Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:442
Date: 2025-06-12
Language of the case: Estonian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Public health;Social Policy;Fundamental rights;Charter of Fundamental Rights
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Estonia

summary of Estonia’s national legal 
framework on the matter at issue and the provisions of the relevant directives (I), 
then briefly examines the interference with physical integrity caused by the 
vaccination requirement (II) and, finally, discusses the parties’ arguments and the 
issues raised (III). 
I 
11. Unlike those of many other Member States, neither the Estonian legislature 
nor the Government of the Republic of Estonia has adopted legislation 
determining the sectors or occupations in which employment requires vaccination 
against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Employers’ obligations with regard to the 
suppression of communicable diseases are regulated in the NETS. The health and 
safety at work provisions, the rights and obligations of employers and workers in 
the creation and maintenance of a safe working environment and the organisation 
of health and safety at work are chiefly set out in the TTOS, while the Biological 
Hazards Regulation enacted on the basis of the TTOS provides, among other 
things, for the option of worker vaccination as a measure for reducing risks to 
health. 
11.1. Under Paragraph 24(1) to (4) of the NETS, employers are required to create 
working conditions which are as safe from infection as possible for employees 
working in areas where there is a risk of becoming infected with a communicable 
disease, ensure that the requirements established for safety from infection are met 
at the workplace, ensure that employees working in areas where there is a risk of 
becoming infected with a communicable disease are immunised and, if necessary, 
provided with preventive treatment and permit employees to undergo medical 
examinations for the detection of communicable diseases or carrier states and to 
receive emergency immunisations during working hours. 
11.2. Employers must ensure that employees’ working conditions accord with 
health and safety at work provisions in all work-related situations 
(Paragraph 28(2)(6) of the TLS, read in conjunction with the first sentence of 
Paragraph 12(1) of the TTOS). To that end, Paragraph 13 of the TTOS defines the 
rights and obligations of employers (subparagraph (1)) and authorises employers 
TALLINNA LINN 
 
7 
to apply more stringent rules in their undertaking than those prescribed by health 
and safety at work legislation (subparagraph (2)). In particular, employers are 
required to identify the risks related to the working environment, to assess the 
risks to the health and safety of workers and to take measures to prevent and 
reduce risks to workers’ health (Paragraphs 13(1)(3) and 134(1) and (2) of the 
TTOS). Under Paragraph 2(1) of the TTOS, occupational health protection within 
the meaning of that law includes the application of medical measures to prevent 
damage to the health of employees. 
11.3. Employers must implement measures to provide protection from biological 
hazards present in a workplace, such as viruses causing communicable diseases, 
taking into account the infectiousness of the hazard (Paragraph 8(2) of the TTOS). 
Under Paragraph 8(3) of the TTOS, the occupational health and safety 
requirements for working environments affected by biological hazards are 
established by the Government of the Republic [of Estonia]. Under 
Paragraph 6(2)(7) of the Biological Hazards Regulation, enacted on the basis of 
that provision, if the findings of its risk assessment show that the working 
environment is affected by biological hazards, the employer must prevent risks to 
the health of workers or minimise the risk to health as far as possible, in particular 
by ensuring that workers exposed to biological hazards against which there is an 
effective vaccine can be vaccinated. Under Paragraph 6(2)(11) of that regulation, 
which entered into force on 17 August 2021, employers are required to ensure that 
there is no risk of transmission by workers who come into contact with other 
persons in the event of the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the workplace; this 
can be done, in particular, by ensuring that workers are vaccinated against 
COVID-19, by checking SARS-CoV-2 status passes or by providing for SARS-
CoV-2 testing of workers. With effect from 15 March 2022, the abovementioned 
provision was supplemented by an employer’s right to check the certificate 
attesting to the worker’s recovery from COVID-19. Paragraph 24(3) of the NETS 
likewise requires employers to ensure that employees working in areas where 
there is a risk of becoming infected with a communicable disease are immunised 
and, if necessary, provided with preventive treatment. 
11.4. In addition, employers and employees are required by law to cooperate with 
a view to ensuring a safe working environment (Paragraph 12(3) of the TTOS). 
One of the employees’ obligations in that regard is to contribute to the creation of 
a safe working environment by observing the occupational health and safety 
requirements (Paragraph 14(1)(1) of the TTOS). 
12. In particular, the TTOS transposed Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the 
introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of 
workers at work (‘the Framework Directive’) and Directive 2000/54/EC of the 
European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of workers from risks 
related to exposure to biological agents at work (‘the Biological Agents 
Directive’). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 3. 2024 – CASE C-219/24 
 
