{"title":"打还是不打?根据Vavřička和其他人诉捷克共和国案,Covid-19疫苗接种任务","authors":"Alena Kozlová, Kamaal Bola","doi":"10.21615/cesder.6694","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":41306,"journal":{"name":"Revista CES Derecho","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To vax or not to vax? Covid-19 vaccination mandates in light of Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic\",\"authors\":\"Alena Kozlová, Kamaal Bola\",\"doi\":\"10.21615/cesder.6694\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista CES Derecho\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista CES Derecho\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21615/cesder.6694\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista CES Derecho","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21615/cesder.6694","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
To vax or not to vax? Covid-19 vaccination mandates in light of Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic
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.