Estonia's top court seeking ECJ preliminary ruling in paramedics vax case
The City of Tallinn as employer and paramedics are arguing in the Supreme Court of Estonia, among other things, whether the employer had the right to require employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or whether such an obligation presupposed the existence of an agreement between the parties.
The employees who took the matter to court had during the COVID-19 pandemic been working in emergency medical services (EMS), in positions related to EMS response. The employer gave the employees a deadline for submitting proof of either vaccination against COVID or contraindication to it – i.e. medical exemption – but as neither employee submitted either required proof, the employer extraordinarily terminated their employment contracts.
The paramedics contested the termination of their employment contracts in court. Both the first-tier county court and second-tier circuit court found that the termination of their employment contracts was void, as the employer had no legal right to compel the employees to get vaccinated. The employer submitted an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court, seeking for annulment of the circuit court's ruling.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court found that in order to decide the case, it is necessary, inter alia, to take a position on whether an employer's right to compel employees to get vaccinated derives from the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which allows an employer to impose stricter occupational safety and health (OSH) requirements than otherwise prescribed by law.
With the Occupational Health and Safety Act, Estonia has, among other things, transposed the EU's Directive on Biological Agents as well as the Framework Directive on Occupational Safety and Health (OSH Framework Directive).
On one hand, options for employee vaccination to ensure occupational health and safety are regulated by the Directive on Biological Agents, from which it can be inferred that vaccination should be voluntary for employees. On the other, it follows from both the Directive on Biological Agents and the OSH Framework Directive that these directives establish only the minimum OSH requirements and do not preclude the application of measures that better protect employees' health and safety at work.
The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that without seeking the opinion of the ECJ on the interpretation of the aforementioned directives, the assessment of the extraordinary termination of the employment contracts in question won't be possible.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Merili Nael, Aili Vahtla
