Virginie de Araújo-Recchia is a lawyer at the Paris Bar Associaltion. She has been practising for over 24 years and is also the author of several books that are essential for understanding the current crisis. Although she is very discreet (not to say overly so) in the media, her conferences bear witness to her commitment and the very high quality of her work. Her absolute integrity and deep commitment to the legal profession make her a hero in a world ravaged by greed, the mad rush to fame and the loss of our fundamental values.
“The lawyer is a knight in shining armour, like the military knights, because he too fights to defend the poor and humiliated, the figures of Jesus Christ.
“I swear that, as a lawyer, I will perform my duties with dignity, conscience, independence, probity and humanity.
Source: Dépêche Citoyennes, 07 June 2025
Virginie de Araújo-Recchia has defended many of the victims of this ‘crisis’, particularly the suspended carers. On 3 June 2025, she lodged an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights, which deserves to be highlighted for its in-depth analysis of the aberrations, the illegality of the measures taken and the violations of human dignity. French law and European and international treaties have been flouted, and the freedom and dignity of citizens have been violated. His appeal allows us to take stock of the situation and reconciles us with a right that many of us no longer believe in. Here’s what it says, confirming the harm suffered by all those who have been subject to compulsory vaccination, and by extension all members of the public.
Each of the States belonging to Europe could implement the “derogation clause” in order to derogate from certain measures imposed by the Convention concerning the state of health emergency by unilateral and sovereign decision. This was not the case for France. De facto, the measures taken during the crisis therefore remained subject to the ‘normal’ control of conventionality by the European Court of Human Rights, a control that is stricter than those taken under formal derogation.
The principle of proportionality is an obligation formalised at European and national level, which renders unlawful measures taken by way of derogation from fundamental rights that are not, even in an emergency, proportionate to an exceptional danger. The individual is protected from arbitrariness by European control of the “overriding social need” for the measure and its proportionality with the legitimate aim pursued. Restrictions on fundamental freedoms must be as limited as possible, and the grounds must be relevant and sufficient.
The suspension of the carers was neither limited in time nor accompanied by guarantees and was therefore clearly disproportionate. There was indeed a violation of the Convention.
Every individual has the right to a fair trial, but the suspension was based on a unilateral administrative act by which the French State considered the refusal to vaccinate to be a breach of professional duty. This ‘breach’ should have resulted in the application of disciplinary law, which is a matter of public policy. In other words, suspension of the author by the authority, convening of a disciplinary board, maintenance of salary, examination of the particular situation and settlement of the situation within 4 months. A suspension is a provisional protective measure with no punitive intent, whereas the suspension or reduction of salary is disciplinary in nature.
Moreover, a hospital had no legal obligation to proceed in this way; other solutions were possible, such as a lay-off, resignation or dismissal, which would have enabled the suspended healthcare worker to continue to support himself. This suspension violated the adversarial principle and the general principle of employment law. The infringement of rights and freedoms was manifest. The decision was illegal because the suspension was for an indefinite period and in breach of the Labour Code, which prohibits any financial penalty as a general principle, and international conventions signed by France. It is punitive because the carer was deprived of any means of subsistence, even though it was the employer who refused to assign him work.
A labour court also considered that this vaccination was part of a clinical trial and that it involved experimental medicines. Under European law, this implies free and informed consent.
The principles of equality and non-discrimination were also flouted. The fact that those vaccinated remained contaminated even though they were deemed to be “less contaminated” does not justify the discrimination against those not vaccinated. The French Scientific Council and the Council of State had confirmed that vaccination could not reduce or eliminate the risk of viral sharing. Finally, the Council of Europe stipulated that no one should be pressured to be vaccinated.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects individuals against arbitrary interference with their liberty and security, even if the protective measures are adopted in the interests of the person for whom they are intended. Refusal to submit to compulsory vaccination could lead to criminal or disciplinary sanctions with extremely violent social, economic, professional and human consequences, depriving them of free and informed consent.
The personal freedoms of carers have been violated.
The European Convention on Human Rights stipulates a right to life and obliges states to take all necessary measures to ensure this right. The refusal of care entails the responsibility of the state. Compulsory vaccination of a product in the experimental phase without any guarantee of its long-term safety presented a greater risk to life and health than contamination with SARS-CoV-2.
