| Basic information | Substance of the ruling | Accessibility of the case and further relevant links | |||||||
| Date | Name of the case (or case number) | The body delivering the decision | Keywords, topic | Executive part | Brief summary | Full text | Page at the website of the issuing court | Page in other databases | Unofficial materials, press communications |
| 12. 08. 2022 | No. 18668-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Prison law, Right to health | Claim rejected | Applicant claimed that the prison demanded that they maintain a social distance during visits and not have physical contact with family members or friends. If they violate this, their visiting rights are revoked. According to the Applicant, this was an arbitrary measure, as the use of masks was no longer compulsory in the country and visitors had to be vaccinated. He also stated that this measure was not required in other prisons. The Supreme Court of Justice found that the Applicant's fundamental rights had not been infringed. According to the Supreme Court of Justice the actions taken by the Ministry of Justice and Peace were justified since they had been taken to guarantee the health of the population deprived of liberty during the Covid-19 pandemic. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1106693 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-no-18668-2022-2022-08-12 | ||
| 09. 08. 2022 | No. 18514-2022 | Constitutional Court | Labor law, Vaccination | Claim partially upheld | The Costa Rican government has decided that vaccination is mandatory for all public and private sector workers. The Claimant worked in a state psychiatric hospital. This person was suspended from work without pay in February 2022 because he had not been vaccinated against COVID-19. However, the Claimant has indicated that he has not refused the vaccination but has been tested to determine whether he has any medical contraindications. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the Claimant's fundamental rights had not been infringed, since the mandatory nature of the COVID-19 vaccine was determined by Costa Rican legislation. This was a measure taken to protect public health and was therefore justified. The Court confirmed the constitutionality of the decree making the COVID-19 vaccination mandatory. The only exception is for workers who are not eligible to receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to a duly declared medical contraindication. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1107066 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-constitutional-court-no-18514-2022-2022-08-09 | ||
| 05. 08. 2022 | No. 17995-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Vaccination, Right to education | Claim rejected | The Ministry of Public Education has made vaccination compulsory for access to educational centres. Some parents believed that this measure infringes their fundamental rights and the rights of their children. This decision prevented them from entering these institutions and made it impossible for them to participate in their children's educational and administrative affairs. Therefore the parents filed an amparo action. According to the Supreme Court of Justice, the Ministry of Education's decision to require parents to provide proof of vaccination was taken to protect the interests of children by preventing the spread of COVID-19. It was therefore justified. The Court considered that there was no evidence of a violation of the fundamental rights of the parents or of the children. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1106064 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-no-17995-2022-2022-08-05 | ||
| 05. 08. 2022 | No. 18045-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health, Prison law | Claim rejected | A group of persons deprived of their liberty have filed an amparo action against the Ministry of Health and the prison that holds them. The Applicants claimed that although the epidemic was under control, their visitors were not allowed to bring food into the prison. The Applicants claimed that if the regulation is intended to protect their health, the place where they are detained, where rats and fungi are present, should be disinfected. The Supreme Court of Justice found that the restriction on food imports into the prisons was reasonable, as the measure was aimed at containing the epidemic and protecting people's health. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1106473 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-no-18045-2022-2022-08-05 | ||
| 10. 06. 2022 | No. 13407 | Supreme Court of Justice | Vaccination, Right to health | Claim rejected | A 74-year-old man was vaccinated against disease. However, he argued that he is very sensitive to COVID-19 because of his illnesses, which he can catch even if he has been vaccinated. The applicant has indicated that there is a drug called Paxlovid, manufactured by Pfizer, which was recommended by his doctor for the treatment of people with severe illnesses infected with the COVID-19 virus. In his view, in the case of COVID-19, access to the drug was a means of asserting his right to health, since vaccines were not sufficient to prevent the disease. He indicated that the Fund should understand that the cost-benefit ratio of delivering Paxlovid on time would save the institution millions of colones, Costa Rican currency. The plaintiff indicated that the Fund has a constitutional obligation to make approved drugs available to people when they need them. Therefore, the plaintiff filed an amparo action to have this medication obtained by the Fund and made available to those in need upon medical order. The Supreme Court of Justice rejected the request. According to the Court, the claim was based on the criteria and recommendations of the Plaintiff's private doctor, not the Fund, and that it was not for the Court to determine which drugs the Costa Rican Social Security Fund should obtain for the treatment of COVID-19 or any other disease. This is a medical decision that is the responsibility of the Fund, the entity that administers health services. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1096374 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-no-13407-2022-06-10 | ||
