federal court ruling
Compulsory Covid testing for unvaccinated health workers was legal
The compulsory Covid test for unvaccinated staff in Ticino health and social facilities, which has since been lifted, was permitted. The Federal Supreme Court decided this and dismissed the complaints of 32 private individuals.
1/5
The compulsory Covid test for unvaccinated staff in Ticino health and social facilities, which has since been lifted, was permitted.
In a judgment published on Friday, the Federal Supreme Court wrote that the obligation to test health workers without a Covid certificate, issued by the Ticino State Council in September 2021, was legal.
The measure represents unequal treatment compared to vaccinated or recovered people. The obligation to test is also an encroachment on personal freedom and the right to respect for private life.
action can be justified
However, the Federal Supreme Court argues that the measure can be justified. With the Epidemics Act, the necessary legal basis existed. In addition, there was a public interest in protecting particularly vulnerable people in the relevant facilities.
At the time of the decree, it was assumed that vaccinated people could also transmit the corona virus, but that they were less likely to transmit the virus. The complainants claimed that all staff should undergo regular tests.
Compulsory testing suitable and necessary
The Federal Supreme Court states that the authorities should not have pursued a zero-risk strategy. Rather, it was their task to create an “acceptable” risk with appropriate measures, which was proportionate.
The measure was also suitable and necessary – a further prerequisite for the admissibility of an encroachment on fundamental rights. The authority chose a differentiated approach and created an alternative for employees without a Covid certificate.
Tests were free
After all, those affected were not prevented from accessing their jobs or subjected to any further obligations. The tests were also free.
The measure was lifted again on April 1, 2022. Nevertheless, the Federal Supreme Court decided on the appeal because a similar question could arise again in the future and then again not be decided in time. (SDA)