One for all, all for one? Supposing the ECtHR’s position on COVID-19 vaccines

Béres, Nóra (2025) One for all, all for one? Supposing the ECtHR’s position on COVID-19 vaccines. In: The ECHR at 70: The Central European Narrative. Studies Of The Central European Professors’ Network . Central European Academic Publishing, pp. 291-304. ISBN 978-615-6474-87-2 (print) 978-615-6474-88-9 (pdf) 978-615-6474-89-6 (epub)

Preview

Text Chapter 12.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives. Download (297kB) | Preview

Abstract

At the time of writing, COVID-19 no longer constitutes a public health emergency of international concern. However, the compatibility of coronavirus vaccines with the interests of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is still worth mentioning. In 2020 and 2021, while humanity struggled with the pandemic, the long list of fundamental rights dilemmas expanded – with the issue of human rights certainly generating the most relevant public resonance. Alongside curfews and less stringent restrictions on the freedom of movement was the compulsory vaccination against COVID-19. Therefore, the decision of the ECtHR in Vavřička et al. v. the Czech Republic could hardly be more timely in helping us to take stock of the conditions under which compulsory coronavirus vaccination may be compatible with human rights law. Therefore, this paper seeks to provide a focused case analysis on the only decision of the court related to compulsory vaccines – and uses analogy to make conclusions on the compatibility of coronavirus vaccines with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Actions (login required)

Edit Item