| 07. 06. 2022 | Resolucion No. 13006-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Prison law, Health law | Claim inadmissible or rejected | The Plaintiff filed a writ of Habeas Corpus against the Ministry of Justice and Peace. He claimed that his right to privacy and food security were being violated, and he was not allowed to have visits and participate in group activities. The Court found that the measure was because of two positive cases of Covid-19 in the place where the plaintiff was being held. According to the Supreme Court, the defendant's measures could not be said to constitute a discriminatory measure against the applicant, since the measures taken by the prison centre were intended to provide food for the entire population deprived of their liberty and to prevent the spread of COVID-19. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1095584 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolucion-no-13006-2022-2022-06-07 | ||
| 29. 04. 2022 | Resolucion No. 9723-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Prison law, Health law | Claim partially upheld | A person didn't get the third dose of the vaccine against Covid-19, and didn't receive medical attention due to his possible arterial hypertension, so he filed an amparo action against the penitentiary center where he was being held. The Court considered that the prison violated the Claimant's right to health by the omission of the vaccination. The Supreme Court upheld the claim because it considered that the failure of the prison authorities to vaccinate the applicant infringed his right to health, in particular with regard to the restrictive measures taken against persons deprived of their liberty. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1087092 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolucion-no-9723-2022-2022-04-29 | ||
| 26. 04. 2022 | No. 09259 | Supreme Court of Justice | Prison law, Right to health | Claim upheld | The Plaintiff was detained in a temporary detention centre and suffered from chronic headaches. For the Plaintiff, as these centres were not suitable for a long-term stay, his health had been steadily deteriorating since his detention. The Plaintiff therefore filed an action for habeas corpus against the Ministry of Justice and Peace, alleging violation of his fundamental rights. The Court held that the Plaintiff's fundamental rights had been violated because the prison authorities had exceeded reasonable limits in keeping the detainee in a temporary facility, particularly in view of his current deteriorating health. The Court also reiterated that despite the COVID-19 pandemic disrupting the normal operation of the penitentiary system, authorities had to implement and execute effective measures to prevent long stays of inmates in temporary detention centers. According to the Court, penitentiary authorities failed to do so, violating the rights of prisoners. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-09259-2022-04-26 | |||
| 08. 04. 2022 | No. 08389 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health | Claim rejected | The Plaintiff filed a defence action against a penitentiary institution, alleging violation of his fundamental rights. He claimed that he was detained and that he had repeatedly sought medical attention at the prison clinic, but had not received treatment for an eye condition. He therefore asked to be transferred to a suitable hospital. The Supreme Court denied the protection. The Court found that the Plaintiff did in fact receive medical attention because he was prescribed eye drops. For the Court, this disease was not an urgent issue and, hence, no transfer was necessary. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-08389-2022-04-08 | |||
| 06. 04. 2022 | No. 8054-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health | Claim rejected | The Plaintiff (an elderly man) reported severe pain in his left arm two years ago. This affected his daily life and, although surgery was ordered in January 2022, it was not scheduled after several medical check-ups and examinations, and he considered that his right to health had been violated. The Plaintiff filed an amparo action against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, the public institution responsible for social security, to obtain the necessary surgical intervention. The Supreme Court rejected the Plaintiff's claim, considering that the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social had provided the Plaintiff with medical care in a timely manner. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-no-8054-2022-2022-04-06 | |||
| 06. 04. 2022 | No. 8036-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health, Equality | Claim upheld | A young woman was on the waiting list for knee surgery in January 2020. But, as of March 2022, she had not undergone surgery. The woman therefore filed a writ of amparo against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. The woman considered that her right to health had been violated. The Supreme Court of Justice found that the Plaintiff's right to health was violated by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund's failure to schedule the surgery. Even with the difficulties caused by Covid-19 pandemic. The Court indicated that although it understood the difficulties that the pandemic could imply for the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, the population still required that their other health conditions be treated, so the medical centers had to implement the necessary organizational changes to obtain the resources needed to provide those services. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-no-8036-2022-2022-04-06 | |||
