The Constitutional Court
On behalf of the Republic of
The Constitutional Court decided under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 19/14 of 27 July. in January 2015
the plenary consisting of the President of the Court, Pavel Rychetský and judges Louis
David (the judge rapporteur), Jaroslav Fenyka, Jan Filip, Vlasta
Formánkové, Vladimir Crust, Too, Jana Thomas Musil, Vladimir
Sládečka, Radovan Suchánka, Catherine Šimáčkové, Vojtěch Šimíčka,
Milady Tomková, David, Uhlir, and George Zemánka of the proposal 1. L. C., 2. And the.
C., and 3. minors and C., represented by Mgr. David Zahumenským,
lawyer based Burešova 6, Brno, on the repeal of section 46 of Act No.
258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health and amendment to certain
related laws, as amended, and section 29. 1
(a). f) of Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended
the rules for the participation of the Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic and
Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic as the parties,
The proposal to repeal section 46 of Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of
public health and amendment to some related laws, as amended by
amended, and on the abolition of the provisions of section 29. 1 (a). (f))
Act No. 200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended,
The subject of the proceedings
1. In proceedings on constitutional complaints kept under SP. zn. I. ÚS 1253/14
the complainants L. C., and c. and c. minor (represented by the parents who
captured to its representation in the proceedings on constitutional complaints and on the proposal on
the cancellation of the two statutory provisions advocate) fight over cancellation of judgment
The Supreme Administrative Court of 17 December. 1.2014 No 4 As 2/2013-75 and
the judgment of the municipal court in Prague from 31 March. 10.2012 No. 4 and
43/2012-118. They considered that the general courts they have infringed their basic
the rights guaranteed in article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution of the Czech Republic (hereinafter as
"The Constitution"), in the article. 9 to the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms
(hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") and in the article. 2 (2). 2 and 3, article. 3 (3). 3, article. 4, 7, 10,
11, 15, 31 and article. paragraph 32. 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms (hereinafter also
"the Charter"). Along with constitutional complaints, in which the complainants railed
against the imposition of fines to the parents in the administrative procedure for the denial
regular vaccination minors, submitted the complainants because of the intervention of the
fundamental rights and freedoms cited the proposal to repeal section 46
Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health and amendment to certain
related laws, as amended, ("the law on the
the protection of public health ") and the provisions of section 29. 1 (a). (f)) of law No.
200/1990 Coll. on offences, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as
"the law on offences").
2. the Senate, after the Constitutional Court found that the appellants are as
persons entitled to submit a constitutional complaint legally represented (section 30
paragraph. 1 of law No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No.
83/2004 Sb.) and that their timely filed the proposal contains the prescribed statutory
formalities (article 34, paragraph 1, of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court),
decided on 11 July. 9. by resolution under section 78 of the 2014 paragraph. 1 of law No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, so that the proceedings on constitutional complaints
the complainants against the amount of the judgments of the courts designated by the General interrupted and
a proposal for cancellation to the complainants by the marked parts of the legislation
the plenum of the Constitutional Court, he moved that the matter discussed and decided on her
under SP. zn. PL. ÚS 19/14.
Recap of the proposal
3. In the application for revocation of the above cited law II.2(a)
especially the claimed lack of legislation of compulsory vaccination with the article. 4
Of the Charter. They argued that the Constitutional Court in its case-law repeatedly
relating to the area of health care, stressed that the limits of the basic
rights and freedoms can be regulated under the conditions laid down by the Charter only
by the law. Most recently, talks about finding SP. zn. PL. ÚS 43/13 of 25 July.
3.2014 (77/2014 Sb.) to the Spa care or find SP. zn. PL. ÚS 36/11
of 20 December. 6.2013 (N 111/69 SbNU 765; 238/2013 Coll.) to health care
nadstandardům. The complainants also pointed to the discovery of the Constitutional Court
The Slovak Republic, SP. zn. PL-8/94, dealing with the respect of reservations
the law in connection with its Decree of the Ministry of health
The Slovak Republic about the conditions of the compulsory vaccination.
4. The complainants agree with the legal opinion of the Senate of the Supreme
Administrative Court, which ruled under SP. zn. 3 Ads 42/2010 the unconstitutionality
the design of compulsory vaccination laws in the Czech Republic for its
contradiction with article. 4 of the Charter. According to the Supreme Administrative Court has to
violation of rules imposing obligations on garantujícího merely on the basis of
the law and its limits and only, while maintaining the fundamental rights and freedoms.
The complainants also referred to the different opinion of the judges of the Supreme
Administrative Court for a decision of the enlarged Board in the same court SP. zn. 7 As
88/2011 from 23 July. 4. in 2013. In affirmation of their legal opinion that
the Senate failed in the case of extended the compulsory vaccination of children assessed in
due to the breadth of the intervention of the vaccination question of fundamental human rights,
in particular, the right to physical integrity and the right to family and private
life. The intervention in such rights, it is to be in accordance with the purpose of protection
public health, must respect the guarantees provided to individuals
By the Charter. For the thing at hand, the implication was that the duties associated with
compulsory vaccination and restricting the fundamental rights it was necessary to establish
by the law.
5. in its submission, the complainants had cited the case law of the Constitutional Court to
the provisions of the article. 4 instruments of reservation law. In finding SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
35/95 of 10 March. 7.1996 (N 64/5 SbNU 487; 206/1996 Sb.) The Constitutional Court
He stated that the right to free health care and to medical AIDS
citizens on the basis of public insurance and under the conditions of law closer to the
defined. If they can be adjusted only by the law, then it is
strictly necessary, to the extent and the way of their implementation was established in
the same legislative regime. Other than the legislation would mean
violation of the Charter. Indeed, in the award, the Constitutional Court stated that cannot be
admit, that was the definition of the scope of health care provided for
full or partial reimbursement of left edit other than legal
standards. Otherwise, get this area of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms
under the competence of the Executive power, which, however, lacks the proper permissions.
6. As other relevant ruling in relation to the allegation of infringement of article 81(1). 4
Documents tagged with complainants find Constitutional Court SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
45/2000 of 14 February 2000. 2.2001 (N 30/21 SbNU 261; 96/2001 Coll.). In it, the
notes that protects individuals against the excesses of executive power barrier
things reserved only to the regulation of the law (the reservation).
The complainants, dovodili, that even in the case of compulsory vaccination is necessary on
the reservation Bill. The reason for this is to prevent the excesses of the Executive power, on the
According to the complainants that unequivocally because of non-transparent and
excessive scale compulsory vaccination against the interest of
the minor children. If adjusted for the Ministry of health
Institute of compulsory vaccination only by Decree as the regulatory
Regulation, is a defense against such a derogation through voucher for reservation
the law completely justified. The complainants believe that the definition of the scope of
the obligations of the vaccination cannot be left to edit other than
the legal regulations. The scope of the limitation of fundamental rights due under article.
4 the instrument into the realm of the law, in the opinion of the complainants must be modified.
at least in the context of the provisions against which diseases and the deadline by which a person is
required to submit to the vaccination.
7. The complainants pointed out that the legislation, compulsory vaccination against
infectious diseases finds himself in conflict with the article. 5, 6 and 26 of the Convention on the protection of
human rights and the dignity of human beings in the context of the application
Biology and medicine, the famous No. 96/2001 Coll. m. s., (hereinafter referred to as
"The Convention on biomedicine"), since it violates the constraint limits the exercise of the rights in the
session required the need for consent of the person with the required
the procedure in the field of health care. Compulsory vaccination is not
the condition that the measure is necessary in a democratic
the company. In the case of vaccination against tetanus is not adhered to or
the assumption that this is a restriction in the interest of public health protection.
8. In order to assess the necessity of the measure in a democratic society
It is necessary to perform the test of proportionality, respectively. the test of necessity.
The necessity of the means to protect a societal interest is not
You can use the milder of the resource. The requirement of necessity has objective
nature. For example, in all countries, it is necessary for the protection of
public health, proceed to the isolation of the patient with severe infectious
a disease which can be transmitted on the other. Just the fact that the
specific measures are accessed in all democratic countries, is
the mark of a necessity. But if the countries have the same or comparable
epidemiological situations, such as. Germany or Austria, it is not
mandatory vaccination of children required can then be hard to defend this
"necessity" in the Czech Republic. The necessary attribute of the action is also
the enforceable character. Restrictions on the exercise of the rights of individuals in favour of the
public interest necessarily requires action to be executed against
the will of the persons concerned. In the framework of the legal regulation of compulsory vaccination in the Czech
the Republic, however, the enforceability of the missing, which is greatly questioned
the need for this Institute. The obligation to submit to vaccination is not
acceptable for the lack of an objective of the substrate in the form of independent
and a comprehensive analysis that would take stock of medical necessity and
side effects of vaccination measures.
