The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination violates the European Convention on H...The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination 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 “needs 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 European Union 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 can be taken as a reference for introducing vaccination measures against COVID-19 in the context of the global pandemic.展开更多
文摘The case of Varif et al.v. Czech Republic concerned whether Czech legislation that imposed a moratorium on school attendance and a fine as a punitive mechanism for non-vaccination 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 “needs 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 European Union 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 can be taken as a reference for introducing vaccination measures against COVID-19 in the context of the global pandemic.
