THE POSSIBILITY OF INTRODUCING COMPULSORY VACCINATION AGAINST COVID-19: APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE OF PROPORTIONALITY AND ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING CASE-ALW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Abstract
Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms protects individuals from the so-called involuntary medical treatments within the framework of the right to respect for private life. Given that the rights guaranteed under Article 8 are not absolute but qualified rights (that can be limited for the reasons enlisted in paragraph 2 of the same Article), it is crucial to examine the necessity and proportionality of the measures adopted by the state when deciding on the admissibility of these limitations. Through its jurisprudence, the European Court of Human Rights dealt with the issue of involuntary medical treatment, while it dealt with the issue of compulsory vaccination (of children) in only one case, Vavrička and others v the Czech Republic. Having in mind the circumstances from April 2021 (when the decision was made) and that is the peak of the fight against the pandemic caused by the COVID-19 disease, the fact that the case was decided by the Grand Chamber, as well as that at the time there were already applications against Greece and France before the Court concerning compulsory vaccination against the COVID-19 disease, it is difficult to escape the impression that the Court, answering the questions in the case of Vavrička and others, also had the aforementioned applications in mind. The importance of the Court’s decision in the case of Vavrička and others and the criteria stated in it for determining the proportionality and necessity of the measure of compulsory vaccination, as well as the width of the margin of appreciation enjoyed by states, is therefore evident. Furthermore, the paper will present the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia on the issue of compulsory vaccination of children. More will be said about the aforementioned applications before the Court where the applicants claimed how their Article 8 right was violated due to the introduction of compulsory vaccination against the COVID-19 disease for certain categories of employees, mainly for the purpose of projecting the direction in which the ECtHR will go when deciding the case. Finally, the emphasis will be on the idea that, although the status of compulsory vaccination against the COVID-19 disease before the Court has yet not been resolved, current conclusions regarding the proportionality of the measure of compulsory vaccination of children enables the formation of certain conclusions. For this reason, great attention will also be given to the doctrine of the margin of appreciation together with the concept of "weighing" the rights of individuals against the protection of certain legitimate goals, that is, the examination of necessity and proportionality by the ECtHR.
References
Bagić, S. (2016). Načelo razmjernosti u praksi europskih sudova i hrvatskog Ustavnog sud. Zagreb: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
Christoffersen, J. (1999). Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights. 99 International Studies in Human Rights. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Gerards, J. (2013). How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights. 11 International Journal of Constitutional Law 2. 466–490.
Greer, S. (2000). The margin of appreciation: interpretation and discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights (Human Right Files No 17). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing.
Greer, S. (2006). The European Convention on Human Rights. Achievements, Problems and Prospects. Cambridge Studies in European Law and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jizeng, F. (2015). Deference or Proportionality: Two Concepts of Margin of Appreciation in the Strasbourg Court and Their Influences. 14 The Journal of Human Rights 3. 254−285.
Letsas, G. (2009). A Theory of an Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Letsas, G. (2018). Proportionality as Fittingness: The Moral Dimension of Proportionality. 71 Current Legal Problems 1. 53–86.
Letsas, G. (2006). Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation. 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 4. 705−73.
Macdonald, R. (1993). The Margin of Appreciation u Macdonald, R., Matscher, F. i Petzold, H. (ur.) The European System for Protection of Human Rights. Brill: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Mahoney, P. (1998). Marvellous Richness of Diversity or Invidious Cultural Relativism, 19 Human Rights Law Journal 1. 1−6.
Marochini, M. (2014). The interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. 51 Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Splitu 1. 63–84.
McHarg, A. (1999). Reconciling Human Rights and Public Interest: Conceptual Problems and Doctrinal Uncertainty in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. 62 The Modern Law Review 5. 671−696.
Mihelčić, G. (2018). Proporcionalnost kao korektiv u službi zaštite nekretnine ovršenika u: Suvremeni pravni promet i usluge - Zbornik referata sa Međunarodnog naučnog skupa održanog 25. maja 2018. (ur. Miodrag Mićović) Kragujevac: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Kragujevac. 951−980.
Mihelčić, G., Marochini Zrinski, M. (2014), Koneksitet ostvarenja vindikacijskog zahtjeva i tzv. prava na poštivanje doma. 35 Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci 1. 163−192.
