Over a year after the event and long after Belgium's collective attempts to forget three years of the Covid-19 pandemic and accompanying measures, a Walloon court now ruled that the much-contested extension of the Covid Safe Ticket (CST) in January 2022 was indeed illegal.
The CST was rolled out in Wallonia on 1 November 2021 – requiring people to provide proof of vaccination, a negative Covid-19 test, or a recovery certificate to gain access to bars, cultural venues and sports halls, for example – and was extended for another three months in January 2022.
But a court has now ruled that this extension infringed upon people's fundamental rights and freedoms, and was imposed without any objective reason. The Namur Court of First Instance already condemned Wallonia's extension of the CST in March 2022, but in the event the measure was shelved as Belgium switched to 'code yellow' on the Covid-19 barometer.
Yet the Walloon Government still appealed against the extension.
Impeding rights and freedoms
The Liège Court of Appeal confirmed all the grievances of which the CST was accused, meaning that the automatic renewal of the CST for three months on 14 January 2022 was illegal.
In its ruling, the court found that the Walloon region had failed to ensure that the CST was relevant to achieving the objectives of reducing the spread of the disease, reducing hospital pressure (which was already down at the time) and avoiding further containment. It also failed to ensure that the measure was proportionate, meaning that it had more advantages than disadvantages, which "constitutes a breach of the GDPR."
Related News
- Covid Safe Ticket could be put back on the table, says Belgian health minister
- Over 6.5 million Belgians use Itsme app 'thanks to Covid Safe Ticket'
The decision to extend the CST for another three months did "not refer to any scientific assessment" at the time and was based on obsolete epidemiological data (some dating back to 29 September 2021), the court ruled.
Given the fact that the CST constituted "a severe impediment to rights and freedoms," an impact assessment was necessary. Additionally, the judge added that the discrimination between 'vaccinated' and 'non-vaccinated' that the measure created did not appear to be "reasonably justified" either.
