To vax or not to vax? Covid-19 vaccination mandates in light of Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61989592%3A15220%2F22%3A73617723" target="_blank" >RIV/61989592:15220/22:73617723 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://revistas.ces.edu.co/index.php/derecho/article/view/6694" target="_blank" >https://revistas.ces.edu.co/index.php/derecho/article/view/6694</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.21615/cesder.6694" target="_blank" >10.21615/cesder.6694</a>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

To vax or not to vax? Covid-19 vaccination mandates in light of Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

To vax or not to vax? Covid-19 vaccination mandates in light of Vavřička and others v. The Czech Republic

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2022

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Revista CES Derecho

ISSN

2145-7719

e-ISSN

2145-7719

Svazek periodika

13

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2

Stát vydavatele periodika

CO - Kolumbijská republika

Počet stran výsledku

10

Strana od-do

205-214

Kód UT WoS článku

000877374700011

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—