Mihelčić, G., Marochini Zrinski, M. Šantek, R. (2020). Od predmeta Mccann do predmeta F.J.M. − Razmjernost i pravo na poštovanje doma kod prisilnog namirenja stvarnopravno osiguranih tražbina iz nekretnine. 41 Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci 1. 113−130.
Oddný. A. (2016). Rethinking the Two Margins of Appreciation. 12 European Constitutional Law Review 1. 27−53.
Omejec, J. (2013). Konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda u praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava, Strasbourški acquis. Zagreb: Novi informator.
Panomariovas, A., Losis, E. (2010). Proportionality: from the Concept to the Procedure. Jurisprudencija/Jurisprudence, Mykolas Romeris University periodical reviewed research papers, file:///D:/Users/Korisnik/Downloads/ admin,+12Panomariovas.pdf. 257−272 (pristup 12. rujna 2022.)
Scaccia, G. Proportionality and the Balancing of Rights in the Case-law of European Courts. 4 (2019) https://sipotra.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Proportionality-and-the-Balancing-of-Rights-in-the-Case-law-of-European-Courts.pdf. 1−34 (pristup 12. rujna 2022.)
Shany, Y (2005). Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law? 16 European Journal of International Law 5. 907–940.
Spielmann, D. (2012). Allowing the Right Margin the European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? Center for European Legal Studies, CELS Working Papers Series, University of Cambridge, Faculty of Law, Cambridge. 1−31.
Wisniewski, A. (2016). The European Court of Human Rights, Between judicial activism and passivism Gdansk: Gdansk University Press.
Acmanne i drugi protiv Belgije, zahtjev br. 10435/83, odluka Komisije od 10. prosinca 1984.
Alida Maria Fränklin-Beentjes Ceflu-Luz da Floresta protiv Nizozemske, zahtjev br. 28167/07, odluka od 6. svibnja 2014.
Axel Springer AG protiv Njemačke, zahtjev br. 39954/08, presuda VV od 7. veljače 2012.
Bašić protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev br. 22251/13, presuda od 25. siječnja 2017.
„Belgijski jezični slučaj“ (Case „relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium“ protiv Belgije), zahtjevi br. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, presuda od 23. srpnja 1968.
Christine Goodwin protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjev br. 28957/95, presuda od 11. srpnja 2002.
Delfi As protiv Estonije, zahtjev br. 64569/09, presuda od 16. lipnja 2015.
Demir i Baykara protiv Turske, zahtjev br., presuda VV od 12. studenog 2008.
Dragojević protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev br. 68955/11, presuda od 15. travnja 2015.
Dubska i Krejzova protiv Češke Republike, zahtjevi br. 28859/11 i 28473/12, presuda od 15. studenog 2016.
Eşim protiv Turske, zahtjev br. 59601/09, presuda od 17. rujna 2013.
Gard i drugi protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjev br. 39793/17, presuda od 5. srpnja 2017.
Glass protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjev br. 61827/00, presuda od 9. ožujka 2004.
Goodwin protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjev br. 17488/90, presuda VV od 27. ožujka 1996.
Grba protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev br. 47074/12, presuda od 23. veljače 2018;
Hatton i drugi protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjev br. 36022/97, presuda VV od 8. srpnja 2003.
Handyside protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, br. zahtjeva 5493/72, presuda od 7. prosinca 1976.
38 Howald Moor i drugi protiv Švicarske, zahtjevi br. 52067/10 i 41072/11, presuda od 11. ožujka 2014.
Leyla Sahin protiv Turske, zahtjev br. 44774/98, presuda od 29. lipnja 2004.
M.A.K. i R.K. protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjevi br. 45901/05 i 40146/06, presuda od 13. ožujka 2010.
Malone protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjev br. 8691/79, presuda od 2. kolovoza 1984.
Marckx protiv Belgije, zahtjev br. 6833/74, presuda od 13. lipnja 1979.
Marić protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev br. 50132/12, presuda od 12. lipnja 2014.
Matanović protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev br. 2742/12, presuda od 4. srpnja 2017.
Morice protiv Francuske, zahtjev br. 29369/10, presuda od 23. travnja 2015.
Muller i drugi protiv Švicarske, zahtjev br. 10737/84, presuda od 24. svibnja 1988.
Navalnyy protiv Rusije, zahtjevi br. 29850/12, 29580/12, 36847/12, 11252/13, 12317/13, 43746/14, presuda VV od 15. studenog 2018.