9. The complainants further argued violation of compulsory vaccination with the
constitutionally guaranteed rights in the provisions of the modified article. 10, paragraph 1. 1 and 2, and
article. 15 paragraph. 1 of the Charter. Officials said that their underage daughters decided to
for the non-vaccination due to beliefs about the protection of the health of the child in the
his best interest. Mandatory vaccination legislation applied in the
the administrative procedure according to the preview of the complainants is unconstitutional
intervention in the right to the preservation of human dignity, the protection of privacy and
freedom of thought and conscience. Its legal argument the complainants
support the finding of the Constitutional Court SP. zn. III.-449/06 of June 3. 2.
2011 (N 10/60 SbNU 97), from which the dovodili that, in exceptional cases,
When the child's vaccination contradicts the thinking and the conscience of the parents, not parents when
the non-vaccination of children penalized. Had considered that filled all the criteria,
in their case the exception was recognized, respectively. with regard to the absence of
the site of the offence were not material in the administrative management of the sankcionováni.
Still, they were punished by a fine and their administrative action was rejected
without the courts duly deal with the impact of the legal opinion
The Constitutional Court on the case of předestřený by them.
10. From the above-mentioned finding sp.. III.-449/06 the complainants further
divorced, the proposition that the public authorities must not be mandatory vaccination
enforce, if there are circumstances that call for a fundamentally
maintaining the autonomy of the will of the person concerned and to impose sanctions for exceptional
for the breach of the obligation to submit to vaccination. During the administrative review must
be taken into account all relevant facts, and in particular the constitutional
the intensity and urgency reasons combat duties to submit to
vaccination, as well as the potential danger to the community, which can
who violates the obligation to vaccine, its approach. In the administrative
control with them, however, have not been kept by the established social
the danger of the crime under consideration.
11. The complainants pointed out that the access of parents to vaccinate their children
always a manifestation of their inner beliefs and constitutionally guaranteed
rights. You cannot objectively evaluate that position on vaccination is
the rational for the benefit of the child or in the interest of public health protection. Different
also the opinions of doctors and other experts on vaccination and on its
the necessary range, including evaluation of the effectiveness, usefulness, or vice versa
the harmfulness of vaccines. There are no relevant studies, which would
to compare the long-term health status of vaccinated and unvaccinated
individuals. Nor is it possible clearly to assess to what extent the vaccination in the
the past has contributed to the elimination or reduction of the occurrence of infectious
disease and to what extent there were hygiene and improve the
the level of the population. The position of each person to the vaccination is based on its
the personal relation to the problem, rather than on objective data. It is therefore
the unthinkable, that the governing body examine the "accuracy" or
the "reasonableness" of the beliefs of the parents about the inappropriateness of their child's vaccinations.
Such a review would be a manifestation of the ingerence of the State into private inadmissible
the realm of individuals.
12. The belief of the parents, of course, each time outweighs other
interests. Therefore, it is permissible, for example, treat the child and against the will of parents to
his life was saved, or maintained his health, or is it possible
Save the person with severe infectious diseases quarantine. However, in the case of
regular (not extraordinary) vaccination of healthy person cannot already
inherently-never outweigh the other interest over the respect for freedom of
the thinking and the conscience of the parents and the physical integrity of the minor child.
13. The repeated claim of the complainants points to the contradiction of legislation
the compulsory vaccination for fundamental rights on inviolability of the person, its
the privacy and protection of health within the meaning of article. 7. 1 and article. 31 of the Charter.
In addition, the Convention on biomedicine in the article. 24 edits the claim for injury
caused by public health intervention: "the person who suffered the crackdown
excessive damage, is entitled to fair compensation according to the conditions
and procedures laid down by the law. " With this postulátem, however, is not in accordance
the circumstances in which vaccination is required by the State as mandatory, but same
the State at the same time for its possible side effects and for the damage to health
Don't assume any liability caused by vaccination. All negative
the consequences of vaccination, including the costs incurred for the purpose of treatment
damage to health, remain on the persons concerned. The described legal
the State is, in the opinion of the complainants in the conflict with the requirement of the European
Court of human rights (hereinafter "ECHR") to strike a fair balance between the
public interest and individual rights.
14. The complainants then railed against the contested legislation in several
the directions. Above all, she had the absence of editing scope and method
the compulsory vaccination directly in the law, although this adaptation immediately
touches on the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons vaccinated as well as their parents. According to the
their opinion, also does not have to be vaccinated against communicable diseases established
as required, especially in view of the epidemiological situation in the Czech
Republic and comparable status in other European countries. At the same time
the complainants argued that the administrative authorities and the administrative courts when saving
the fine nepřihlédly to the particular circumstances of their case, and it
in particular, the reasons for which it did not provide the synergy necessary for the vaccination
minors. Finally, it is then assumed that natural persons should be in
the protection against undesirable consequences of vaccination fair
compensated, will suffer as a result of vaccination, a significant injury.
Representation of the parties
15. The Chamber of deputies of the Parliament of the Czech Republic in its
the expression of došlém, the Constitutional Court of 24 October. 10.2014 is limited to a description of the
during the legislative process leading to the adoption of laws, whose
the provisions are covered by the proposal. It stated that with the Bills
made the constitutionally prescribed procedure the consent of both chambers of Parliament
The Czech Republic, the laws were signed by the competent constitutional actors and
properly announced. Finally, it is argued that it is a matter of the Constitutional Court, in order to
examine the question of the alleged unconstitutionality of the contested legal
provisions and decided on a proposal to ban them.
16. Representation of the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic was the Constitutional Court
delivered on 23 June. 10. in 2014. After a summary of the essential content of constitutional
complaints to the Senate by the contested provisions gradually to act on
public health protection act and the provincial offences Act. In both cases, so
made with an emphasis on the process of the adoption of the draft law; the provisions of § 46
the law on the protection of public health, also quoted a section of the explanatory memorandum to the
the original text of the Government's draft Bill and the selected content of the plenary discussion
The Senate. In conclusion, stated that the expression be sent with the knowledge that it is fully
on the Constitutional Court to the application for annulment of the contested statutory provisions
assessed and decided on the matter.
17. the Government of the Czech Republic on 27. 10.2014 said it does not use its
law on entry to the procedure under section 69, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, as amended, (hereinafter referred to as "the law of
The Constitutional Court "), since it considers that its participation in this particular
control is not necessary. Stated that the Constitutional Court with the question of the
unconstitutionality of penalties for e.g., compulsory vaccination, as well as
the question of the conformity of the law to the constitutional obligation to submit to
regular vaccination in detail in his award dated June 3. 2.2011
SP. zn. III.-449/06 (see above). The findings indicated the decision was
the Constitutional Court has repeatedly aprobovány [see e.g. resolution SP. zn. II. THE TC
409/14 of 15 November. 4.2014, resolution SP. zn. III. TC 271/12 of 24 July.
1.2013 (available at http://nalus.usoud.cz)], and the Government is with them fully
18. In a communication to the Government then refers to her answer to the question
the legitimacy and rationality of the statutory obligation to comply with
regular vaccination, or the legitimacy of the objective which the legislation
the compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases monitors (protection of the public
Health). These observations, the Government already has sent to a design that is the subject of
proceedings at the Constitutional Court under the SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/14 in case
the review of the constitutionality of section 50 of the Act on the protection of public health and the provisions of the
§ 34 paragraph. 5 of the Act No. 561/2004 Coll. on pre-school, primary,
secondary, higher vocational and other education (the Education Act).
19. The public protector of rights has sent a submission to the Constitutional Court, in which the
stated that the right of entry to the control does not. However, the text in the joined
which are identified as amicus curiae, and in which it expressed its conviction
on the necessity of revision of the system of compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases
in the Czech Republic, however system such as is not contested. Wrapped up
the experience of the Office of the Ombudsman, in accordance with which the complainants
most often criticize the scope of compulsory vaccination, the side surface
the effects of vaccination, the lack of awareness among parents and some practical
problems (for example, draft evasion of some vaccines from the system of public
health insurance). On the risks of the current system of vaccination has been
the public protector of rights upozorňována also some neurologists and
allergologists. Alone in the summary reports on its activities to repeatedly
draws attention to the need for an individual approach in the application of the law on
the protection of public health; the current law gives only the minimum
room for exceptions, and provides significant penalties. Already in 2004, asked
the then Ombudsman, the Ministry of health, in order to
It began to deal with the possible exceptions of compulsory vaccination and consider
options for changes to the legislation. The public protector of rights, now aware of the
the risk of rejection of substantive discussion and opposition to legislation gestora
any changes, noted that the possible repeal of the provisions of section 46
the law on the protection of public health, was not necessarily calling into question
the system itself to the compulsory vaccination in the Czech Republic. On the contrary, could
Open the much-needed space for its revision based on a serious
discussion to the need for the existing scope of the compulsory area
vaccination of children in comparison with the risks of non-vaccination for both individuals and
for the company (taking into account the possible adverse effects of vaccination).
A much needed confidence in the chosen system of vaccination may also support
the more sensitive the individual approach, "itself" the vaccination calendar or
the remuneration system more efficient vaccines of public health insurance.