| 01. 04. 2022 | Resolucion No. 7817-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Public health, Children's right, Vaccination | Claim rejected | The Claimant was an individual who filed a writ of amparo against the National Vaccination and Epidemiology Commission because the mandatory vaccination of minors, that the decision violated the best interest of minors. The Court considered that a childhood vaccination program is the part of the preventive healthcare. According to the Supreme Court of Justice, the existence of a childhood vaccination programme to prevent outbreaks of epidemics or infections at the individual level is part of the preventive health care that the Costa Rican State must provide in order to protect the human right to health of every child and the best interests of the child. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1082799 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolucion-no-7817-2022-2022-04-01 | ||
| 18. 03. 2022 | Resolucion No. 6411-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health, Freedom of movement, Vaccination | Claim rejected | A parents filed an amparo action against the Ministry of Public Education, because the security guard of a public school did not let them enter. This parents didn't show any vaccination certificate. The parents considered that this information related to the vaccine was private and protected, but the Court rejected this claim, and found that the vaccination certificate didn't contain sensitive information. According to the Supreme Court of Justice, each person was required to show vaccination certificates when the authority so ordered. The Court held that the COVID-19 vaccination card or the QR code certifying such vaccination does not contain sensitive data, as it is not biomedical or genetic data or information about the individual's medical history, but merely a document containing information about the administration of the vaccine. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1080003 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolucion-no-6411-2022-2022-03-18 | ||
| 11. 03. 2022 | Resolution No. 5684-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Health law, Prison law, Right to private and family life | Claim rejected | A group of people - who were deprived of their liberty - filed an amparo action against the Ministry of Justice and Peace because of two reasons: 1.) to regain the right to conjugal visits; 2.) to get the booster dose of the Covid-19 vaccine. The Court did not grant any of the Claimants' requests. The Court concluded that there was no justification to accede to the Claimants' requests because, on the one hand, it was not up to this jurisdiction to determine when the restrictions on intimate and general visits that existed in the penal center should be lifted and, on the other hand, because it could be verified that the vaccination of the third dose was being carried out following the prioritization criteria. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1078804 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolution-no-5684-2022-2022-03-11 | ||
| 02. 03. 2022 | No. 05047 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health | Claim upheld | The Plaintiff filed a protective action against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, alleging violation of her fundamental rights. According to the Plaintiff, she has been scheduled for surgery in September 2020. However, due to the COVID-19 outbreak, she was not operated on. The hospital authorities argued that it was not an emergency procedure and that the Plaintiff was not under any priority. The Supreme Court of Justice concluded to protect the Plaintiff's fundamental rights, arguing that the time taken was disproportionate and unreasonable, even in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-05047-2022-03-02 | |||
| 02. 03. 2022 | No. 5060 | Supreme Court of Justice | Right to health, Prison law | Claim upheld | The lawyer alleged the violation of the defendant's fundamental rights. He argued that the defendant had not been transferred to a proper prison, but was in a temporary prison, which is not suitable for long-term placement of a person. The state authorities claimed that the COVID-19 emergency had hampered the possibility of transferring detainees and that measures had to be taken to avoid contamination between detainees. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled that the detainee's fundamental rights had been violated and ordered his transfer to a suitable and hygienic prison. The Court found that the authorities had failed to comply with the 72-hour time limit set by law for the transfer of the detainee, as more than two weeks had elapsed since his detention in the temporary prison. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-5060-2022-03-02 | |||
| 25. 02. 2022 | Resolution No. 4850-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Labor law, Vaccination, Right to bodily integrity | Claim rejected | A worker filed an amparo action, because a measure (made by a public company) required mandatory vaccination of workers. The worker claimed that this measure violated his rights to health and work. The Court found that the mandatory vaccination was justified in the interest of protecting public health. According to the Supreme Court of Justice, the requirement to vaccinate workers is a justified measure to protect public health and that employers have a duty to ensure compliance with this measure. It also noted that there was no evidence that expired vaccines had been administered. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1076601 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolution-no-4850-2022-2022-02-25 | ||
