The right not to be vaccinated “has no absolute value, nor can it be understood as intangible, having to be correlated and reconciled with other fundamental public interests, such as those relating to public health to limit the spread of the pandemic and ensure the regular performance of the essential public security service, which, in the fair weighting of opposing interests, appears in any case to prevail over the personal interest of those who do not intend to to get vaccinated “.
With this motivation, the Puglia TAR rejected the appeal of a financier in charge of customs surveillance services in the port of Bari, suspended from duty on January 3 because he was not vaccinated against Covid.
In the appeal, the soldier highlights “the illegitimacy of the declaration of a state of epidemiological emergency”, “the prophylactic ineffectiveness of experimental gene serums improperly qualified as ‘anti-Covid vaccines'” and “discrimination” consequence of the worker.
According to the judges “the appeal is unfounded“because” the provision of the obligation of vaccination also for police personnel is rationally placed among the measures introduced by the legislator to ensure the exercise of the activity in conditions suitable for minimizing the appearance of dangerous situations for public health, as they are likely to encourage the spread of the pandemic”.
“The interference in private life, which the obligation to vaccinate certainly achieves – reads the sentence – can be justified if it pursues a legitimate objective, certainly to be sought in the protection of collective health and in particular that of people in condition of particular vulnerability”. According to the judges, moreover, “the will to practice one’s own ideological, ethical or religious convictions cannot be affirmed to the point of invading the fleeting border which protects both the fundamental rights of the community and the individual, such as in the present case health and school education, which end up being pursued by the legislator in the forms deemed most appropriate to ensure respect for constitutional principles such as equality and solidarity”.
“In this context – the sentence continues – the suspension of remuneration is a natural consequence of the absence of the service provided” and “precisely the fact of not terminating the service relationship confirms that the legislator adopted a balanced solution which serves as an intermediary between the containment of the pandemic and the protection of labour”.
After all, “the weakening of tools” like the Green Pass, “with the vaccination campaign still in progress and in the current pandemic emergency phase not entirely overcome”, would create – the judges conclude – “a regulatory vacuum likely to produce serious consequences in terms of safeguarding the health of citizens, the vast majority of whom, moreover, have adhered to the vaccination proposal and have in any case obtained the green certification”.