The conditions for active plaintiffs ' evidence
20. The complainants suggested cancelling the above-cited legal provisions
together with the constitutional complaints have been filed under the provisions of section 72, paragraph. 1
(a). and the Act on the Constitutional Court). Their locus standi to submit
akcesorického proposal on specific control standards are based on the provisions of the
§ 64 paragraph. 1 (a). (e)), in conjunction with the provisions of section 74 of the Act on the constitutional
of the Court. The Constitutional Court must first examine whether the conditions for the
the submission of such a proposal on the part of the complainants fulfilled.
21. the submission of the proposal pursuant to section 74 of the Act No. 182/1993
Coll., on the Constitutional Court, as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., is "application"
the contested legislation. This means that the application of the
Regulation of the legal fact occurred (decision, measure or other
public authority intervention), which is the subject of a constitutional complaint, and
reflected in the legal sphere of the individual complainant negatively, i.e..
an allegation of a breach of its constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and
freedoms. Between the constitutional complaints in the contested decision, measure or
another by the intervention of a public authority and the law (his
the provisions proposed for cancellation) there must be a close link in the
meaning that if it weren't for the contested provisions of the legislation, there would
or to a legal act of the public authority as to its effect.
22. The proposal to repeal the provisions of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health
and the provisions of section 29. 1 (a). (f)) of the law on offences for their
contradiction with the provisions of the Convention, the Constitution of the calculated and submitted Documents
the complainants together with constitutional complaints led under SP. zn. I. ÚS
1253/14. The factual basis for the constitutional complaint was their opposition to the
assuming responsibility for the child to submit to established regular
vaccination. Railed against the decision on administrative penalty (a fine), stored
them for the lack of synergy (against the vaccination calendar, therefore,
There has been no vaccination) with the provider of health services. The appropriate
hygiene station them on 7 December. 7.2009 fined each in
of 6 000 Czk and the appeal of the Ministry of health
by decision of 13 February 2003. 8.2009 reduce both fine at 4 000 Czk.
The complainants have filed administrative charges, which were first judgment
Municipal Court in Prague from 27 June. 8.2010 No 4 Ca 26/2009-56
granted and the decision of the Ministry canceled, but then filed
the Ministry against the judgment of the appeal in cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court
by judgment of 29 January. 5.2012 No 4 As 8/2011-98 judgment of city
Court set aside and the matter was returned for further discussion and
decision. It was followed by a new judgment of the municipal court in Prague from 31 March.
10.2012 No. 4 and 43/2012-118, which was the claim of the complainants
rejected. After filing a complaint the complainant then the Supreme Administrative
the judgment of the Court of 17 December. 1.2014 No 4 As 2/2013-75 this complaint
rejected; the legal power of the judgment occurred on 4 July 2003. 2. in 2014.
23. the facts Described, which hit into the legal sphere of the complainants in
the immediate connection with the compulsory vaccination for their daughters
(a third of the claimant), were based on the application of the provisions of section 46 of the Act
for the protection of public health, in conjunction with the Decree No. 537/2006 Coll., on
vaccination against infectious diseases, in the wording of later regulations, issued by the
The Ministry of health of the day 29. 11.2006, (also referred to as "the implementing
the Decree ") and the revised procedures for the implementation of compulsory vaccination.
The complainants contested the provisions of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health
for the absence of any indication of the full merits of the vaccination requirement in the Act
(see paragraph 14) and also dovodili that legal obligations
undergo vaccination against infectious diseases, would not be against them
guided by administrative procedures, they would not be fined and not
their intervention in the free realm of decision-making on matters of the child
(they wouldn't let my daughter vaccinated according to their own claims of reason "of their
conscience and thought, ethical and philosophical beliefs and your
beliefs about the best interest of the minor, in the protection of health ").
24. the proceedings of the first two of the complainants, motivated the intention of not letting
vaccinate a daughter (third stěžovatelku) was assessed as fulfilling
offence offence pursuant to the provisions of section 29. 1 (a). (f))
Offences Act, under which the infraction on the health
one who commits a breach of the prohibition or fails to comply with the obligation laid down or
stored to prevent the emergence and spread of infectious diseases.
25. In relation to both legal provisions was a condition of submission
design according to the provisions of section 74 of the Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended by Act No. 48/2002 Coll., Therefore it was necessary to admit the complainants
active card to the submission of the proposal and the proposal to repeal the two
the statutory provisions subject to ústavněprávnímu review.
The constitutional conformity of the legislative process
26. In accordance with the provisions of section 68, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the constitutional
the Court, in the wording of Act No. 48/2002 Coll., Constitutional Court to determine whether the
the law is adopted and published within the limits of the Constitution laid down the competence and constitutionally
in the prescribed manner.
27. The appellants, while nenamítali a defect of the legislative process or
breaching the Constitution laid down the competence of the legislature, Constitutional Court, however,
still, the progress of the adoption process of the checked provisions, and
based on the observations submitted by the deputies of the Parliament
The Czech Republic and the Senate of the Parliament of the Czech Republic, as well as from the public
the available information resources on http://www.psp.cz.
28. A valid and effective wording of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health, who
is proposed for abolition, including the original text is also the result of changes in
Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health and amendment to certain
related laws, carried out by Act No. 274/2003 Coll., amending
changing some laws on the protection of public health, the law No.
392/2005 Coll., amending Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of the public
health and amending certain related laws, as amended
regulations, and some other laws, Act No. 41/2009, Coll., amending
certain acts in connection with the adoption of the criminal code, and the law
No 375/2011 Coll., amending certain laws in connection with the adoption of the
Health Services Act, the Act on the specific health
services and the law on the medical emergency service.
29. the draft Act on the protection of public health, the Government presented a
The Chamber of Deputies the day 10. 2.2000 as house print no 538/0. The first
the reading took place on 23. 2. in 2000, the Bill was referred to the Committee for
social policy and health care. The Committee discussed the draft law
day 3. 5.2000 and advised the Chamber of Deputies approved it, as amended
the Committee proposed amendments. The second reading, including detailed
the debate took place on the 18th. 5.2000 and third reading on 25. 5.2000.
The Chamber of deputies in favour of a draft Bill in the text of the agreement
adopted amendments in the vote no. 258, in which the
165 members present expressed their 164 members of Parliament for the draft law, no
the Deputy was not against. The Bill was referred to the Senate on 7 December. 6.2000.
The Senate Chamber of Deputies it back with amendments. A proposal from the
Bill returned by Senate discussed the Chamber of Deputies on 14 July. 7.2000 and
adopted it in the version approved by the Senate. In voting no 699 votes from
155 members present for the 128 members, 13 members voted against.
After the adoption of the law and after the signing of the Act by the competent constitutional factors
It was promulgated on 11 July. 8.2000 in the collection of laws under no. 258/2000 Coll.
30. A draft law later labeled No. 274/2003 Coll., amending
Some laws on the protection of public health, has submitted to the Chamber of Deputies
the House of the Government as the print House No 215/0. The first reading took place on 9.
4.2003, and printing was commanded by the Committee for social policy and
health care, which it discussed on 5 December. 6.2003. The Bill of the
own initiative to discuss the day 13. 6.2003 the Committee for the European
integration. The two committees adopted the amendments to the press, but without
the impact of the provisions of section 46. Second reading of the Bill took place on 3. 7.
2003, and the third reading on 8. 7.2003. In voting no 390 of 177 present
members of Parliament voted for the adoption of the law 127 members, 1 member was
against. The Bill was referred to the Senate on 14 July. 7. in 2003, the Senate it
approved on 7 December. 8. in 2003, the President signed it June 20. 8.2003 and the law
in the collection of laws was promulgated 27 June. 8.2003 No. 274/2003 Coll.
31. A draft law later indicated no 392/2005 Coll., amending
Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health and amendment to certain
related laws, as amended, and certain other
the law, submitted to the Chamber of Deputies, the Government as the press No 824/0 day 16.
11.2004. The first reading took place on 14. 12.2004 and printing was commanded by
the Committee for social policy and health, that discuss the date
9.3. 2005. Even in the Committee on Social Affairs and public health, or in the
second reading in the detailed debate was not about the provisions of section 46 of the Act
No 258/2000 Coll., filed the amendment. The third reading of the draft law
took place on 11. 5.2005, in voting no 98 of the 195 present
members cited for the 112 members, 56 deputies against. A proposal from the
the Bill was referred to the Chamber of Deputies on 23 June. 5.2005, the Senate
that day 17. 6.2005. About the law zamítnutém the Senate
The Chamber of Deputies voted March 19. 8. in 2005, in voting no 84 of 184
MPS was for Law 111 members and 63 votes
against. President of the Republic has not signed the Bill and returned it to the 12 October.
9.2005, the Chamber of Deputies back. The Chamber of Deputies about the law returned by the
the President voted on 23 June. 9.2005 and vote no 87 of the present
166 deputies voted for the Law 107 deputies voted 51
members. The law was promulgated in the collection of laws of the day 27. 9.2005 under no.
32. A draft law later identified as no. 41/2009, Coll., amending
certain acts in connection with the adoption of the criminal code, as
the Government's proposal in the House of Commons debated as print no 411/0.
