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

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
Alena Kozlová, Kamaal Bola
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本案例报告讨论了欧洲人权法院在Vavřička等人诉捷克共和国案中的判决,该案仍是迄今为止唯一涉及强制接种疫苗的案件。这在新冠肺炎大流行的背景下尤为重要,许多欧洲国家在封锁后限制未接种疫苗的个人的自由。在概述了申请人和政府提出的相关事实和论点后,它对法院根据《欧洲人权公约》第8条作出的评估发表了评论,特别是评估了父母与子女的干涉和利益冲突的概念。然而,首先也是最重要的是,它阐明了该病例如何融入关于新冠肺炎的更广泛讨论,特别是它制定了什么标准,以及它对新冠肺炎疫苗接种规则的未来应用有什么影响。也就是说,它说明了如何就第8条的干扰确定必要性阈值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信