| 11. 02. 2022 | Resolution No. 3474-2022 | Supreme Court of Justice | Prison law, Health law | Claim rejected | The Claimant - who was an accused - filed a writ of habeas corpus, because in a criminal proceeding a hearing was scheduled in person, ordering the accused to be linked by videoconference. The accused considered that this decision violated his right to due process and his right to defense. The Court rejected this claim, due to the pandemic there was an opportunity for remotely hearings. According to the Supreme Court of Justice, in the event of an exceptional situation such as a pandemic, the criminal courts, including the defendant, have the possibility to use technical means to conduct appropriate negotiations and thus ensure the continuity of the criminal proceedings, always in compliance with the rules of due process. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1073515 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-resolution-no-3474-2022-2022-02-11 | ||
| 9 February 2022 | No. 02924 – 2022 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Vaccination, Right to health | Claim upheld | The Claimant is an 86-year-old senior citizen who was unable to care for himself. She asked a clinic to give her a third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. As she had lost her vaccination card, the clinic informed her that she would have to go through a series of bureaucratic procedures to be vaccinated. She believed that this violated her right to health and filed a claim. The Supreme Court found that the Claimant's right to health had been infringed, in particular in view of the claimant's vulnerability as an elderly adult. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1071728 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-02924-2022-2022-02-09 | ||
| 9 Febuary 2022 | No. 02891 - 2022 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Right to health | Claim rejected | The Supreme Court of Costa Rica ordered a public hospital to perform surgery on the claimant within one month. A month later, the claimant filed an amparo action, stating that he was seeking compliance with the decision as he had not yet undergone surgery and asking that his right to health be guaranteed. The hospital claimed that it was unable to carry out the operation because of the pandemic. The Supreme Court found that the failure to perform the medical operation was not the hospital's fault. There was a reasonable justification for not operating because of the appearance of Covid-19. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1071716 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-02891-2022-2022-02-09 | ||
| 9 February 2022 | No. 02900 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Prison law, Right to health | Claim rejected | The Claimant was sentenced to prison and suffered from arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and bronchial asthma. one of his fellow prisoners was transferred because he tested positive. The Claimant was kept with the other detainees. The Claimant claimed that this violated his right to health because his medical conditions put him at high risk of infection with Covid-19. The prison confirmed that the Claimant had received regular medical treatment for his illnesses and that health measures had been taken in the prison to protect the health of the inmates after the positive COVID-19 case was detected. The Supreme Court held that the Claimant's fundamental rights had not been infringed because the prison had taken the necessary measures to protect his right to health. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1071720 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-02900-2022-02-09 | ||
| 28 January 2022 | No. 02335 – 2022 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Right to health | Claim upheld | The Plaintiff has been prescribed priority surgery from 20 January 2020. However, the surgery had not been possible due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Plaintiff therefore brought a protective action against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, alleging a violation of her fundamental rights. The Supreme Court found that the Plaintiff's rights had been violated. According to the Supreme Court, the authorities had not provided a reasonable justification for the delay in the operation, in particular taking into account that the Plaintiff belonged to a vulnerable group, the elderly, and that the failure to do so could have caused greater harm to the Plaintiff's health. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-02335-2022-2022-01-28 | |||
| 14 January 2022. | No. 2022001051 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Freedom of movement, Freedom to conduct a business | Claim rejected | Due to the pandemic, the Costa Rican National Reserve System has ordered the closure of several protected areas of tourist interest. It later ordered their reopening in June 2020. The Claimant brought an amparo action, alleging that this decision infringes his fundamental rights, as it seriously affects tourism in the area. According to the Court the measures taken by the National Nature Reserve System were not arbitrary, as they were taken to protect visitors. Additionally, construction works in the area has also led to the partial closure. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1068541 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-2022001051-2022-01-14 | ||
