欧洲人权法院视野中的疫苗接种义务——以“瓦里夫等人诉捷克案”为例

Vaccination Obligation from the Perspective of the European Court of Human Rights-Taking Varif et al.v.Czech Republic as an Example

“瓦里夫等人诉捷克案”涉及捷克立法以暂缓入学及罚款为惩罚机制,强制儿童接种常规疫苗,是否违反《欧洲人权公约》的问题。在案件的裁决中,欧洲人权法院重申,公共卫生措施的选择属于成员国自由裁量的范围。与此同时,为了将对个人利益的侵犯限制在必要且合理的范围之内,欧洲人权法院明确常规疫苗强制接种的人权保障标准:具有法律依据、合法目的且符合“民主社会之所需”。据此,欧洲人权法院认为该案涉诉法律规定并不违反《欧洲人权公约》。作为该法院首次针对疫苗强制接种问题作出的回应,“瓦里夫等人诉捷克案”在维护成员国自由裁量权的基础上,强化了欧盟法在公共卫生领域的影响。此外,虽然“瓦里夫等人诉捷克案”仅涉及常规疫苗接种的问题,但在新冠肺炎全球大流行的背景下,该案提炼的人权保障标准,对新冠疫苗接种措施的出台也有一定的参考意义。

The case of Varif et al.v.Czech Republic concerned whether the legislation of Czech, which imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism, violates the European Convention on Human Rights by forcing children to receive routine vaccinations.In the ruling, the European Court of Human Rights reiterated that the choice of public health measures falls within the discretion of member states.Meanwhile, to limit the infringement of individual interests to what is necessary and reasonable, the European Court of Human Rights clarified the criteria for human rights protection for compulsory routine vaccination: It should have a legal basis, a lawful aim, and be in line with the“need of a democratic society”. Accordingly, the European Court of Human Rights held that the legal provisions involved in the case did not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. As the first response of the European Court of Human Rights to compulsory vaccination, the case of Varif et al.v.Czech Republic strengthens the influence of the law of the EU in the field of public health by upholding the discretion of member states.Besides, although the case involves only routine vaccination, the human rights protection criteria clarified in it could be taken as a reference for introducing vaccination measures against COVID-19 in the context of the global pandemic.