CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

MARTIN ŠOLC CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ find a proportional balance between competing rights and interests being informed on the relevant facts by scientific explorations. Conclusion In the Czech Republic, there are several compulsory vaccinations of minors based on the Act on the Protection of Public Health. The sanction that can be imposed on parents for the failure to vaccinate their children is a relatively low fine; nevertheless, unvaccinated children are also prohibited from being admitted to preschool facilities. Since 2022, there are defined particular health issues that are presumed to be caused by compulsory vaccinations (or a Covid-19 vaccine) if they manifest within a certain time limit; in that case, the state is obliged to provide compensation for the patient’s damage. The Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic dealt with several complaints regarding conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination and the alleged unconstitutional character of the relevant legislation. It has defined several cumulative criteria under which the vaccination obligation might not, in exceptional cases, be enforced: the reasons for the objection must be constitutionally relevant and urgent, the claim of reservation must be consistent and persuasive, and the courts also have to take into account the potential social consequences that are going to occur if the reservation is accepted. Since the vaccination rates are very high, most refusals would arguably fulfil this test. On the general level, though, the Constitutional Court upheld the constitutional conformity of the current legislation regulating compulsory vaccination. In Spring 2021, the European Court of Human Rights decided in the case of Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic that Czech compulsory vaccination system does not violate rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. According to the Strasbourg court, the relevant Czech regulation pursues a legitimate aim of protecting children, is proportionate to this aim, is attended by significant procedural safeguards, and remains within the margin of appreciation the Member States are afforded. We believe that compulsory vaccination as such is also justified from the legal philosophical point of view. At least in postmodern societies, the aim of the law arguably consists in supporting social cohesion. Since about three quarters of Czechs agree with compulsory vaccination, it does not threaten the unity of society. It could still be possible to ask how the state’s enforcement of a particular set of views and values can be justified in the context of postmodern pluralism. The refusing parents, as a rule, believe that their decision not to vaccinate is better for children. However, every society needs the minimum level of consensus on what methods are used to explore physical reality. Today, such an approach consists in the scientific method. Therefore, the state needs to take into account the parents’ beliefs, religious, or others, in striving for proportionate policies, but the evaluation of medical risks and benefits of vaccination as well as their impact on public health need to be based on science. The same applies to any other medical procedure in cases when the convictions of the parents are incompatible with the current scientific knowledge.

of blood products, see ŠUSTEK, P. Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Best Interests of the Child, in this issue of the Czech Yearbook of Public & Private International Law.

330