| 5 January 2022 | No. 000374 – 2022 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Vaccination, Right to life | Claim rejected | The Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of a number of laws and implementing regulations which required the vaccination of the population against COVID-19. He claimed that these laws violated several constitutional principles, namely individual autonomy, self-determination, equality and non-discrimination, freedom of thought and expression, the right to life and health, the rule of law, the precautionary principle and constitutional primacy. He argued that vaccines are still in the experimental phase, as people do not know what their side effects are. The Supreme Court rejected these claims and found that the scientific evidence showed that the vaccines were effective against COVID-19 and not experimental. According to the Court, individual autonomy is not infringed, since public health must prevail in the present case and the authorities are in any event under an obligation to provide full information to the person to be vaccinated. As regards the other principles, the Court found that the Plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements of legal reasoning to support its claims. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-000374-2022-2022-01-05 | |||
| 2021.11.26. | No. 2021026578 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Data protection and privacy, Vaccination card | Claim rejected | The Costa Rican executive has ordered mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 for all public servants. It required all centres to request information from staff on vaccination status or exemption from vaccination and to send it by e-mail or through the internal institutional mail system. The applicant argued that this information was sensitive data that it was not obliged to provide under Costa Rican data protection rules. He therefore requested that the measure be annulled. The Supreme Court pointed out that the vaccination card does not contain sensitive data. The Court found that this document only contains information about the application of the vaccine. Therefore the Court rejected the claim because the Applicant's right to privacy was not being violated. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1063415 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-costa-rica-constitutional-chamber-no-2021026578-2021-11 | ||
| 2021.11.26. | No. 2021026597 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Vaccination, Freedom of expresson | Claim upheld | The Plaintiff worked for an institution that required vaccination of unvaccinated employees. The Plaintiff did not vaccinate himself because he had questions about the effects on his body. He therefore sought a medical opinion from the Costa Rican Social Security Fund. This institution refused to respond to his request. The Plaintiff considered this to be an arbitrary decision and brought an action for amparo, claiming that his right to petition had been violated. According to the Court, the refusal to receive a request for information violated the right to petition and a prompt response. The Court ordered the institution to decide on the claim within the deadline. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1061795 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-costa-rica-constitutional-chamber-no-2021026597-2021-11 | ||
| 2021.11.26. | No. 2021026578 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Data protection, Vaccination card | Claim rejected | The Costa Rican executive has ordered mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 for all public servants. It required all centres to request information from employees on their vaccination status or exemption from vaccination and to send it by e-mail or through the internal institutional mail system. According to the Claimant, this information was a sensitive data, and he was not obliged to give it based on the Costa Rican data protection regulations. The Supreme Court found that the Claimant's right to privacy was not being violated. The Court found that the request for a vaccination certificate from the Ministry's employees was necessary and proportionate and did not affect the Claimant's rights. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1063415 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-costa-rica-constitutional-chamber-no-2021026578-2021-11 | ||
| 2021.11.12. | No. 25411-2021 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Freedom of expression, Right to petition, Right to information | Claim partially upheld | Under a Decree of the Costa Rica government, only five ports have been authorised for foreigners arriving in Costa Rica by sea on yacht or sailboat. According to the Claimant, the reasons for authorising only these five port facilities are not known. The claimant therefore requested information from the government to find out why the distinction had been made and asked that its port facilities be allowed to operate again or, if this was not possible, that its port facilities be allowed to operate as a migration station for the arrival of foreigners. The Supreme Court held that the right to petition and right to information have been infringed. However, with regard to the request to restart operations or to operate as a migration station, the Supreme Court noted that these are matters that should be dealt with before the administrative jurisdiction. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1061254 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-costa-rica-constitutional-chamber-no-25411-2021-2021-11-12 | ||