The Government's draft amendments to the law No. 258/2000 Coll. does not contain. The first reading
the draft law was held on 14 June 2004. 3.2008, and printing was commanded by constitutionally
the legal Committee, and at the same time extend the deadline for the consultation of the
the proposal in Committee about 20 days. Constitutionally the legal Committee Bill
discuss the 19 July. 6.2008. During the second reading in the context of the detailed
the debate, which took place on 31 March. 10.2008, Rep. Mollohan Abood suggested
to complement the Government's proposal for additional standards, which should reflect the reduction
age of criminal responsibility, among them the provision of section 46
Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the third reading, which took place on 11. 11.
2008, voted for the proposal of members in Chytky vote no. 46 of
139 MPs present, 107 MPs and 25 against. About the design
the act as a whole in a vote no. 51 of the present 140 votes
116 members and 2 deputies were against it. The Senate bill approved
Day 8. 1.2009, the President signed it 27. 1.2009 and in the collection of laws
He was declared the day 9. 2.2009 under no. 41/2009 Sb.
33. The draft Bill later marked as no 375/2011 Coll., amending
changing some laws in connection with the adoption of the law on health
services for specific health services act and the Act on
medical emergency service, the Government has submitted to the Chamber of deputies of the day
30.6. 2011 as the house printing no 408/0. In its first reading on 12 December 2003. 7.2011
the proposal was referred to the Committee for health care and at the same time
shortened the deadline for consideration of this proposal in committees for 20 days. The Committee of the
for the health care bill discussed 25 June. 8.2011 and from its own
the initiatives discussed by 16 December. 8.2011 proposal also the Committee for defence and
the safety. Second reading of the Bill took place on 30. 8.2011. A summary of the
submitted amendments was treated as no printing house.
408/3; No amendment to the scope of the contested provisions. In
the third reading of the Bill was discussed by the Chamber of Deputies on 7 December. 9.
2011, approved in the vote was no. 101; of the 158 members of Parliament
voted for a bill against 92 members and 59 members. The Senate proposal
discuss the law on 12 June 2006. 10.2011 and dismissed it. The Bill rejected
The Senate debated the Chamber of deputies in the days 3. 11. to 6. 11.
2011. The Chamber of Deputies remained on the original text of the law, in
vote no. 343 of the 179 MPs voted for the 109 members
and 70 deputies voted against. The President of the Republic, the law of 22 May. 11.
2011 signed, in the collection of laws, the law was published 8 May. 12.2011 under
No 375/2011 Sb.
34. From the above recapitulation of the legislative process, it is clear that the
the provisions of section 46 of the Act No. 258/2000 Coll. was adopted constitutionally prescribed
in a way.
35. The contested provisions of section 29. 1 (a). (f)) of the provincial offences Act is in
the text of the amendments to the law přezkoumávaném the result of offences carried out in §
113 point 6 of Act No. 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health and
some of the related laws, [before the contested provisions
marked as letter g)]. The legislative process in this case was
correct (see paragraph 29 of this award).
The abandonment of an oral hearing
36. during the discussion of the proposal, the Constitutional Court came to the conclusion that in case it is not
need to order an oral hearing, as it did not bring further clarification of the matter.
According to the text of section 44 of the Act on the Constitutional Court, the Constitutional Court therefore held without
the holding of an oral hearing.
The basis of the review
37. Control of the constitutionality of the law is based on the material and formal
criteria applicable to its text. Request the appropriate forms of dictates that
the law supported the principle of legal certainty, its clarity and certainty and to
from its clear and bezrozporného text of the passed predictable
the consequences without any arbitrárnosti on the zákonodárcově side [see
the findings of the Constitutional Court of 24 June. 5.1994, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 16/93 (N 25/1
SbNU 189; 131/1994 Coll.), of 23 December. 5.2000, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 24/99 (N
73/18 SbNU 135; 167/2000 Coll.), of 4 April. 7.2000, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 7/2000
(N 106/19 SbNU 45; 261/2000 Coll.), of 12 June. 2.2002, SP. zn. Pl. ÚS
21/01 (N 14/25 SbNU 97; 95/2002 Coll.) and other]. The material criterion
It concentrates on the value aspect of the legislation. In the case under consideration are
in the first series of maxims, expressed in the article. 2 (2). 3 of the Constitution, in article. 2 (2).
2 of the Charter, and divorced in the article. 4 (4). 1 and 2 of the Charter, according to which the
the permissible exercise State power only in the legal limits, the obligations of the
can be stored only on the basis of the law and its limits in the
preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms and the legal limits of fundamental rights and
freedoms must respect the conditions laid down by the Charter.
38. The Constitutional Court notes that the complainants in their objections
nerozvinuli claims in more detail about that when non-cooperation
necessary for the vaccination of their daughters acted according to his conscience and
belief (cf. the citation in paragraph 23 in fine). If they argued
a mere reference to the article. 15 of the Charter on the freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, as well as on the article. 9 of the Convention, like the content, then
This subject of their objections, the Constitutional Court had no reason to deal with,
especially when he found the core proposal in compliance with the law and reservation issues
justification the mandatory vaccination law.
39. The claim of the complainants about intervention in the article. 11 of the Charter for the protection of
ownership was clearly motivated by the fact that the final
the decision imposed a financial penalty for the administrative offence (cross-cut their
assets), while this decision subsequently held up the review
the administrative courts. Answering this objection, however, was dependent on the
the decision of the Constitutional Court on the constitutionality of the provisions of section 29. 1 (a).
(f)) of the provincial offences Act, which is based on the scope of this award
justified in his conclusions.
40. The common denominator of the opposition complainants based on constitutional
guarantees the autonomy of the will of the individual and of the prohibition of recourse to the application of the
fundamental rights and freedoms (article 2, paragraph 3, article 3, paragraph 3, of the Charter)
their close relationship to the objection to the existence of the legislation
compulsory vaccination and against the absence of legal adjustments to the compensation of the injury
incurred in connection with compulsory vaccination (see point 14). Reflections
monitoring the potential interference to the cited articles of the Charter have become
the subject of the interpretation of the Constitutional Court concerning the reservation of law and the necessity of the legal
Edit the compulsory vaccination, without giving a reason is the text from them. About
the issue of compensation for health damage is dealt with in the conclusions of the
41. The obligations within the meaning of the catalogue of fundamental rights and freedoms means
the commitment of individuals to society, which may be required
in the public interest, i.e.. in the interest of specially protected democratic values
the rule of law. The determination of obligations is bound to act with the understanding that the standard
lower legal force, the obligation must instantiates
immediately perform the primary normative act and respect the limits in
42. The law requires the primary obligation, which may be in
the details of the detailed regulations (article 78, article 79, paragraph 3,
article. paragraph 104. 3 of the Constitution). Podzákonná modification must move secundum
et intra legem. The legislature is authorized to delegate to the Executive the power to
the adjustment of those obligations, which are the relevant legal content
Regulation, define it and determine its purpose and meaning [see constitutional
of the Court of 14 July. 2.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 45/2000 (N 30/21 SbNU 261;
43. The Constitutional Court has stated in the award from the day 3. 2.2011 SP. zn. III. THE TC
449/06 (N 10/60 SbNU 97) that the compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases
It clearly is a measure necessary in a democratic society for the protection of
public safety, health or the rights and freedoms of others. He stated also that the
The Convention on biomedicine, which is in accordance with the case-law of the Constitutional Court
part of the constitutional order of the Czech Republic [cf. the discovery of 25 June. 6.
2002, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 36/01 (N 80/26 SbNU 317; 403/2002 Coll.)],
does not create the possibility of Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality or unconstitutionality
the legal obligation to submit to a specific kind of vaccination. However
The Convention on biomedicine the basic right not to be subjected to any
the procedure in the field of health care without their consent (article 5, or
persons unable to consent article. 6), at the same time admits in the article. 26 restriction
This law, if such restrictions are prescribed by law and are
necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety,
protection from crime, the protection of public health or the protection of the rights and
freedoms of others. The decision of the legislature that a certain type of vaccination
It will be mandatory, according to the Constitutional Court decision, which
implements the option provided for in article explicite 26 the Convention on biomedicine.
According to the Constitutional Court, "[J] de on the decision which is in the first place
the question of political and expert, and therefore there is a very limited possibility
ingerence of the Constitutional Court. Such a decision the legislature enjoys in
relation to the Convention cited (Note red.: read Convention on biomedicine)
a relatively large space for political discretion in which cannot be
the decision of the legislature (or the implementing Regulation Executive)
the determination of the obligation to submit to a specific kind of vaccination to review
(the margin of appreciation). The Constitutional Court is the judicial body protection
the constitutionality of his decision in principle cannot replace the conclusion
the legislature or Executive that certain infectious diseases require
mandatory vaccination. "
44. The ECTHR interprets in its (albeit rather sporadic) the case law
the question of the relationship of the compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases to human
rights in terms of the Convention on biomedicine. Respects, in particular the structure of the
This Convention, which is mentioned in the article. 26 certification as an essential constraint in the
democratic society similar to those that are in the article. 8 to 11
(European) The Convention calculated in other "restrictive" paragraphs. Legal
Edit the compulsory vaccination remains, as it has been interpreted by the constitutional
the Court in the context of the reference to the article. 26 the Convention on biomedicine, domain
45. The confirmation of these findings is the judgment of the ECTHR in the case against Solomachin
Ukraine from 15 October. 3.2012 No. 24429/03, pronouncing the aspects
the right to respect for private and family life under article. 8 of the Convention.
