In a new ruling, the Czech Supreme Court has expanded the scope for compensation for people whose health was impaired following a COVID-19 vaccination. The right to compensation will not be limited to extreme cases, such as an immediate threat to life or a complete loss of self-sufficiency.
In the ruling, which was published today, the court also emphasised the need for an individual expert assessment of each claim filed.
“The decisive factor is whether the vaccination led to medically demonstrable harm that has a significant and long-term impact on the victim’s life, that is, for example, limits their ability to work, daily functioning, or quality of life. Such an assessment requires thorough evidence, including expert opinions, which the lower courts failed to provide,” said Supreme Court spokesperson Gabriela Tomickova.
The ruling specifically concerns a man who developed myocarditis, or inflammation of the heart muscle, in 2022, two weeks after receiving his third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine. He was treated repeatedly at Horovice Hospital and also at Na Homolce Hospital in Prague. He had no long-term health issues prior to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
In his lawsuit, he sought nearly CZK 8 million, primarily as compensation for reduced social function, as well as for pain, suffering and lost wages. The District Court for Prague 2 dismissed the lawsuit. It noted that, according to medical reports, the man was discharged to home care in generally good condition; therefore, the condition of “particularly serious” health impacts, which could include severe disability or comatose states, was not met.
The man was also unsuccessful with his appeal to the Municipal Court in Prague. He then filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court, which stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the Constitutional Court. It proposed repealing part of the “lex COVID” as well as part of the law on compensation for harm caused by mandatory vaccination. It pointed out, on the one hand, the contradiction between the two laws, and on the other, interpretive ambiguities, grammatically incorrect and illogical wording, and the strictness of the legal provisions.
According to the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court should have struck down the words “particularly serious” in both laws. The courts would then be able to assess the health consequences of vaccination in each case and determine fair compensation. However, the Constitutional Court justices concluded that an intervention in the legislation was not necessary, as it can be interpreted in accordance with the constitutional order and with regard to the circumstances of individual cases. The Supreme Court therefore rejected the proposal, but its ruling left room for a more lenient interpretation, which the Supreme Court has now also applied. The District Court for Prague 2 will now rule again.
