To vax or not to vax? Covid-19 vaccination mandates in light of Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21615/cesder.6694Palavras-chave:
COVID-19, mandatory vaccination, Article 8 ECHR, necessity, bodily integrityResumo
This case report discusses the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic, which remains the only case concerning compulsory vaccination to date. This is particularly important in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, in which many European States restricted unvaccinated individual’s freedoms in a post-lockdown setting. After outlining the relevant facts and arguments brought by both the applicants and the Government, it comments on the Court’s assessment under Article 8 ECHR by evaluating inter alia the notion of interference and conflicting interests of parents versus children. First and foremost, however, it sheds light on how the case fits into the wider discussion on COVID-19, particularly what standards it puts in place and what implications it bears on future applications concerning COVID-19 vaccination rules. Namely, it illustrates how the threshold of necessity may be established in relation to Article 8 interferences.
Downloads
Referências
A.P., Garçon and Nicot v. France., nos. 79885/12, 52471/13 and 52596/13 (ECtHR 6 April 2017).
Bankovic and Others v Belgium and Others., No. 52207/99 (ECtHR 2001).
ECtHR. (2020). Guide on Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—Right to respect for private and family life. Retrieved 4 November 2021, from https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a016ebe4.html
European Court of Human Rights. (2021a). Les demandes de mesures provisoires de 672 sapeurs-pompiers concernant la loi relative à la gestion de la crise sanitaire n’entrent pas dans le champ d’application de l’article 39 du règlement de la Cour. Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7100382-9611614&filename=Mesures%20provisoires%20introduites%20par%20672%20sapeurs-pompiers%20contre%20la%20loi%20relative%20%C3%A0%20la%20gestion%20de%20la%20crise%20sanitaire.pdf
European Court of Human Rights. (2021b). Notice of application before Court concerning compulsory vaccination of certain workers imposed by French law on health crisis. Thevenon v. France (application no. 46061/21).
European Court of Human Rights. (2022). Interim measures. Retrieved from https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/fs_interim_measures_eng.pdf
Handyside v UK., No. 5493/72 (ECtHR 1976).
Johansen v Norway., No. 17383/90 (ECtHR 1996).
Kilkelly, U. (2001). The Best of Both Worlds for Children’s Rights? Interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in the Light of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(2), 308–326. https://doi.org/10.1353/hrq.2001.0019
Kruslin v France., No. 11801/85 (ECtHR 1990).
Solomakhin v Ukraine., No. 24429/03 (ECtHR 15 March 2012).
Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic., 47621/13, 3867/14, 73094/14 et al. (ECtHR 8 April 2021).
Vikarská, Z. (2021). Is Compulsory Vaccination Compulsory? Retrieved 3 November 2021, from Verfassungsblog on Matters Constitutional website: https://verfassungsblog.de/is-compulsory-vaccination-compulsory/
Ważyńska-Finck, K. (2021, June 2). Anti-vaxxers before the Strasbourg Court: Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic. Retrieved 3 November 2021, from Strasbourg Observers website: https://strasbourg.weichie.dev/2021/06/02/anti-vaxxers-before-the-strasbourg-court-vavricka-and-others-v-the-czech-republic/
Y.F. v. Turkey., No. 24209/94 (ECtHR 22 July 2003)
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 CES Derecho
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
| Métricas do artigo | |
|---|---|
| Vistas abstratas | |
| Visualizações da cozinha | |
| Visualizações de PDF | |
| Visualizações em HTML | |
| Outras visualizações | |