The subject of the complaint was the decision of the Ukrainian justice on injury to
the complainant's health caused by the compulsory vaccination. The ECTHR held that
the physical integrity of the person is subject to the protection of private life
the cited article of the Convention. Medical power, even a low degree of
the severity, is intervention in the right to privacy, which limits the
of the individual. Mandatory vaccination as against the person include forced medical performance
to interference in his or her physical integrity. The intervention, however, was held at the
under the law, and with the legitimate aim of protecting health. Was
justifiable in the interest of public health to inevitability prevent
the spread of infectious diseases in the region.
46. In article. 12 of the International Covenant on economic, social and
cultural rights (No. 120/1976 Coll.), the Contracting Parties undertake to make
measures, inter alia. in order to ensure the healthy development of the child and the prevention,
treatment and combating epidemic diseases [, paragraph 2 (b) and (c)))]. The European
the Social Charter (No 14/2000 Sb. m. s.) contains the article. 11 called the right to
the protection of health, the text of which is as follows: "with a view to ensuring the effective
the application of the right to protection of health, the Contracting Parties undertake, either directly
or in cooperation with public and private organisations to receive
measures aimed in particular: 1. the removal of the causes of disease in the highest
to the extent possible; 2. provision of advisory and educational services to
health promotion and increasing the responsibility of the individual in matters
health; 3. the greatest prevention of epidemic, endemic and other
47. According to the article. 35 Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union with the name of the protection of
health, everyone has the right of access to preventive health care and to the
provide medical care under the conditions laid down by national
legislation and practice. In the definition and implementation of all
the policies and activities of the Union is to be assured of a high level of protection of human
health. The principles set out here are based on the article. 168 (public health)
The Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, as amended by the Lisbon Treaty. The Court of
Justice of the European Union, which is on the options, limits and impact of national
Edit the compulsory vaccination in relation to EU legislation polled
The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, rejected the resolution of 17 December 1998. 7.2014
under SP. zn. C-459/13 raised a preliminary question for the non-s
that is the fabric of the matters referred to in national legislation
the editing and the judicial systems.
The contested provisions and detailed summary of the contents of the Decree
48. The Text of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health as follows:
(1) a natural person who has a permanent residence in the Czech Republic,
the alien, which was a permanent residency, an alien is entitled to
permanent residence on the territory of the Czech Republic, and the alien, which was
allowed a temporary stay on the territory of the Czech Republic for a period of longer than 90
days or is entitled to reside in the territory of the Czech Republic for longer than
90 days are required to undergo, in the implementing legislation
customized cases and deadlines, laid down by the kind of regular
vaccination. The implementing legislation provided for natural persons and
natural persons, which are to be included in the workplace with higher risk
the emergence of infectious diseases, are required to undergo in a specified
those kind of special vaccinations.
(2) before performing the regular and special vaccination is a natural person
be obliged to undergo in the cases covered by implementing legislation
examination of the State of immunity (resistance). Regular and special vaccination is
does not detect the infection when immunity or the findings of the health
the State, which prevents the administration of vaccine (permanent contraindications). About
These facts, the provider of health services issues the physical
the person and the reason for the abandonment of the confirmation of the vaccination entered in the medical
(3) if the competent authority finds that public health, that the minor
a natural person or a lawful order of a vaccination in accordance with paragraph 2, and
in the case of a minor natural person who has chosen the practical
the doctor, establishes her obligation to submit to the decision of this vaccination
or for the specified provider of health services.
(4) in the case of a person who is not the fifteenth year of his age, corresponds to the
for the fulfilment of the obligations under paragraphs 1 to 3 of its legal representative.
(5) the Authority to protect public health, which issued the decision under
paragraph 3, it shall request the designated provider of health services to
vaccinations or tests carried out. The specified provider of health
the service is obliged to comply with the request.
(6) the implementing legislation modifies the breakdown of vaccination and the conditions
the implementation of vaccination, immunity, workplace investigation methods with higher
the risk of infectious disease and the conditions under which they may be
the context of the particular natural person included in the vaccination of the workplace
with a higher risk of infectious diseases.
49. the text of section 29. 1 of the law on offences is in the relevant section of the
Offences in the field of health care
(1) the Offence is committed by one who
(f) violates or fails to comply with ban) the obligations laid down or saved to
the prevention of the emergence and spread of infectious diseases, ...
50. The implementing Regulation (see the authorization in § 46 paragraph 1, 2 and 6 of the law on
the protection of public health) to the vaccination requirement is Decree No. 537/2006
Coll., on inoculation against infectious diseases, in the wording of later regulations.
This Decree in the introductory provisions article 1 declares that the subject of the
adjustments are ") Division of the vaccination, the conditions for the implementation of the vaccination and passive
immunization coverage, methods of investigation of immunity, the workplace with higher risk
the emergence of infectious diseases, and the conditions under which they may be in
the context of the particular natural person included in the vaccination this
workplace b) when it is before a regular and
Special vaccination by a natural person shall be obliged to submit to the examination of the State
immunity and when is obliged to submit to be determined by the kind of vaccination, and (c))
the scope of the registration of a licence or to the vaccine inoculation
health and vaccination certificate of the child and the young person and the medical
documentation of a vaccinated. "
51. In section 2 of the Ordinance, uvozeném, marginal, another breakdown of the vaccination,
paragraph 1 and under the letters) to (e)) to be broken down vaccination against infectious diseases
and (b))) regular, special, c) extraordinary, which means vaccination
natural persons for the prevention of infections in emergency situations, d) vaccination
when accidents, injuries, setbacks and nehojících, before some
therapeutic feats, and against tetanus and rabies vaccination, and (e)),
made at the request of the natural person who wishes to be vaccinated animals
protected against infections, for which a vaccine is available. U
regular and special vaccination is given the enumeration of diseases, against
which of these two types of vaccination shall be carried out. In accordance with paragraph 2 of the same
the provisions of the regular vaccinations carried out as either a or b) base)
booster; When the two vaccinations is served one or more doses of vaccine
to achieve the desired effect.
52. In the provisions of sections 3 to 7 of the implementing decree is included to edit
during regular vaccinations against the diseases identified therein, including
the period in which it is to occur. Followed by (§ 9 to 11, 13)
Special vaccination, for which the necessary characteristics of workplaces,
as well as persons (work function), which is to be vaccinated. In
the provisions of section 14 to 18 are regulated by the common conditions for the implementation
vaccination (Tools, vaccines), the conditions for the implementation of passive
Immunization (submission of additional substances to the vaccine), the definition of workplaces
higher risk of infectious diseases, the conditions of inclusion
natural persons on the workplace and the extent of vaccination in the
the vaccine, respectively. certificate of health of children and adolescents. Then
the following are transitional and final provisions of the Ordinance.
The case-law of the vaccination requirement in relation to the fundamental rights and freedoms
53. The Supreme Administrative Court dealt in the enlarged Board's resolution of 3 May.
4.2012 No. 8 As 6/2011-120 (no 2624/2012 Coll. NSS) conflict of laws
the views of the boards of appeal of the Court in assessing the situation, in which there was a failing
the child in nursery schools in the absence of vaccination against three
children's diseases and also to the imposition of sanctions for refusal of consent of parents with
regular vaccination the child. In this context, there has
the need to answer the question of whether the legislation of compulsory vaccination
against infectious diseases hold up in terms of content, or proportions
the requirements included in the provisions of section 46 of the Act on the protection of the public
Health on the one hand and their instantiations in the implementing decree on
the other side. The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that "[R] ámcová edit
the obligation of natural persons to submit to vaccination, as provided for in section 46 of the Act
No 258/2000 Coll., on the protection of public health, and its refinement in
the Decree No. 537/2006 Coll., on inoculation against infectious diseases,
correspond to the requirements of ústavněprávním, according to which the obligation can be
saved only on the basis of the law and its limits (article 4 (1)
The Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms) and the limits of fundamental rights and freedoms can
be regulated only by law (article 4, paragraph 2 of the Charter of fundamental rights and
54. In that resolution the Supreme Administrative Court held that
the provisions of the article. 26 paragraph. 1 the Convention on biomedicine, inspired by similar
the texts of the European Convention, is part of the international human rights treaties and
indicates the basic law only limits the postulate of the law. Court
However, he reminded the interpretation of this requirement: may not always go exclusively
about the law, but also about the "right" in a material sense (including for example the established
the case-law), which has a certain quality, and as a legal rule is nadáno
accessibility, sufficient clarity and predictability. The requirements of article. 4
paragraph. 1 and 2 of the Charter of the reservation of law when saving obligations have been
things considered in the opinion of the Supreme Administrative Court.
