<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/ http://dublincore.org/schemas/xmls/simpledc20021212.xsd">
  <dc:identifier>http://dx.doi.org/10.17176/20210412-221156-0</dc:identifier>
  <dc:identifier>https://verfassungsblog.de/is-compulsory-vaccination-compulsory/</dc:identifier>
  <dc:title>Is Compulsory Vaccination Compulsory?</dc:title>
  <dc:creator>Vikarská, Zuzana</dc:creator>
  <dc:language>eng</dc:language>
  <dc:date>2021-04-12</dc:date>
  <dc:type>electronic resource</dc:type>
  <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
  <dc:subject>ddc:342</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>Art. 8 ECHR</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>European Court of Human Rights</dc:subject>
  <dc:subject>vaccination</dc:subject>
  <dc:publisher>Verfassungsblog</dc:publisher>
  <dc:relation>Verfassungsblog--2366-7044</dc:relation>
  <dc:rights>CC BY-SA 4.0</dc:rights>
  <dc:description>On Thursday 8 April 2021, the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in Vavřička and others v. the Czech Republic. The Grand Chamber ruled strongly (16:1) in favour of the Czech government, granting the state a wide margin of appreciation in the assessment of the need for compulsory vaccination of children. In light of the COVID-related challenges, it is important that the Court took a clear stance regarding the importance of vaccination. At the same time, however, it is regrettable that the Court did not offer a stronger and more coherent reasoning justifying its value-driven decision.</dc:description>
</dc>
