## Facts

- Czech law imposed a general duty on permanent residents to ensure children receive routine vaccinations against specified infectious diseases, with medical exemptions and recognition of immunity.
- Compliance could not be physically forced; noncompliance could result in (1) a modest administrative fine on parents and (2) exclusion of unvaccinated children from preschool, while access to primary school was not conditioned on vaccination status.
- One applicant (a parent) was fined about EUR 110 for refusing to vaccinate his two children against several required diseases.
- Five child applicants were denied admission to preschool because they had not received required vaccinations and did not qualify for a medical exemption.
- The applicants challenged the measures in domestic administrative and judicial proceedings without success and then filed applications alleging a violation of the right to respect for private life.

## Issues

1. Whether compulsory childhood vaccination and related consequences (fine and preschool exclusion) interfered with applicants’ private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
2. If there was interference, whether it was in accordance with law, pursued legitimate aims, and was necessary in a democratic society (including proportionality).
3. Whether the scheme’s safeguards, exemptions, and sanctions sufficiently protected individual rights, taking account of children’s interests and protection of public health.

## Decision

- The Grand Chamber found an interference with private life because compulsory vaccination concerns physical integrity and the challenged consequences were connected to the duty.
- The Court held the interference was prescribed by law and sufficiently accessible and foreseeable.
- The Court accepted legitimate aims: protection of health and protection of the rights and freedoms of others, including protecting those who cannot be vaccinated and rely on herd immunity.
- Applying a wide margin of appreciation in public-health policy, the Court concluded the scheme responded to a pressing social need to maintain high vaccine coverage.
- The Court emphasized the best interests of the child and accepted the policy aimed to protect children individually and collectively.
- Considering medical exemptions, monitoring of vaccine safety and contraindications, absence of physical coercion, and moderate sanctions, the Court held the measures were proportionate.
- Result: no violation of Article 8.

## Legal Principles

- Compulsory vaccination constitutes an interference with private life because it involves an involuntary medical intervention affecting physical integrity.
- Under Article 8(2), an interference may be justified where it is lawful, pursues legitimate aims (including protection of health and others’ rights), and is proportionate to a pressing social need.
- States have a wide margin of appreciation in designing vaccination policy and other public-health measures, particularly where approaches vary but there is broad agreement on achieving high vaccine coverage.
- Proportionality assessment may consider: lack of physical coercion, availability of medical exemptions, individualized health checks and safety monitoring, procedural safeguards, and the severity and duration of sanctions.
- Exclusion from preschool may be treated as a preventive, time-limited measure when access to primary education is unaffected.
- In measures affecting children, their best interests carry significant weight in assessing justification and proportionality.

## Conclusion

The Grand Chamber upheld the Czech compulsory childhood vaccination regime, concluding that the fine and temporary preschool exclusion were lawful and proportionate means of protecting public health and others’ rights, and therefore did not breach Article 8.


Vavřička v. Czech Republic, App. Nos. 47621/13, 3867/14, 73094/14, 19306/15, 43883/15 (Eur. Ct. H.R. 2021) (Grand Chamber)