuals attending public events and required to present coronavirus certification.

These instances, which concern people who have not contracted and recovered from the coronavirus, have not seen interim legal protection applied, Aavik went on, while the court based its decision on public health interests.

In the coronavirus certificate case, order No. 305 was challenged by 12 applicants represented by Kalev Aavik, sworn advocate at the Law Firm Koch & Partners, and Jaanika Reilik-Bakhoff, attorney at Pallo & Partners, BNS reports.

The quarantine appeal case challenging order No. 212 has been challenged by four applicants, represented by Reilik-Bakhoff.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!