Paradajzer protiv Hrvatske, zahtjev br. 50049/12, presuda od 1. ožujka 2018.
Perinçek protiv Švicarske, zahtjev br. 27510/08, presuda VV od 15. listopada 2015.
Öcalan protiv Turske, zahtjev br. 46221/99, presuda VV od 12. svibnja 2005.
Sanofi Pasteur protiv Francuske, zahtjev br. 25137/16, presuda od 13. veljače 2020.
Silver i drugi protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevstva, zahtjevi br. 5947/72, 6205/73, 7052/75, 7061/75, 7107/75, 7113/75 i 7136/75, presuda od 25. ožujka 1983.
Solomakhin protiv Ukrajine, zahtjev br. 24429/03, presuda od 15. ožujka 2012.
Sunday Times protiv Ujedinjenog Kraljevsta, zahtjev br. 6538/74, presuda od 26. travnja 1976.
Vavrička i drugi protiv Češke Republike, zahtjevi br. 47621/13, 3867/14, 73094/14, 19298/15, 19306/15 i 43883/15, presuda VV od 8. travnja 2021.
Von Hannover protiv Njemačke (br. 2), zahtjevi br. 40660/08 i 60641/08, presuda VV od 7. veljače 2012.
Yalloh protiv Njemačke, zahtjev br. 54810/00, presuda VV od 11. srpnja 2006.
Y.F. protiv Turske, zahtjev br. 24209/94, presuda od 22. srpnja 2003.
Odluka Ustavnog suda U-III-7725/2014 od 11. srpnja 2017.
Rješenje Ustavnog suda Republike Hrvatske, U-I-5418/2008, U-I-4386/2011, U-I-4631/2011 od 30. siječnja 2014.
Rješenje IUz 48/2016 od 26. listopada 2017.
Ustav Republike Hrvatske, pročišćeni tekst, NN br. 56/90, 135/97, 08/98, 113/00, 124/00, 28/01, 41/01, 55/01, 76/10, 85/10, 05/14.
Ustav Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 98/2006.
(Europska) Konvencija za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda, pročišćeni tekst, NN MU 18/97, 6/99, 14/02, 13/03, 9/05, 1/06, 2/10.
Zakon o objavljivanju Konvencije o ljudskim pravima i biomedici, Službeni glasnik RS, Međunarodni ugovori, br. 12/10.
Zakon o objavljivanju Konvencije o pravima djeteta, Službeni list SFRJ − Međunarodni ugovori, br. 15/90 i Službeni list SFRJ − Međunarodni ugovori, br. 4/96 i 2/97.
Zakon o zaštiti pučanstva o zaštiti od zaraznih bolesti, NN br. 79/07, 113/08 i 43/09.
Zakon o zaštiti stanovništva od zaraznih bolesti, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 15/16.
Basic Law Bulletin Issue 15- December 2013, The Focus: The principle of proportionality and the concept of margin of appreciation in human rights law, p. 2, https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/publications/pdf/basiclaw/basic15_2.pdf. (pristup 15. lipnja 2022.)
Council of Europe, The margin of appreciation https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/lisbonnetwork/themis/echr/paper2_en.asp (pristup 12. rujna 2022.)
Odluka o odbijanju zahtjeva za privremenim mjerama 672 pripadnika francuske vatrogasne službe o Zakonu o upravljanju javnozdravstvenom krizom jer ne spadaju u djelokrug pravila 39. Poslovnika Suda. Dostupno na: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22sort%22:[%22kpdate%20Descending%22],%22itemid%22:[%22003-7100478-9611768%22]}>
Odluka o odbijanju zahtjeva za privremenim mjerama u odnosu na grčki zakon o obveznom cijepljenju zdravstvenog osoblja protiv Covid-19. Dostupno na: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press#{%22sort%22:[%22kpdate%20Descending%22],%22itemid%22:[%22003-7113391-9633858%22]}.
Poslovnik Europskog suda za ljudska prava od 1. kolovoza 2021. Dostupno na: https://uredzastupnika.gov.hr/UserDocsImages//dokumenti/POSLOVNIK// HR%20POSLOVNIK%20ECHR%202021.pdf.
The Margin of Appreciation; its Limits and Inconsistencies (Law Teacher.net, Semptemer 2022) https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/the-margin-of-appreciation-limits-and-inconsistencies-law-essay. php?vref=1 (pristup 12. rujna 2022)