8  
12.1. The Framework Directive lays down general principles for the improvement 
of the safety and health of workers at work without prejudice to national and 
Community provisions which are more favourable to protection of the safety and 
health of workers at work (Article 1). Under Articles 6(1) and 9(1)(a) and (b) of 
the Framework Directive, within the context of their responsibilities, employers 
are to take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers 
and to decide, for example, on the implementation of the protective measures and 
the use of the protective equipment necessitated by particular risks. 
12.2. According to recital 8 of the Biological Agents Directive, preventive 
measures should be taken for the protection of the health and safety of workers 
exposed to biological agents, and, in accordance with its Article 1(1), the directive 
lays down particular minimum provisions for the protection of workers and their 
health. Under Article 3 of the Biological Agents Directive, workers’ exposure to 
biological agents must be determined in order to make it possible to assess any 
risk to the workers’ health or safety and to lay down the measures to be taken. The 
assessment should identify those workers for whom special protective measures 
may be required, and, when necessary, effective vaccines should be made 
available for those workers who are not already immune to the biological agent to 
which they are exposed or are likely to be exposed. When employers make 
vaccines available, they should take account of the recommended code of practice 
set out in Annex VII to the directive (Article 14(3)). 
12.3. Under points 1 and 2 of Annex VII to the Biological Agents Directive, 
where there is a risk to the health and safety of workers due to their exposure to 
biological agents for which effective vaccines exist, their employers should offer 
them vaccination, to be carried out in accordance with national law and/or 
practice, and the workers are to be informed of the benefits and drawbacks of both 
vaccination and non-vaccination. The foregoing applies to the activities specified 
in the indicative list set out in Annex I to the directive, particularly to work in 
healthcare (Article 4(2) and point 4 of Annex I). Commission Directive 
(EU) 2020/739 amended Annex III to the Biological Agents Directive by adding 
SARS-CoV-2 to the list of biological agents known to infect humans. 
II 
13. Under Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union (2016/C 202/02), everyone has the right to respect for his or her physical 
and mental integrity; in the fields of medicine and biology, Article 3 prescribes, in 
particular, respect for the free and informed consent of the person concerned, 
according to the procedures laid down by law (Article 3(2)(a)). Under 
Article 31(1) of the Charter, every worker has the right to working conditions 
which respect his or her health, safety and dignity. Under Article 52(1) of the 
Charter, any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by 
the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights 
and freedoms. Subject to the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made 
TALLINNA LINN 
 
9 
only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest 
recognised by the Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others. 
14. Relying on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (‘the 
ECtHR’), the Riigikohus has repeatedly held that both direct and indirect 
vaccination requirements interfere with a person’s physical integrity. 
Physical integrity is primarily protected as part of everyone’s entitlement to 
inviolability of his or her private and family life under Paragraph 26 of the 
Põhiseadus (Estonian Constitution; ‘the PS’), Article 8 of the Convention for the 
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the ECtHR judgment 
in Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy (CE:ECHR:2015:0127JUD002535812), 
§ 159. The risks associated with vaccines are detrimental to the right to protection 
of health guaranteed by Paragraph 28(1) of the PS and may be fatal in extreme 
cases (Paragraph 16 of the PS). The profundity of the interference was not 
diminished by the fact that it served secondarily to protect those affected by the 
restrictions. The imposition of vaccination requirements to protect the health of a 
person with legal capacity without affecting the rights of other persons or the 
public interest, for instance by placing a burden on hospitals, would not be 
legitimate in a liberal democratic state and would not be consistent with the 
principle of human dignity (RKHKm [order of the Administrative Chamber of the 
Riigikohus] of 25 November 2021, ref. 3-21-2241/11, paragraphs 20-22, and 
RKPSJVKo [judgment of the Constitutional Review Chamber of the Riigikohus] 
of 31 October 2022, ref. 5-22-4/13, paragraph 48). However, both the Riigikohus 
and the ECtHR found that the vaccination requirement could be justified, for 
example, by the need to protect public health (RKHKm of 25 November 2021, 
ref. 3-21-2241/11, paragraph 36, and judgment of the ECtHR in Vavřička and 
Others v. the Czech Republic (CE:ECHR:2021:0408JUD004762113), §§ 281 
to 284. 
15. Since the defendant introduced the requirement of vaccination as a condition 
of employment in the emergency medical service and terminated the applicants’ 
employment contracts on the ground that the applicants had not furnished 
evidence of vaccination against the SARS-CoV-2 virus or a contraindication of 
such vaccination, what is at issue here is at least an indirect vaccination 
requirement (see also RKHKm of 25 November 2021, ref. 3-21-2241/11, 
paragraph 20 et seq., and judgment of the ECtHR in Vavřička and Others v. the 
Czech Republic (CE:ECHR:2021:0408JUD004762113), §§ 258 to 260). 
III 
16. In its appeal, the defendant relies on the fact that the Administrative 
Chamber of the Riigikohus did not rule out the possibility that a vaccination 
requirement might be introduced on the basis of a law by means of secondary 
legislation. When assessing the legal basis of a vaccination requirement in the 
armed forces, the Administrative Chamber took the view that, for persons 
involved in the performance of public duties in the public service and through 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 3. 2024 – CASE C-219/24 
 
