On 30-11-2021 at 23:20 the Ministry of Health submitted an irrelevant and overdue amendment to another piece of legislation. An extensive article (more than 2 pages long) makes vaccination mandatory for those born before 31.12.1961, and provides for a monthly fine for non-compliance, collected through the Independent Public Revenue Authority. The proceeds from these fines are expected to be used to strengthen the National Health System.
This amendment was voted into law on 1-12-2021 as Article 24 of law 4865/2021. A “legislative improvement” was made in the specific amendment before the law was finalized (see p. 42 of the law after the vote and pp. 51-52 of the minutes) adding the phrase “c) By decision of the Minister of Health , the date of the first sub-paragraph of par. 1 may be modified, in order for the present to apply to natural persons who reach the age of sixty after 31.12.2021.”
Apart from the fact that in this case the rules of good legislation were not observed both regarding the deadline for submission and the content of the amendment, the rules set by the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament (Article 104 paragraph 5) and the Manual of Legislative Methodology (pp. 70 and 78) on the content of ‘legislative improvements’ also seem to have been violated. This is because the above addition, which was characterized as a legislative improvement, does not seek to make a correction to the text or grammar. On the contrary, it seems to introduce a substantially new rule, giving the Minister of Health the opportunity to extend the application of this article, and therefore the imposition of fines, to other persons who were born after the specified date of 31-12-1961 with the issuance of only a ministerial decision, and therefore without the need for a further vote by Parliament.
In addition to the above, the substantive content of this amendment also raises concerns, with opposing views being expressed both inside and outside Parliament on the constitutionality of the measure.
In the context of the debate of the bill in the Parliament, the amendment in question was commented upon extensively (see pages 8-9, 12-13, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-27, 32-51 , 53 of the minutes of the Parliament).
On the one hand, the opposition pointed out that the government was contradicting itself, having been firmly against compulsory vaccination in the past (see this article). They also raised possible issues of conflict with the Constitution, such as conflict with the principles of equality and proportionality, the right of self-determination and the autonomy of the individual as well as the right to be heard. Special reference was also made to the general underfunding and weakening of the National Health System. On the other hand, the Government opined that the provision was both proportionate and constitutional; supported by scientific data and the need to preserve human life and public health in the context of the pandemic.
It is worth mentioning here that in September 2021, the Secretary-General of MeRA25 had presented to Parliament as a thought experiment the hypothetical scenario of the imposition of such a fine and had set out the problems that would arise from such a decision. The measure that has now been passed into law bears a strong resemblance to this thought experiment.
The measures were the subject of much debate outside of Parliament as well. Many reactions put particular emphasis on the issue of the fine, and opinions emerged on both sides of the debate of whether or not the measure was constitutional (see among others 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). Serious concerns were expressed about the legality and effectiveness of the measure (see indicatively 1, 2, 3) as well as the fact that such a provision sets a dangerous precedent, enabling similar sanctions in the future for other diseases or groups of people (1, 2).
Although making vaccination compulsory and imposing fines for non-compliance is a method followed in other European countries, it is still a measure that raises concerns. This is because in every case where such a measure is envisaged, strong arguments can be offered both for and against its constitutionality. However, the argument that the measure is constitutional is usually prefaced by an element of doubt, acknowledging that in some cases the measure may ultimately be deemed unconstitutional. Of course, it is only the Greek courts that can ultimately rule on the issue, which, in the fullness of time, they will. (1, 2).
Given the delicacy of the issue and the serious consequences that it will have for citizens, it seems to be a question that should have been considered and discussed in more detail by the Government and the Parliament. If the provision in question had been put to a vote by the Ministry of Health not in the form of an amendment but instead within a bill of its own, the issue could have been considered in detail by the relevant legislative committees and the Scientific Service of the Parliament, etc. During 2021 the Ministry of Health submitted a total of 7 legislative bills, 2 of which concerned the issue of pandemic management. However, the Ministry chose to submit the provision through an irrelevant and overdue amendment. The (now established) tactic of passing such measures using this procedure is problematic in any case, no matter how necessary the provisions introduced.
Bank Account number: 1100 0232 0016 560
IBAN: GR56 0140 1100 1100 0232 0016 560
BIC: CRBAGRAA
In a time where the very foundations of democracy are gradually being eroded by the rise of extreme nationalism, alt-right movements, the spread of disinformation and corporate capture, the efforts of organisations such as Vouliwatch are more relevant than ever.
We rely on the generosity of each and every one of you to continue with our efforts for more transparency and accounta
By financially supporting Vouliwatch you support our litigation strategy, our campaigns for transparency and accountability in the political system, the development of new civic tech tools, our research projects and last but not least our impartial and accurate
