The High Court of Cassation and Justice has decided that the Romanian state can be called to court in a process by which a person requests compensation for the negative effects of vaccination against COVID.
People affected by the anti-covid vaccine can sue the state. PHOTO: Pexels
The High Court of Cassation and Justice (ÎCCJ) has established that people who claim to have suffered adverse effects following the anti-COVID vaccination can request compensation not only from the serum manufacturers, but also from the Romanian state.
The decision confirms that citizens have the right to sue the state in court, if there are suspicions of negligence or mistakes in the administration of the vaccination campaign.
The decision of the magistrates of the High Court of Cassation and Justice represents an important moment in defining the responsibilities of the state in the context of pandemic measures. With this decision, the supreme court confirms that justice must provide a way of redress to all those who consider themselves harmed, including when it comes to actions or decisions taken in exceptional situations.
Victor Alistar, the spokesperson of the ÎCCJ, explained the reason why the Romanian state can be sued by people who claim to have suffered as a result of the anti-COVID vaccination.
“There must be a guarantee that they can turn to justice”, declared Monday evening, on Antena 3, Victor Alistar, emphasizing that the decision does not establish the guilt of the state, but opens the possibility for the courts to analyze, on a case-by-case basis, the existence of a possible liability.
The case that led to this decision
The case that led to the pronouncement of the judgment is based on the complaint of a woman who complained of serious health problems after the anti-COVID vaccination. She sued both the vaccine manufacturer and the Ministry of Health, demanding compensation for the damages suffered.
Initially, the Tribunal dismissed the claim on the grounds that the State could not be a defendant in such a suit. Later, the Court of Appeal decided the opposite, establishing that the state can be a party to the case, having “passive procedural quality”, that is, he can be legally responsible.
Dissatisfied, the Romanian State, through the Ministry of Finance and Government, filed an appeal, claiming that it cannot be held responsible for any defects in the vaccine. The High Court rejected these arguments and upheld the previous decision, reaffirming the right of citizens to seek damages at common law.
The explanations of the spokesperson of the High Court
Victor Alistar detailed the meaning of the decision, showing that the state has a special responsibility in times of crisis, but this responsibility does not exclude the right of citizens to challenge any negative effects.
“It is a concrete application of the principle of the rule of law: in exceptional situations, such as pandemics or calamities, the state has a margin of intervention to protect the public good, but, if certain people are affected, there must be a guarantee that they can turn to justice”, explained Victor Alistar.
He emphasized that the decision does not automatically imply the culpability of the authorities, nor does it establish any collective liability, but only confirms that citizens have the right to ask the courts for an objective assessment of cases in which they believe they have been harmed.
What exactly does the ÎCCJ decision mean?
The decision does not establish automatic compensation, but merely lays out the legal framework for any person who believes they have been affected by vaccination to be able to file a lawsuit against both the Romanian state and the vaccine manufacturer.
The judges showed that the state’s liability can be analyzed “according to the common law”, that is, based on the general rules regarding the mistakes, negligence or omissions of the authorities.
Through this decision, the High Court of Cassation and Justice reaffirms that the rule of law is not limited to compliance with laws, but also includes the guarantee of access to justice and the reparation of damages caused, even when they come from measures taken in the public interest.
“Through this decision, the High Court reaffirms the fact that the rule of law means, in essence, the guarantee of the citizen’s rights and the possibility of repairing any damage caused by public measures. Justice has the role of ensuring every person the effective right to request and obtain compensation”. Victor Alistar scored.