The provisions of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health, considered by the Court of
the perspective of the scope of duties of the vaccine for the constitutionally Conformal and
adjustment details in implementing the decree for the compatible with the requirement that
the vaccine was the obligation and its limits regulated by law and instantiating the
This obligation made by the implementing regulation. However, extended composition
He admitted some of the legitimacy of the opposition of one of the competing boards that
the implementing decree contains more detail in comparison with other
implementing provisions, did not consider that fact for the qualitative
the difference, which would have raised the unconstitutionality of legislation under consideration.
The legislature followed the legitimate reasons, if defined in the provisions of section 46
the law on the protection of public health, vaccination and the General obligation to
the implementing rules left the determination of cases and deadlines, the
the fulfillment of this obligation. The Senate extended the Supreme Administrative
the Court stated that "the question of whether and to what extent provide for vaccine
the obligation, has not only technical aspects, but also political, since this
the obligation to always constitutes a restriction referred to fundamental rights and
freedoms, and at the same time in the company of different views on the benefits or vice versa
some of the side effects of vaccination in particular cases ".
55. The complainants not already the subject of a constitutional complaint, objection to infringement
the basic right to life under article. 6 of the Charter (article 2 of the Convention). This
the right is associated. with the positive obligation of the State to take the necessary
measures to protect the life of the patients in the implementation of health care. In addition to the
measures leading to the immediate rescue of life are also a must
preventive measures. The case law of the ECTHR (cf. also above Solomachin against the
However, Ukraine) nepřisvědčuje the prospect, according to which, in the implementation of the
Institute mandatory vaccinations against infectious diseases arose a causal
the link to the article. 2, of the Convention (closer Drgonec, j. Mandatory očkovanie verzus
basic rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. Justičná revue No.
2/2014, with 226, 227., and the Commission decision in the ECTHR case X against Austria
of 13 June. 12.1979 No. 8278/78 cited therein).
56. In the assessment of the relationship of legal compulsory vaccination and basic
rights and freedoms, it is necessary to highlight the provisions of the article. 7. 1 of the Charter,
According to which is the integrity of the person and its privacy is guaranteed and
limited may be only in the cases provided for by law. Vpravení vaccine
substance in the human body, which is to elicit a response of the immune system with
the long-term effect is to physical integrity. The provisions of the article. 7
paragraph. 1 of the Charter is more general safeguards for the protection of the private instantiations and
family life from unauthorized zasahováním, guaranteed in article. 10
paragraph. 2 of the Charter. The right to inviolability of the person and its privacy is
major has already given their location in the structure of the Charter; as to the
the provisions in the foreground adjustments of fundamental human rights, which has in the
a hierarchical arrangement of objective values of constitutional order as
reflecting the "classical" guarantee the basic right of precedence over the permissions
arising only from constitutional soft law [see Constitutional Court of
6.3. 2012 SP. zn. I. ÚS 823/11 (N 44/64 SbNU 521)].
57. Another provision of the basic law, which has a direct relationship
to modify the compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases, is no longer a constitutional
the Court of judikovaný (cf. section 43) article. 16 of the Charter on the freedom to manifest
religion or belief, and the autonomy of the Church. Find SP. zn. III.-449/06
resulted in a legal sentence, according to which "[uu] exhibition, standing on principle
how the basic requirement of maintaining the rights, so with this basic
the conflicting public interest law, translates into interpretation of the article. 16
paragraph. 4 of the Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms, so that the Czech Constitution
Republic requested the protection of individual autonomy, the estimated
cited provisions, requires mandatory vaccination against
compulsory subjects in exceptional cases enforced. " Is it
noted that the Constitutional Court when aprobování this exception from the obligation to
vaccination published in not irrelevant to the extent of the observations of the Committee for
human rights and Biomedicine of the Council of the Government of the Czech Republic for human rights,
which featured in the proceedings on constitutional complaints as amicus curiae. The Committee of the
on human rights and Biomedicine said that, with regard to the high rate of
vaccination coverage of the population (higher than anticipated 90%) cannot
exceptional not enforce vaccination, with regard to the exceptional circumstances
the case, undermine the constitutionally protected interest in the protection of public health.
The Constitutional Court then in the grounds of the award, in which mj. set aside the judgment of the
The Supreme Administrative Court noting the intervention into the article. 16, Instrument,
the threat of the basic rights of the complainant deduced to freely manifest their
religion or belief in the meaning of article. 16. 1 of the Charter. He admitted, however,
that the exercise of this fundamental right is not neomezitelný, but is subject to the
legal restrictions under article. 16. 4 of the Charter (measure in the Democratic
the company necessary to protect public safety and order, health
and morality or the rights and freedoms of others). If you still decided to Constitutional Court
in favour of the complainant, he did so with a view to the article. paragraph 32. 4
Of the Charter, concluding that the fundamental right of the complainant, in accordance with article. 16. 1
Of the Charter in this case is also a fundamental right of the complainant added
58. In the general context of the interpretation of fundamental rights in relation to the
compulsory vaccination is desirable to note that undoubtedly important,
However, the decisive factor is not the claim of the complainants about intervention in the right to
health protection (article 31 of the first sentence of the Charter). The specific interest of the parents on the
the protection of the health of their child surely cannot be disregarded. Against him, however,
is of wider interest in the protection of public health, as reflected in
the preventive nature of the Board carried out vaccination of the population with a legitimate
to prevent the occurrence and spread of infectious diseases among the people. Accent
the right to protection of health lies in the area of the positive obligation of the State
contribute specific measures to protect the health of citizens (cf..
Wagner, e., Prince, v., Langášek, t., Pacheco, and wheels. The Charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms. Comment. Prague: Wolters Kluwer ČR, 2012, with.
645, article. 31 Papers commented on j. Wintr).
59. According to the article. paragraph 32. 4, the first sentence of the Charter is the care of children and their
education law parents; at the same time the kids have a right to this parental
education and care. The Constitutional Court has already, in its case-law, said legal
the view that the autonomy parents in deciding on medical procedures
to their children is not absolute. May exceptionally be limited, and even
If the parents do not agree with the medical treatment of the religious
reasons [see find of 20 December. 8.2004, SP. zn. III.-459/03 (N 117/34
SbNU 223)]. Protection of health and life of the child is more than relevant and
sufficient reason for intervention in parental rights, as regards
value whose protection is in the system of fundamental rights and freedoms a priority.
The general courts are then required to when making its decision on the specific
cases, the search for harmony between the interests of the child and the interests of his parents.
The reservation Bill
60. The Convention used in connection with the requirement of the necessary adjustments
the issue of the law turns the "prescribed by law" (eg. in article 9 (2).
2), "provided for by law" (in the second sentence of article 1 of the additional protocol)
or "in accordance with law" (article 2, paragraph 3, of Protocol No 4;) in
the French version also used different phrases, for example.
"prévue par la loi" (article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention). The European document is in
all cases in mind, not just the "law", but a "right". The formulation,
the reservation is carried out, must be determined by the law of
perceived in the material sense and can be classified under it not only right
written, but also unwritten law and judicial (Sanoma Uitgevers (B). In.
The Netherlands, the ECTHR Grand Chamber judgment of 14 July. 9.2010 No.
38224/03). For the written law of the ECTHR considered here not only laws, but also the legal
lower legal force of legislation, normative acts issued by the professional
organisations and other similar sources of Sanoma Uitgevers (closer to the back (B).
In addition, whether or not Leyla Şahin against Turkey, judgment of the Grand Chamber
10.11. 2005 No. 44774/98).
61. The reservation of the Act requires that the substantive issues of the issues have been
regulated by law, so that the legal standards governing these issues include
at least the substance and its result, and what is more important
edited Materia, the more detailed the legislation must be. Legal
modifying a reservation, fulfilling the law presumes such clarity,
to its addressees were able to comprehend its content and the implications and
customize this adaptation of his behavior, including anticipating the consequences of
(see comment cited in point 58, s. 25, 129, author e. Wagner).
62. The formal and substantive requirements for the podzákonnou normotvorbu, and thus the
distinguish in relation to the content of the "default" Bill summarizes award
The Constitutional Court of 14 February. 2.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 45/2000 (N 30/21 SbNU
261, 270; 96/2001 Coll.). According to him, is the constitutional definition of the derived
standardisation of the Executive on the three principles. They are underpinned by release
standards (implementing regulation, in the cited case it was about Government Regulation)
authorized body, the ban for this standard to intervene in the Affairs of the
reserved Act (you cannot set the primary rights and obligations) and
the existence of the obvious will of the legislator to modify the above the legal standard (for
sphere derived standards must be open space).
