HW Legal
The dispute
The claimant sought compensation from the State of nearly CZK 7.9 million. He stated that shortly after receiving his third dose of the vaccine in January 2022 he was hospitalised with chest pain and diagnosed with myocarditis. He claimed that he subsequently suffered a range of persistent difficulties, including marked fatigue, recurrent inflammation and digestive problems, with a lasting impact on his working and everyday life.
The lower courts dismissed the action. They held that the claimant's state of health did not reach the intensity of a "particularly serious injury to health" required by law, in particular given the relatively short hospitalisation and his stable condition on discharge.
The change in interpretation of "particularly serious injury to health"
The Supreme Court rejected this approach as unreasonably strict and contrary to the purpose of the legislation. In its view, the concept of a "particularly serious injury to health" cannot be construed so narrowly that only extreme cases, such as an immediate threat to life or complete loss of self-sufficiency, would qualify for compensation. Such an interpretation would make the right to compensation practically unattainable.
The Court stressed that, in the field of compensation following vaccination, this concept must be interpreted differently from other areas of law, for example from compensation payable to surviving family members under the Civil Code. What is decisive is not the length of hospitalisation, nor whether the patient was directly at risk of death. What matters is whether the vaccination led to medically demonstrable harm with a significant and lasting impact on the injured party's life, that is, whether it affected their capacity to work, their everyday functioning or their overall quality of life. According to the Court, such an assessment requires thorough evidence, including expert reports, which the lower courts did not sufficiently take into account.
The Supreme Court ruled after the Constitutional Court had rejected a proposal to annul the unclear passages of both "vaccination" acts, holding that interpreting these provisions in line with their meaning and purpose is a task for the ordinary courts.
The legal framework: Act No. 116/2020 Coll. and Act No. 569/2020 Coll.
The State's liability for harm caused by mandatory vaccination is established by Act No. 116/2020 Coll. Although COVID-19 vaccination is not mandatory, the compensation regime nonetheless applies to it: under Section 2 of Act No. 569/2020 Coll., Act No. 116/2020 Coll. applies mutatis mutandis to the assessment of harm and the extent of compensation. The claim is brought before the Ministry of Health, and having first made such a claim is a precondition for any subsequent action against the State.
What the decision means for injured parties
The decision departs from the previous strict practice, which rejected claims on the ground that the consequences did not reach a "particularly serious" character. Each case is now to be assessed individually and on the basis of expert evidence, according to the actual and long-term effects on the injured party's life. For people with persisting effects following vaccination, this improves their position both when bringing a claim before the Ministry and in any subsequent litigation.
Are you considering bringing a claim for compensation for harm following vaccination, or dealing with a refused application at the Ministry of Health? We would be glad to assess your situation and suggest the next steps. Do not hesitate to contact us.