Judgment of the Grand Chamber of the European Court Human Rights of April 8, 2021 in the case Vavřička v. The Czech Republic, application no. 47621/13

Vavrick’s judgment against the Czech Republic, issued by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, raises the issue of the obligation to vaccinate children imposed by the law of the Czech Republic. The Court simultaneously examined five complaints concerning the refusal to admit children to kindergarten due to their non-vaccinations and one concerning a father of two children who was fined an administrative penalty for failure to comply with a statutory obligation. The applicants alleged violation of the right to respect private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR) and of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9 of the ECHR). The Court therefore examined whether the interference in the form of an infringement of physical integrity was justified, examining whether it was lawful, justified by a legitimate aim and whether it was necessary in a democratic state ruled by law. Ultimately, the Tribunal supported the position that there had been no violation of the provisions of the Convention, explaining that it was a response to an urgent social need, and the choice of the measure chosen by the Czech legislator was supported by appropriate arguments. Moreover, the judges stated that despite the existence of a legal obligation, vaccination was not compulsory.

Vavrick’s judgment against the Czech Republic, issued by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, raises the issue of the obligation to vaccinate children imposed by the law of the Czech Republic. The Court simultaneously examined five complaints concerning the refusal to admit children to kindergarten due to their non-vaccinations and one concerning a father of two children who was fined an administrative penalty for failure to comply with a statutory obligation. The applicants alleged violation of the right to respect private and family life (Article 8 of the ECHR) and of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9 of the ECHR). The Court therefore examined whether the interference in the form of an infringement of physical integrity was justified, examining whether it was lawful, justified by a legitimate aim and whether it was necessary in a democratic state ruled by law. Ultimately, the Tribunal supported the position that there had been no violation of the provisions of the Convention, explaining that it was a response to an urgent social need, and the choice of the measure chosen by the Czech legislator was supported by appropriate arguments. Moreover, the judges stated that despite the existence of a legal obligation, vaccination was not compulsory.