Judges who challenged Covid-19 vaccination requirement in court change their mind

The two Latvian judges who had previously challenged the requirement for them and many others to get vaccinated for Covid-19 in court have commenced the vaccination process.
In December 2021 the Administrative District Court rejected requests from five judges who requested the court to review the government’s declared duty for workers of multiple different sectors to vaccinate for Covid-19.
The request was submitted by Riga Regional Court judges Normunds Riņķis, Iveta Stuberovska and Olita Blūmfelde, as well as two Zemgale Regional Court judges Svetlana Maršāne and Visvaldis Sprudāns.
One of the judges of Riga Regional Court who could not present a valid Covid-19 certificate, has since done this. One more judge is on vacation and has commenced Covid-19 vaccination process, as the court reports.
According to information from Disciplinary Board of Judges, after reviewing a disciplinary case involving the third Riga Regional Court judge, a disciplinary action will be taken if the vaccination requirement is not met.
Read also: Cipule: it is too soon to consider lifting epidemiological restrictions in Latvia
As for the two Zemgale Regional Court judges, it has been decided to initiate disciplinary action. Orders have been submitted to the Disciplinary Board of Judges for review.
Only the Disciplinary Board of Judges has the authority to suspend judges. This is why the aforementioned judges continue performing their duties remotely.
«The judges case» was the second such case involving Covid-19 vaccination to have resulted in a ruling from a court of first instance. Appeals in both cases were rejected. The first rejected case was the one submitted by Ministry of Welfare official Sandra Rucka, her husband Gunāra Rucka and daughter Kristīne Rucka against the vaccination duty. So far the court has received a couple of hundred requests of this kind.
With Rucka’s case, Administrative District Court reports the request against compulsory vaccination was rejected because the public benefit from compulsory vaccination exceeds the possible breach of privacy and rights.
The court admits the duty to vaccinate for Covid-19, which includes consequences for non-compliance, limits people’s rights for private life and the right to freely choose a profession and jobs in accordance to their abilities and qualifications.
After reviewing the case, however, the court concluded that the government’s issued vaccination order does not breach the law and has a legitimate goal –
immediate social need to protect other people’s rights and provide epidemiological safety for society to limit the spread of the infection while also ensuring uninterrupted provision of state functions. Additionally, the measure itself is balanced – the legislator’s measures are used to achieve a legitimate goal impossible to achieve using measures that have a less severe impact on the rights and legal interests of residents.
The Rucka family has appealed this ruling.