It's no.
This Thursday, the summary judge of the Council of State rejected a request made by several individuals and an association - the Association for the Defense of the Rights and Freedoms of Former Covid-19 Patients - to lift the curfew for people fully vaccinated or cured of Covid-19.
"
Uncertainties remain as to the contagiousness
" of these individuals, and the police would have great difficulty in "
identifying these populations with certainty
" in the street, in order to check that only the vaccinated or cured people are well out, pleaded the judge.
Read also: Why the Council of State has just refused to deconfin immediately the vaccinated people
For the applicants, the travel restrictions in force are "
disproportionate [...] in that they apply generally without distinction between people who have contracted and are cured of Covid-19 or not, even then that numerous scientific studies show that these people develop antibodies in sufficient quantities to be immune to this disease for at least three to six months and probably for a year longer, and are therefore not contagious
”. In other words, it is useless to prevent these people from moving freely, the risk of contracting a severe form of the disease and their contagiousness being limited.
In a defense submitted to
Le Figaro
, the Minister of Solidarity and Health, Olivier Véran, replied that "
the health situation remains worrying
", that variants were circulating in the territory and that "
scientific knowledge remains limited on the risks existing transmission for vaccinated persons
”. Studies on the subject are too recent and small to be taken at face value, he pleaded. In addition, vaccination remains too little widespread in France, according to the minister, who emphasizes that the health authorities "
do not recommend [...] differentiation according to a vaccination schedule
".
Finally, the brief maintains that a differentiation between people would be a source of "
legal and practical difficulties
" and that it would risk "
stigmatizing people
" who are not at risk of contracting a serious form of the disease but who are not. not yet vaccinated.
The Minister therefore opposed the request.
Uncertainties about transmission from vaccinated people
For the summary judge, the suspension of the curfew for the people concerned "
can only take place taking into account the general interest
". It must also not “
unduly undermine the effectiveness of its implementation for the rest of the population
”. However, checking that people who came out during the curfew are either vaccinated or cured would be tricky and would require having a "
practical, personal, tamper-proof, accessible to anyone [...] and easily controllable
" means. check it. "
The government has undertaken work to this effect
", But these will not be completed until the summer, indicates the judge's decision. An immediate lifting of the curfew for some people would therefore create a "
disorder
", likely "
to overburden the police
".
The judge also pointed out the “
negative consequences for public health
” that an immediate lifting of these travel restrictions would have, while the health situation remains fragile. "
Uncertainties remain as to the real contagiousness of those vaccinated likely to be healthy carriers of the virus,
" he noted in an almost identical decision issued the same day. And lifting the curfew for vaccinated people risks causing a rush on vaccination centers to take advantage of this new freedom, which "would
penalize the most vulnerable people who must be vaccinated as a priority.
".
So many health and organizational elements that pushed the judge to reject the lifting of the curfew for people who are cured or fully vaccinated.
"It is an extensive notion of the precautionary principle, which seems unreasonable to me"
Master Henri de Lagarde
"
A vaccine / non-vaccinated person discrimination can only be implemented once a vaccine can be offered to everyone,"
analysis Henri de Lagarde, lawyer in public law in Paris.
This motivation is surprising. The vaccinated / unvaccinated discrimination is not based on an objectively different situation between these two categories, but on the existence of a reliable control instrument making it possible to discriminate effectively between these two categories
”, he notes. And this, whereas currently, a certificate written by the individual is enough to justify an exit during the curfew. "
This self-certificate is not forgery-proof, nor easily verifiable in its merits
", underlines the lawyer.
The argument on the uncertainties linked to the transmission of the virus by vaccinated people does not convince the lawyer either. “
The problem is to
quantify the slightest contagiousness
, does it amount to 50%? 95%? We will not have these answers for several years. For the minister, this justifies maintaining the curfew. But the virus continues to mutate perpetually, we will have new variants in the future, and will vaccines be as effective, will they reduce contagion as much? It is an extensive notion of the precautionary principle, which seems unreasonable to me
, ”he explains.
This time again, the judge preferred the readability of the standard and its simplicity, without however opposing in his decision the principle of discrimination between vaccinated individuals and others. A position that recalls its decision not to lift the containment for vaccinated people, in early April. At the time, an octogenarian from Ile-de-France vaccinated against Covid-19 asked to no longer be subjected to confinement, but his request had been rejected.