“The Hippocratic Oath teaches a fundamental truth for all time: respect for life, just as “the principle of the Golden Rule teaches a morality and an ethic that is good from all eternity and for all time”.
The European Convention on Human Rights protects the right not only to private and family life, but also to social privacy and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Public authorities may not arbitrarily interfere in the private sphere of individuals, let alone a person’s body. The deprivation of professional continuity undermined the personal development and psychological health of the suspended carers.
The Court confirmed that compulsory vaccination imposes 5 conditions:
- that it has existed for many years;
- the disease in question is serious;
- the side effects are known and the benefit-risk ratio is largely favourable;
- the consequences of non-vaccination are temporary and limited;
- there is no physical constraint to carry out the vaccination.
None of these conditions are met for this experimental product, which does not meet the definition of a vaccine. As this is a gene therapy whose mechanisms of action, safety and efficacy are very poorly understood, there is no provision for making this treatment compulsory. As confirmed by the European Parliament, a component of a medicinal product cannot be used for less than 10 years.
Virginie de Araújo-Recchia points out that :
- Inoculation of gene therapies against SARS-CoV-2 accounts for 25% of serious adverse reactions out of 193,934 cases reported up to1 June 2023. Pharmacovigilance reports represent 1 to 10% of actual harmful effects.
- The authorities knew as early as 2020 that there were potentially serious effects from the vaccines, that it had not been proven that they protected against serious forms of the disease, did not prevent transmission or infection, and that the 50% efficacy threshold required for marketing had not been met.
- Professor Raoult had clearly pointed out that, because of the mutations in this virus, a vaccine had no chance of working against SARS-CoV-2.
- Christine Cotton, an expert biostatistician, pointed out the serious shortcomings of clinical trials, which bordered on fraud.
- Medical ethics require that a clinical trial be stopped in the event of death.
- The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights states that the interest and well-being of the individual must take precedence over the sole interest of science, society or the community. The end does not justify the means.
- The risk involved must not be greater than the problem to be solved.
- No other treatment is available.
- A doctor must make a medical choice taking into account the risks, advances in science, less risky alternatives and any contraindications.
- SARS-CoV-2 is not recognised as a serious disease and therefore does not justify compulsory vaccination.
Thus, the French State was not authorised to force a group of citizens, on the pretext of national solidarity, to enter the clinical trial of an unproven product, by suspending their professional activity and depriving them of all means of subsistence. It was the rejection of more effective conventional therapies by health authorities and agencies that enabled these “vaccines” against SARS-CoV-2 to be conditionally authorised for the market, a disease whose lethality is estimated at 0.5% in France and which mainly affects elderly people who are immunocompromised or have pre-existing medical conditions. Not only were international treaties on free and informed consent violated, but individuals were also coerced, even though the Council of Europe had recommended compliance with ethical rules: non-discrimination, non-coercion, high-quality trials, safety and efficacy standards, monitoring for political or social pressure, fully transparent dissemination of information, establishment of independent compensation programmes in the event of injury or damage suffered, transparency regarding contracts with vaccine producers, and use of vaccination certificates solely for the purposes of monitoring and statistics on adverse events. None of these recommendations have been followed!
All these violations attest to the government’s oppression of groups of marginalised individuals, but also of the population as a whole.
In conclusion, this appeal, drafted byVirginie de Araújo-Recchia, explores the law and highlights the violation of the rights of individuals, and in this case more specifically of carers and other professions affected by compulsory vaccination. It demonstrates the totalitarian domination of the government over the population as a whole, and sets down on paper the violence being perpetrated, the harm of which we can only glimpse at this stage.
By taking up the great principles of ethics, Virginie de Araújo-Recchia places in history the extreme seriousness of the loss of all civilisational reference points in terms of humanity, this plunge into a totalitarian era during which some become executioners, others victims, while the people, transformed into a mass, wear both hats without their knowledge. A few heroes had the courage to oppose this totalitarian madness; they lost a great deal, if not everything. But in truth, if they saved their health, they preserved their values, their humanity and their dignity, while others lost them forever and lost their souls.