| 4 October 2021 | Resolución No. 22207 – 2021 | Supreme Court of Justice, Constitutional Chamber | Health law, prison law | Claim upheld | Twenty inmates had been held in temporary detention centers due to the problem of prison overcrowding and Covid-19 pandemic. The temporary detention centers did not have medical attention, proper beds etc.. The General Director of the Judicial Investigation Agency filed a habeas corpus, he requested their transfer to a proper prison. The Court upheld this claim, it found the violation of human dignity and the right to health. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-resolucion-no-22207-2021-2021-10 | |||
| 20 August 2021 | Resolución No. 18443-2021 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim rejected | The Plaintiff alleges that he had not been vaccinated against COVID-19 despite being prioritized by the national vaccination plan due to his age. He claims that his right to health is being violated by public authorities by denying him the vaccine and his requests to be vaccinated as soon as possible. According to the measures issued by the national government, uninsured people must at least prove that they are residents living near the healthcare center where they go for the vaccine. The Plaintiff was not insured with the healthcare center he went to and did not prove to the authorities that he was a resident living nearby. Thus, he was denied the vaccine. This denial is the measure that is being challenged. The Court has denied the protection declaring that the denial is reasonable as the Plaintiff did not fulfil the requirements set by the government. The Court has found that the Authorities had in fact complied with the general vaccination plan and thus, the decision of the authorities had not been arbitrary. | https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-1046161 | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-resolucion-no-18443-2021-2021-08 | |||
| 22 June 2021 | No. 14051 (reg no 21-008922-0007-CO) | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim rejected | In both cases, a worker (one of the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (CCSS) and another of the National Institute of Insurance (INS)) filed a protective action,“recurso de amparo”, against the (CCSS) and the Ministry of Health alleging a violation to his right to conscientious objection and the principle that states that any regulation or limitation of fundamental rights shall be provided by law, statutes. They both allege that vaccines have adverse effects and can develop serious illnesses. The Court has rejected the arguments of the Plaintiffs stating that no violation has occurred in the present cases. First, regarding the principle that states that any regulation of limitation of fundamental rights shall be provided by law, a National Statute on Vaccination was issued by legislators. Hence, the limitation of these fundamental rights is derived from the law. Concerning the right to conscientious objection, the Court has found the vaccine mandate proportional in terms of weighing both this right and the collective right to health, as it is suitable, necessary, and proportionate to achieving the legitimate end of protecting the health of healthcare workers who are at a high risk of becoming infected with COVID-19. Furthermore, while it is mandatory, this obligation provides certain exceptions derived from scientific and technical criteria, to avoid a negative impact on the individual right to health. Hence, the measure does not violate any rights or principles. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-14051-reg-no-21-008922-0007 | ||||
| 18 June 2021 | No. 13758 (reg no. 21-009569-0007-CO) | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Vaccination | Claim upheld | The Plaintiff challenged the measure that denied his second dose of the Covid-OVID19 vaccine because his certificate for the first dose was not apostilled as he had received it abroad. The Court has agreed with the Plaintiff, considering this requirement unreasonable and disproportionate, as it is a burdensome and expensive process to achieve a legitimate end, checking that the person has his first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine). Hence, the right to health of the person was violated. However, the Court did not order the public authorities anything because during the judicial proceedings, the requirement was eliminated. The Court would have ordered its elimination. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-13758-reg-no-21-009569-0007 | |||
| 16 June 2021 | No. 13704 (reg no. Exp. 21-010681-0007-CO) | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Vaccination | Claim partially upheld | A man argued that despite being prioritized, due to having asthma, according to the COVID-19 vaccination plan, he has been denied the vaccine due to an outdated medical record that does not show his disease. He also tried to contact his healthcare center requesting a certificate of his illness, but the hospital denied the issuance of this certificate without any reason. He challenged this denial and requested the Court to order the certificate to be issued. The Court has agreed with the Plaintiff, stating that any delay on behalf of public hospitals and healthcare centers negatively impacts the right to health and to life of patients. Furthermore, as they are public officials, they were trusted with certain functions aimed at serving the public, which cannot be arbitrarily disregarded as in the present case. The Court has declared the violation of the right to health but did not order anything to the public authorities as, during the judicial proceedings, the healthcare center started the process to issue the certificate which, otherwise, the Court would have ordered them to do. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-13704-reg-no-exp-21-010681 | |||
