“The applicant invokes no contraindication to his state of health or the slightest reason for which it would have neglected or refused to submit to the immunization obligation,” justified the judge of references in his Ordinance.
Le Monde
She disputed the suspension of his contract and the payment of his salary caused by his refusal to be vaccinated. Christelle C., an administrative assistant of the Public Hospital Group Nord-Essonne was dismissed by the Administrative Court of Versailles Wednesday, October 13. She challenged the suspension made at the end of September against her direction, who blames him for not respecting the vaccination obligation of hospitals.
Thousands of suspensions have been served on non-vaccinated health personnel from CIVID-19 since the entry into force of the vaccine obligation on September 15th. Since then to justify at least one injection, the employees of the hospitals and clinics, as well as the liberal caregivers and the paramedics will also have to leave on Friday atteste to a “full schema”, under penalty of suspension of their employment contract, without compensation.
The appeal filed before the judge of the referrals of the administrative justice, which makes it possible to rule in a few days, aimed at lifting the suspension, while waiting for another decision, later on the merits, explained the lawyer of The Hospital Employee, M e Rudyard Bessis, Monday in Figaro . It justified the urgency of a court decision by suspension of its salary, depriving it with income to live.
Rejection of the QPC
But the judge argues in his order of rejection that the employee “has placed himself in the emergency situation that she invokes”, because the law on the vaccination obligation of hospital “gave a deadline for Several weeks “. In addition, the order, “the applicant invokes no contraindication to his state of health or any reason for whom it would have neglected or refused to submit to the immunization obligation.”.
“The only fact that the agent was deprived of his remuneration because of the decision in question does not suffice to justify the existence of an emergency,” argues the court in a communiqué ,” While this loss of remuneration proceeded directly and exclusively of the refusal of the agent to submit to The vaccination obligation against CVIV-19 and that the agent did not provide any reason for this refusal “.
The Referral Judge rejects the priority issue of constitutionality (CQO) raised by the lawyer, who felt that the law on the immunization obligation was not in conformity with the Constitution.