Despite the burning news about both the revelations of a Pfizer executive, who publicly acknowledged during a session in the European Parliament that the vaccine had never been tested on the transmission of the virus , and the increasing amount of lawsuits around the world againts the laboratories by victims of side effects, the Court of Cassation seems to have chosen the French « cultural exception ».
Therefore, just as the Chernobyl cloud, the covid-related vaccination health scandals seem to stop at the border.
Seized of a Priority Constitutionnality Issue (« PCI ») againts legal provisions applying vaccination obligation for certain employees, the Court ruled in these terms :
« 9. Indeed, in the first place, the legislator, by adopting the disputed provisions, intended, with regard to the dynamics of the epidemic, the foreseeable rhythm of the vaccination campaign, the still incomplete level of vaccination coverage of certain health professionals and the appearance of new, more contagious variants of the virus, in the light of scientific and technical knowledge, to allow the public authorities to take measures aimed at combating the spread of the covid-19 epidemic by the recourse to vaccination, and guarantee the proper functioning of public hospital services thanks to the protection offered by the available vaccines and protect, by the effect of the least transmission of the virus by vaccinated persons, the health of patients who were hospitalized there continuing thus the constitutional value objective of health protection ».
Pinch yourself to believe it, the above statement comes from the national supreme Court : indeed, still in July 2023, they keep arguing about the effect of the Pfizer serum on the transmission of the virus to justify of the alleged validity of a vaccination obligation.
What about the side effects ?
The reader can only appreciate the Court’s deafening silence about that matter, yet duly raised inside the PCI :
« 1°/ Do the articles 12 and 14, II of law n° 2021-1040 of August 5, 2021, providing for the suspension of the employment contract for certain employees refusing to submit to the vaccination obligation against covid 19, infringe the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, in particular the principle of health protection guaranteed by the eleventh paragraph of the Preamble to the Constitution of 1946, from the moment that they impose vaccination with products which are only in experimental phase and whose absence of dangerousness has not been established, and to the principle of equality before the law guaranteed by article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, in that they provide for a vaccination obligation only for certain people when vaccines do not stop the transmission of the covid 19 virus » ?
The Court of Cassation seems to have preferred dodging the issue, unlike the Council of State which, in a decision of December 29, 2022, had gone so far as to recommend the vaccine to pregnant women ... .
Last, what about the mask-wearing obligation ?
In a previous article, we mentioned another PCI, this time in connection with the obligation to wear a mask under penalty of a fine (See this article : Covid-19 : was the mask-wearing obligation unconstitutional during all that time).
Since the Court explains to us that the vaccine makes it possible to hinder the transmission of the virus, will it go to the end of its own logic by admitting the unconstitutionality of the obligation to wear a mask, or will it let its litigants enjoy a « double protection » made compulsory ?
The Court will tell us after the audience on August 9.