| 4 June 2021 | No. 2021012732 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim partially upheld | The Plaintiffs challenged the omission of penitentiary authorities to conduct certain courses inmates must attend (e.g., sexual violence, drug addiction) to be psychologically assessed. Some of these inmates were senior citizens that were in a condition of vulnerability. Authorities stated that the courses were suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court rejected most of the claims, finding that not all Plaintiffs had to take courses because not all were being psychologically assessed. The Court also rejected the claims of the Plaintiffs that had already initiated the courses. Likewise, the Court rejected the claim of the Plaintiffs that had their courses suspended as it declared that the decision of public authorities was justified through an objective standard: following COVID-19 regulations aimed at protecting the life and health of the inmates and of penitentiary officials. Finally, as authorities failed to justify why the senior inmates were being denied the possibility of participating in these courses, it declared their rights violated. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-2021012732-2021-06-04 | ||||
| 1 June 2021 | No. 12563 (reg no. 21-009137-0007-CO) | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim rejected | An immigrant mother filed a protective action on her behalf and her son who has Down Syndrome, alleging that her fundamental rights had been violated. The Plaintiff challenged the measure of the healthcare center that had denied vaccinating her and her son against COVID-19 because her passport and work permit had expired. She has also argued that she had not been able to renew her documents due to the pandemic. The Court has declared that no right was violated by public authorities because COVID-19 vaccines regulations state that any immigrant must, before being vaccinated, show their valid immigration papers or if expired, show proof of an ongoing renewal process. For the Court, as her papers expired in July of 2019, several months before the pandemic started, she acted negligently. The public authorities were not at fault when refusing to vaccinate her and her son, as they were complying with a reasonable measure. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-12563-reg-no-21-009137-0007 | ||||
| 21 May 2021 | No. 2021010151 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim rejected | Mrs. XX was 37 weeks pregnant and had a low-risk gestation. Being close to her delivery date and because of the restrictions that the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (the public institution in charge of social security in Costa Rica) had for pregnant women to have a companion during labor, she filed an amparo action requesting that she be allowed to be with her partner at the time of delivery, as she was a person who suffered from an anxiety disorder. She felt that the absence of a partner could worsen her situation. Therefore, she considered that her health rights could be at risk. The Court considered that no injury to a fundamental right was being generated since the authorities of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social had taken these measures of not allowing accompaniment to pregnant women to safeguard the life and health of the patients and their companions. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-2021010151-2021-05-21 | ||||
| 14 May 2021 | No. 09751 (reg no. 21-007959-0007-CO) | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim rejected | A citizen filed a protective action, “recurso de amparo”, against the Office of the President and the Ministry of Health, challenging a traffic restriction imposed to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. By virtue of this measure, vehicles were not allowed to transit after 9:00 p.m. The Applicant stated that the measure was disproportionate and irrational. The Court has upheld the measure arguing that Art. 95 of the National Traffic Statute allows the executive branch to restrict traffic when its measures are well-founded on a criterion of opportunity, convenience, or a public interest. According to the Court, the measure has fulfilled this requirement because there is a situation of emergency, the COVID-19 pandemic, that must be addressed through these kinds of measures to protect the public interest of health. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-09751-reg-no-21-007959-0007 | ||||
| 14 May 2021 | No. 09647 | Supreme Court of Costa Rica | Claim rejected | A person filed an habeas corpus against the Ministry of Health, challenging a national measure that forbids the refutation of a positive antigen COVID-19 test with another negative test. The Plaintiff alleged that she was affected by a sanitary order that forced her to isolate after an antigen test came back positive. However, she then took another test (PCR), which came back negative. Despite this, the sanitary order was not lifted because of the national measure. For this reason, she claimed that her freedom of movement was violated. The Court has argued that no right was violated because the national measure to restrict the refutation of a positive antigen COVID-19 test was reasonable. Indeed, for the Court, the measure was not arbitrary, it rather followed equitable standards such as scientific and technical arguments related to the sensitivity and specificity of the different types of COVID-19 tests. According to these expert opinions, the antigen test is highly specific (it does not deliver many false positives). Hence, there is no need for further tests when it comes back positive. Consequently, for the Court, the challenged measure abided by reasonable criteria. | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/costa-rica-supreme-court-justice-constitutional-chamber-no-09647-2021-05-14 | ||||