63. The ratio of the Act and the implementing regulation described the Constitutional Court also in
the award of 16 April. 10.2001, SP. zn. PL. ÚS 5/01 (N 149/79, 89 24 SbNU;
410/2001 Coll.). He concluded that "the contested regulation reservation Bill
does not violate, because only on the basis of explicit legal authorization
instantiates the issue modified in the basic features already by
by the law. The opposite conclusion, that would be demanded by the determination of any
obligations directly and exclusively by the law would clearly lead to absurd
consequences, and to the denial of the meaning of a secondary (and in some cases even
the primary), since the conceptual part of the standardisation of each legal standards is
the definition of certain rights and obligations of the addressees of standards. "
Assessment of the legal text
64. An extended Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court considered the resolution sp.
Zn. 8 As 6/2011 (points 53, 54), § 46 paragraph. 1 of the law on
the protection of public health, provides quite clearly to specific groups
natural persons obliged to undergo regular vaccination or
Special vaccinations. It follows the obligation provided for in paragraph 2, in accordance with
where it is necessary to submit to vaccination status before examination
immunity (resistance) or to respect the result of the findings of the health
the State, which prevents the administration of vaccine (permanent contraindications). In
the following paragraphs 3 to 5 shall be dealt with related issues (decision
on the obligation to submit to an examination, the legal representative is responsible for
a person who is not the fifteenth year of age, the synergy of the protection authority
public health, health services provider). The last
paragraph 6, in accordance with previous entrusts implementing Decree (see also
section 108 of the Act on the protection of public health) Division of the vaccination on the individual
the types and conditions of implementation of the vaccination. The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that
the provisions of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health, provides selected
groups of natural persons, while similar, but sufficiently clearly and definitely
vaccine obligation (whether under this or that kind of vaccination) and with
related obligation to be subject to prior examination of the State
the immunity of the organism, respectively. such an examination, that prevents the submission of
the vaccine. Implementing decree specifies, in particular then against which
infectious diseases and in what terms, comes the obligation to undergo
a particular kind of vaccination (especially regular vaccination, special
vaccination or vaccination) and regulates the special also for more details.
65. The Constitutional Court emphasises that, in paragraph 1, the provisions of section 46 of the Act on
the protection of public health serves the definition of natural persons, that is
required to submit to the vaccination requirement. Definition Bill
contains the necessary characters to this person to whom they are a permanent resident
for a citizen of the Czech Republic and foreigners permission to permanent or
temporary residence with the fact that the minimum length of stay must not exceed 90
days. Definition of the types and terms of the regular vaccination is optional
the implementing Decree; Similarly, on the implementing regulation carries the determination
circle of individuals and departments falling under the obligation to submit to
Special vaccinations. Such a system is fair and sufficiently distinguishes
its aspects already exceed the required degree of universality.
66. Part of the statutory definition of the person required to submit to vaccination is
the responsibility of the legal representative of a person under the age of fifteen years, adjusted in
paragraph 4. Similarly, paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 46 of the Act are
formulated so that the addressee of legislation is without any doubt
able to discern that it is obliged to submit to an examination of the State of immunity
his body, which can lead, as well as other findings about his
health, concluded defensive filing vaccine (permanent
contraindications). In the event that a minor shall impose the vaccination or
examination of the above him and has chosen general practitioner,
provides for the obligation to submit to vaccination or testing for the specified
doctor (health services provider) by decision of the authority, the protection
public health. This is the text of the legal provisions by the Constitutional Court
sufficiently specific and understandable. The rest of the paragraph, the provisions of § 46
provides for the obligation of the provider of health services to perform the examination or
vaccination (paragraph 5) and empower the implementing decree to modify the breakdown
vaccination conditions the implementation of vaccination, immunity and investigation methods
details of the implementation of the special vaccination (paragraph 6), which are clearly
such components of the legislation, which largely regulate the implementation phase
the vaccination requirement and belongs to the text of the implementing regulation.
67. The objection of the complainants here are against the lack of legislation (§
46) the extent of vaccination and the manner of its implementation. The complainants,
the text of the law is increasingly recognizing the extent of vaccination required. His
adjustment by one contains up to implementing decree, specifically its
the provisions of § 2 of the breakdown of the vaccination. To calculate the individual
types of vaccinations and is followed by the enumeration of diseases against which vaccines given (then
regular vaccination is divided into basic and booster). A similar objection is
made to the way the implementation of vaccination. It is possible to note,
the specific procedures for the implementation of the individual types of vaccination against
diseases as listed in the provisions of sections 3 to 17, the detailed
68. However, it cannot be necessary accent on the generality of legislation to close,
that would be the extent of vaccination was not modified by law with the necessary degree of
details. Each of the individual types of vaccination, calculated "to" in
the provisions of section 2 of the Decree, whether it is a regular vaccination,
a special, extraordinary, vaccination, when injuries and injuries or
some medical and vaccination of a natural person is requested,
inevitably linked to specific diseases, completely
facts the kind of conditioning, vaccination with subsequent time
vaccination requirements, and also with the definition of the specific reasons for the
vaccination (vaccination before therapeutic performances) or by fixing certain
professions (special vaccination). The latter referred to become konkréta
the reasoned part of the implementing regulation. Systematics of legislation
here in charge not separate adjustment of individual types of vaccination and those very
specific and often exhibited (including the State of scientific knowledge) conditional
the fact that attaching to them. In the described legal regulation cannot therefore be
found any defect of the parties to establish the extent of vaccination, which should
should establish the constitutional nonkonformitu.
69. A similar conclusion makes the Constitutional Court in relation to the opposition of the complainants
the parties determining the method of vaccination; According to them, this would not be described in the
the implementing decree, but in the Act. Modify the way the implementation of vaccination is
However, the prima vista attributed not to the General arrangements, but to
the implementing regulation. Indeed, one-and it is necessary to emphasize-is
the vast extent of the conditions of implementation of each of the species
vaccination against specific diseases.
70. With the help of a systematic interpretation of the language and can therefore be legitimately
inferred that the text of the provisions of section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health is
sufficiently clear and understandable, and derive from it to reliably base
the attributes and the limits of legal regulation of compulsory vaccination against infectious
diseases. The authorization, which is provided in the implementing legislation
the decree to regulate the details related to the implementation of the mandatory
vaccination, uses podzákonná standard in given limits, without hitting the
the facts contained in the essential character of the law. Not, therefore,
to the legislative intervention in the guarantee provided by the holders of the basic
rights and freedoms in article. 4 (4). 1 and 2 of the Charter.
Investigation of the nature and meaning of the fundamental rights of the
71. In the assessment of the constitutionality of the law can not be ignored
categorical postulate of article. 4 (4). 4 of the Charter, which must be
the application of the provisions on limits of fundamental rights and freedoms investigated their
the essence and the meaning of and their limitations must not be abused for other
purposes other than for which it was established. Mandatory vaccination against infectious
diseases is interference to the physical integrity of the individual, and thus the intervention into its
private, and family life. As the limitations of the basic
rights must be accompanied by an obligation of such Vaccine Institute
the legal guarantees that would minimize its abuse and eliminate
the medical performance in the event that they are not given the conditions for its implementation.
Without Constitutional Court intends to interfere with the technical aspects of the implementation of the
vaccination, notes that for such a guarantee is considered the legal adjustment
the provisions of § 46 paragraph. 2 and 3 of the law on the protection of public health. As already
mentioned above, is according to her before carrying out the regular and
the specific natural person shall be obliged to submit to vaccination in the cases
the revised implementing regulation examination of State immunity (resistance).
Regular and special vaccination is not after the outcome of the examination
or the immunities after the findings of the health status in both cases to prevent
administration of the vaccine (permanent contraindications). On these facts
provider of health services to a natural person certificate and the reason
the abandonment of vaccination writes to the medical documentation. If it finds
the competent authority to protect public health (public health service), the
minor natural person pursuant to the lawful order of a vaccination or testing
paragraph 2, and in the case of a minor natural person who does not have the selected
practitioner, provides her obligation to submit to the decision of this
vaccinations or to submit to examination by a designated medical practitioner. On the legal
Edit the text of the Decree follows, which contains multiple places
a specific and defined in detail the obligations of the provider of the health
the service, which is to ensure that the vaccination will be carried out properly.
As to the intervals between each vakcinacemi, monitoring responses to
the first of the carried out vaccinations, etc. (section 3, paragraph 2, section 5, paragraph 2, § 14
paragraph. 2 implementing Ordinance). The following rekapitulovaný the contents of the legislation
objective to ensure that compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases
was carried out properly and to reduce border restrictions on individuals at the expense of
investigation of the nature and meaning of the basic law in terms of article. 4 (4). 4
Of the Charter.
Test of restriction of rights
72. The complainants found in the draft law on the abolition of the causal
the link between administrative sanctions that have been imposed and legal
the obligation to submit to vaccination against infectious diseases. The Constitutional Court
at this point, recalls that compulsory vaccination law uses
the national space editing in the article. 26 the Convention on biomedicine
a respected European case law, and also that his find SP. zn.
III.-449/06 of June 3. 2.2011 (N 10/60 SbNU 97) to the legitimacy of
This regulatory mechanism, clearly and positively.
73. If still further described the basic law restrictions, the test is
done for the reason that the most basic right, which is the legal
by modifying the mandatory vaccination of the limited, is the law on the protection of privacy in the
the form of the guarantee of the inviolability of the person (article 7, paragraph 1, article 10, paragraph 2
Of the Charter); This person is required to submit to an intervention in their physical integrity in
the form of performance for medical conditions laid down by law. For the purpose of
review of the human rights conformity of legislation limiting the right to the protection of
privacy, including intervention in the physical integrity, accompanied by limitačními
clauses on the conditions for the admissibility of restrictions of the privacy state uses
the case law of the ECTHR pětistupňový test (see Ranjit K, J., Mike K., d.,
Kratochvíl, j., m. Bobek, the European Convention on human rights. Comment.