10  
other channels, the introduction of a vaccination requirement by means of a legal 
act adopted on the basis of Paragraph 13(2) of the TTOS and Paragraph 6(2)(11) 
of the Biological Hazards Regulation, such as an internal administrative act, could 
be envisaged (RKHKm of 25 November 2021, ref. 3-21-2241/11, paragraphs 23 
and 24 and the case-law cited therein). The defendant emphasises that the 
emergency medical service provides a vital service and that maintaining its 
capacity to act and react is similar in importance to guaranteeing the essential 
functions of the state, such as national defence. The defendant therefore considers 
that it was entitled to impose the vaccination requirement unilaterally. 
17. In response, the applicants argue that the defendant could not introduce the 
vaccination requirement without their consent since, in an employment 
relationship governed by private law, an employment contract may be amended 
only by agreement between the parties (Article 12 of the TLS). 
18. Employment law forms part of the law of contract governed by the law of 
obligations (Paragraph 1(1) of the Võlaõigusseadus [Law of Obligations Act; ‘the 
VÕS’] and Paragraph 1(3) of the TLS), in which the principle applies that 
concluded contracts must be honoured (pacta sunt servanda). This is expressed in 
Paragraph 12 of the TLS, which states that an employment contract may be 
amended only by agreement between the parties. The terms of an employment 
contract which must be agreed are those which are essential to the parties and 
which, by having been agreed, warrant the assessment that an employment 
contract has been concluded (job description, remuneration, place of work, 
working hours, etc.) (Paragraph 4(1) of the TLS and Paragraph 9(1) of the VÕS). 
Article 12 of the TLS therefore applies in particular to any amendments to those 
terms. However, the TLS provides for a number of exceptions allowing the 
employer to amend the terms agreed in the employment contract without the 
worker’s consent, such as the content of the employee’s work (Paragraph 17(4) of 
the TLS), the organisation of working time (Paragraph 47(4) of the TLS) and the 
amount of remuneration (Paragraph 37(1) of the TLS). 
19. Although the employer’s duty of protection towards the employee is based 
on a contract concluded between the parties, which requires them to cooperate 
(see, for example, Paragraph 28(2)(6) of the TLS and the first sentence of 
Paragraph 12(1) of the TTOS), the occupational health and safety provisions stem 
from legal acts. The occupational health and safety requirements, including more 
stringent provisions than those prescribed by legislation, are established by the 
employer (Paragraph 13 of the TTOS). 
20. In the present case, after conducting a risk assessment, the defendant ordered 
the applicants to have themselves vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus on 
the basis of the occupational health and safety provisions which transpose the 
Framework Directive and the Biological Agents Directive. When deliberating on 
the case, the Chamber had doubts as to whether a national provision which 
permits employers to require their employees, as a condition for continued 
employment, to undergo vaccination without having given their consent is 
TALLINNA LINN 
 
11 
consistent with the Framework Directive and the Biological Agents Directive and 
with the right to integrity of the person enshrined in Article 3 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights. 
21. On the one hand, the scope for vaccination of workers in order to ensure 
their health and safety at work is governed by the Biological Agents Directive, 
from Article 14(3) and Annex VII of which it may be concluded that vaccination 
should be optional for workers and that the employer is required only to guarantee 
the possibility of vaccination and to inform workers of the benefits and drawbacks 
of vaccination and non-vaccination. Article 3(2)(a) of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights also indicates that medical interventions affecting a person’s physical 
integrity are permitted only with the voluntary consent of the person concerned. 
On the other hand, it is clear from both Article 1(3) of the Framework Directive 
and Article 1(1) of the Biological Agents Directive that those directives lay down 
only minimum requirements for health and safety at work and do not exclude the 
application of provisions which are more favourable to protection of the safety 
and health of workers at work. It is also possible, therefore, to interpret the right of 
employers to require their employees without their consent to undergo vaccination 
as a potential measure for the protection of health and safety at work which is 
more favourable to protection of workers’ health and safety. For the reasons set 
out above, the Chamber, when deliberating on the case, had doubts as to whether 
the provisions of the Framework Directive and the Biological Agents Directive, 
read in the light of the principles of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, supported 
the view that an employer of any worker exposed to biological agents was entitled 
to require his or her vaccination, in other words to introduce a vaccination 
requirement into an existing employment relationship without the worker’s 
consent, in order to ensure the protection of health and safety at work. 
22. In the view of the Chamber, the lawfulness of the premature termination of 
the applicants’ employment contracts and of the decision on the related claims for 
compensation cannot be assessed without waiting for the Court to state its position 
on the interpretation of the Framework Directive and the Biological Agents 
Directive. In the view of the Chamber, if the imposition of a vaccination 
requirement by means of occupational health provisions were contrary to the 
directives, the TTOS and the Biological Hazards Regulation enacted by the 
Government of the Republic of Estonia would have to be interpreted, in 
accordance with the directives, as not authorising employers to introduce a 
vaccination requirement for workers unilaterally, which would mean that the 
termination of the applicants’ employment contracts had no legal basis. 
23. Although the Biological Agents Directive lays down minimum requirements 
for the protection of workers and, in accordance with Annex VII to that directive, 
vaccination is carried out in accordance with national legislation and/or practice, 
and employers may, under Estonian law, lay down more stringent rules than those 
prescribed by the provisions of legal acts governing occupational health and 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 12. 3. 2024 – CASE C-219/24 
 
12  
safety, this does not eliminate the need for the Riigikohus to obtain clarity 
regarding the interpretation of the directives. 
[…]