Does Mandatory Vaccination Violate the Right to Privacy?

In 2021, the European Court of Human Rights considered the case of Vavřička and Others v. The Czech Republic, which concerned the lawfulness of imposing fines on parents due to mandatory vaccination of children and the refusal to admit unvaccinated children to preschool institutions.
The Court openly stated that health policy is a matter where national authorities are in a priority position compared to the Court because they can directly assess priorities and social needs. Another important clarification made by the Court is that national authorities have a wide margin of appreciation even when a fair balance is disrupted between conflicting private and public or conventional rights.
The Court also noted that vaccination is the most successful medical intervention. Therefore, the State is obliged to promote mandatory vaccination for as many citizens as possible through positive action. Moreover, there is no consensus on any model about how to find a fair balance among people with conflicting interests in vaccination. Regarding children's vaccination, there are several approaches: the first is that vaccination is advisory; the second is that vaccination is advisory only for certain vaccine types, while some vaccines are mandatory; the third approach is that vaccination is mandatory for all vaccine types for children. It is evident that the Czech Republic chose the strictest approach among these.
The Court further emphasized Articles 2 and 8 of the Convention, under which States are obliged to protect the life and health of persons within their jurisdiction. Considering the materials and expert opinions presented during the case, the European Court of Human Rights noted that mandatory vaccination of children in the Czech Republic represented an urgent social need and aimed to protect both individual and public health, as well as to maintain a quantitative rate of vaccination among children. It is also important that the Court found children’s vaccination not to be associated with sensitive, intimate issues, although it also referred to the child's best interests, which must be determined on an individual basis in each case. Of course, such interests include maintaining their health to the highest possible degree, for which vaccination is considered the best option. Parents argue that they bear the greatest responsibility regarding health-related issues, and the State should only intervene in extreme cases. The goal of vaccination is to protect against serious diseases, and those who cannot be vaccinated due to health reasons are protected by herd immunity, of course, thanks to others being vaccinated. If herd immunity cannot be achieved and maintained, then national authorities may implement mandatory vaccination policies to protect the population from serious diseases.
Concerning the first applicant, the Court said that the administrative fine imposed was not excessive. Regarding the other applicants, the Court noted that denying access to preschool institutions and exclusion as a result of failure to vaccinate had a significant negative impact on their personal development, socialization, and skill deepening; however, this was not the State’s choice but rather the parents' choice. Specifically, their negative action—circumventing mandatory vaccination—harmed their own children, especially since early age is the optimal time for most vaccinations to be administered. It is also important to note the situation of children whose health prevents them from being vaccinated. Their attendance at preschool institutions depends on other children being vaccinated to ensure safety in the environment and a certain level of immunity. Therefore, in cases where children cannot be vaccinated for health reasons, responsibility falls on society.
Refusal of mandatory vaccination did not completely deprive children of opportunities for intellectual, social, or personal development. Denial of access to preschool institutions was not a final judgment since, according to national legislation, once they reached the age of mandatory education, each child had the opportunity to begin elementary school; in this case, vaccination status was irrelevant. The applicants also considered the system inconsistent and flawed because vaccination was mandatory for children in preschool, but not for staff members. The Court explained that mandatory vaccination requirements applied to all citizens and foreigners with permanent residence rights in the Czech Republic, which included staff, implying they had received all mandatory vaccines.
Based on this, the European Court of Human Rights found that all measures taken in relation to mandatory vaccination were a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.
Ultimately, the Court ruled that the Czech State's decision to impose mandatory vaccination on children does not violate the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

See the Georgian-language version of the decision.