Décision de justice

The application for exemption from the vaccine pass on inter-regional public transport to attend all administrative and judicial appointments is dismissed

Passer la navigation de l'article pour arriver après Passer la navigation de l'article pour arriver avant
Passer le partage de l'article pour arriver après
Passer le partage de l'article pour arriver avant

Two lawyers submitted an urgent application to the Conseil d’État, asking it to rule that the vaccine pass was no longer compulsory on long-distance inter-regional public transport for someone travelling in response to a judicial or administrative summons, or for an appointment with a lawyer. The urgent applications judge held that the law provided for the possibility of requiring a vaccine pass to travel on inter-regional public transport if the health situation justified it, except “in an emergency making it impossible to obtain the requisite documentation”. The judge found that the pass could not be demanded if the summons or appointment had been set within a time frame that prevented the person concerned from completing a full course of vaccinations. If the time frame was longer, however, both the individual concerned and their lawyer should either obtain a vaccine pass within the time allowed, or make other travel arrangements. The urgent applications judge therefore rejected the application for exemption from the vaccine pass on long-distance inter-regional travel in response to a judicial or administrative summons.

Since 24 January, it has been compulsory to provide evidence of full vaccination, a certificate of contraindication to vaccination or a certificate of recovery for long-distance inter-regional travel by train or plane, except in the case of pressing family or health reasons or “in an emergency making it impossible to obtain the requisite documentation”.

Two lawyers applied to the Conseil d’État to ask for a suspension of the obligation, which in their opinion, prevents unvaccinated individuals from attending an appointment with a law officer or responding to a summons by a judicial or administrative authority, and breaches several fundamental freedoms, including the right to appeal and the right to a fair trial.

The urgent applications judge held that a summons by a judicial or administrative authority or an appointment with a lawyer that could not be held remotely or deferred could be classed as emergencies “making it impossible to obtain the requisite documentation” where the summons or appointment were scheduled within a time frame shorter than that required to complete a full course of vaccinations, as provided by the law. This is currently three to four weeks for mRNA vaccines. Conversely, the judge held that a person required to respond to a summons from the authorities or attend an appointment with their lawyer could not claim an emergency if the time available was sufficient either to get their vaccinations or to make alternative travel arrangements.

Finally, the judge noted that the epidemic remained at a very high level and that the vaccine pass provided protection for other users of long-distance transport.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

-> Read the decision n°460801-461012