1. Edition. Prague: c. h. Beck, 2012, 99-116, comment D. Mike K.).
74. the first step of the test asks whether the present case falls within the factual
the extent of those rights, which are restricted. The answer to this question is obvious.
The sphere of the protection of the fundamental right to the protection of private and family life
includes the guarantee given to the individuals that the State has the obligation to respect and
interfere with them only in cases of inevitable. If the medical
the performance hit to the right of the inviolability of the person, without it intervention
due to her illness and for persons under the age of 15 years bear this
the intervention of the responsibility of the legal representatives of the child, then it is a completely natural
talk about the restrictions that should be the objective of the test subject.
75. The second question of the test is to determine whether it was in the basic
human rights actually affected in a particular case. Also, the answer to the
It must be positive. The request is populated by the intervention of the physical integrity of the
vaccinated persons with expected long-term effect. In the case of
the compulsory vaccination of a minor under the age of 15 years is limited right
legal representatives (parents) to make decisions about the care and upbringing of their children (article.
paragraph 32. 4 of the Charter). Indeed, in judikoval, the Constitutional Court finding SP. zn.
III.-449/06 also the possibility of interference with the fundamental right to freedom of
to manifest their religion and beliefs.
76. The subject of the third step of the test is to review the legality of the restrictions to the right to
the protection of privacy. Desirable legality (legality) the limitations of the basic
the rights of the content here is based on the postulates of the doctrine of the basic restrictions
the right provided for by the law ("prescribed by law") expressed in the article. 4
Of the Charter. This issue in relation to the restriction of fundamental rights by law
in cases of compulsory vaccination against infectious diseases already addresses the points 60
up to 71 of this award, with a positive conclusion on the legality of the statutory
77. the fourth step of the test raises the requirement for the legitimacy of the restrictions concerned
of fundamental rights. The European question is as follows: follows the intervention of the human
the law of at least one of the allowed legitimate targets? Typology and enumeration
the legitimate objectives of the ECTHR case-law has developed as a result of generalization
judikatorní practice (cf. the comment cited in point 73, 110, 111).
One of the recognised legitimate objectives is the protection of health, and
mandatory vaccination is not just about in principle ex lege across-the-Board vaccination of persons,
but also vicariously for the protection of those individuals from infection
communicable diseases, which for various reasons were not vaccinated.
78. Without any doubt the most important step five of the test has the answer
the question of the necessity of the restrictions of the basic law by the law (without
the case law of the ECTHR accepted uniform and binding this assessment algorithm
the questions). Just a question about the necessity of compulsory vaccination in the Democratic
the company, moreover, the complainants put in its proposal.
79. The Constitutional Court's not considered part of their review of permissions
assess the technical aspects of the issue, including those reasons, which led in the
the light of the knowledge of medical science to introduce a partial or across-the-Board vaccination
the population, including the utilization of the Institute the compulsory vaccination of the adjusted
by the law. It is not the role of the Constitutional Court, to deal with the question of whether
the epidemiological situation in this or that country of the European continent
to modify the compulsory vaccination or not. However, the offers here
the use of expert knowledge, the assessment of these Springs belongs to
the disposition of the realm of the legislative and Executive. The Constitutional Court therefore went out of
generally available sources of competent international institutions and
Czech. The conclusions of these apparent talking in favour of the adopted solutions in the
the principle area of vaccination against infectious diseases and selected interested in
the protection of public health outweighs the arguments the complainants against the
80. The Ministry of health to the constitutional complaint
the complainants held under SP. zn. I. ÚS 1253/14 (present as
particular case off the constitutional control act separately)
statistically shows substantial reduction or disappearance of morbidity after
for infectious diseases accessed (available) compulsory
preventive vaccination. Examples are given the measles,
poliomyelitis (polio) and diphtheria. In the case of measles was in
in 1953, the morbidity, the number of persons on the 350 100 000 inhabitants, gradually
even increased to 900 people at the start of the vaccination in 1969 was
approximately 600 persons, and after the introduction of two doses of this
morbidity, with the exception of small variations in the early 1990s. years of the last century,
at zero. In the case of polio has exceeded the number of reported illnesses 2 000 persons
at the end of 40. years of the last century. After the deployment of vaccines against this
the illness since 1957 there has been already in 1961 to the disappearance of this disease.
In the monitoring of diphtheria was recorded most of the sick, and in 1946
in proportion over the 500 to 100 000 inhabitants. Then began the vaccination and from 60.
There is no more significant occurrence of years of this disease.
81. The recommendation of the World Health Organization (WHO) for Europe,
including statistical data by 2011, contains seven points
vaccine strategy with emphasis on the preventive effect of vaccination. How
in particular, demonstrates the first and fourth point, high
vaccination rates leads to limit the occurrence of the disease, and she is a guarantee
minimizing the formation and spread of the epidemic. Comparative tables
published to the cited points of reaching the desirable level of vaccination coverage
approximately 95% (source:
82. In 1997, was under no 1317 published recommendations called
Vaccination in Europe as a document of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
In the text of the recommendation, the Committee of Ministers calls on Member States to
invited to introduce comprehensive public vaccination programmes as
the most effective resource to prevention of infectious diseases. Already in the introduction
recommendation, it is recalled that, in certain countries of Central and Eastern
Europe after the fall of totalitarian regimes to itself or the demise of the system
the State of health care and the result is mj. increased incidence of infectious
(the text is available at http://assembly.coe.int, see
Doc. 7726, report of the Committee on social, health and Family Affairs,
adopted in 1997).
83. the Council of the European Union adopted, at its Assembly to health
the issues of the day 6. 6.2011 in Luxembourg conclusions entitled children's immunization:
achievements and challenges of child immunization coverage in Europe and the way forward. The document is
based on the article. 168 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union, according to which they are to be
national policy on issues of the protection of public health the way prescience did. References
on the regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EC) No 851/2004 of 21.
April 2004 establishing a European Centre for disease prevention and control
84. The Constitutional Court has to carried out a test of the basic limitations pětistupňovému
the law, which applies to the need for limitations on the rights to inviolability
persons legally mandatory vaccination, by modifying the Institute concludes that compared to the
the arguments of the complainants is in Czech and international sources and
recommendations on this issue put the emphasis on the requirement of implementation
public vaccination programmes including children's immunization, and in order to
minimize the spread of infectious diseases in order to protect public health.
The adjustment of the Institute the compulsory vaccination, which is fully in the purview of the
national legislation, serves the implementation of this requirement. Test
Therefore, the sounds in favour of the existing legislation.
The conclusions of the
85. the weighing of interests in the protection of public health and the fundamental rights and
freedoms that are, or may be a mandatory vaccination against communicable
affected by the diseases, polyvalent matters and, therefore, that on the side of the
fundamental rights are present in human, civic and social rights.
The Constitutional Court said here in relation to the provisions of § 46 Protection Act
public health, which the complainants had suggested to cancel the General conclusions about the
its accordance with the postulates of the Constitution and the Charter, without interfering with the realm
expert or political. The public interest in relation to fundamental rights
considered at the constitutional level, the review of legislation of compulsory
vaccination in the plane of necessity. Subject to review are the General legal
the guarantee procedure for mandatory vaccination, while the determination of the detailed
the rules of compulsory vaccination, based on expert knowledge, is
in their impact on the conditions of the individual should be left to the Executive area
and conceptual considerations, the legislative policy.
86. the existing legislative solution to the issue of compulsory vaccination against
infectious diseases allows you to respond with sufficient readiness on the development
the occurrence of various infectious diseases in the territory of the State and the
the latest state of scientific knowledge in the fields of medicine and pharmacology.
Also ongoing changes to Decree No. 537/2006 Coll., on inoculation
against infectious diseases, (Decree No. 65/2009 Coll., No 443/2009 Coll., no.
299/2010 Sb.) and before the valid Decree No. 439/2000 Coll., on the same
the issue, which may take place and to change the scope of the statutory
87. The Constitutional Court considers it desirable to speak to the subject of your review
also the obiter dictum. His positive findings of compliance with postulátu reservations
the law, and on the necessity of legal compulsory vaccination exhausted
framework for the review and assessment of the neoprávnily Court to the objections of the complainants
(formulated in de lege ferenda nature) about the absence of legislation
liability of the State for damage caused to individuals following vaccination.
However, if the State provides for a penalty in the event of refusal of the obligations to submit to an
vaccination, one must ponder over the situations in which eventually causes
the exercise of the rights of the vaccinated person injury. Space to compensation
such a person no longer opens the Convention on biomedicine, which is part of the
the constitutional order and in the article. 24 talks about the "fair compensation" for the
"undue damage" caused by the procedure laid down by the health law.
Part of the reflection on the question of compensation may also be legislation
compensation of the material and non-material damage in the civil code. However, you cannot
overlook that in the implementation of the compulsory vaccination of medical performance
preventive nature, in order to protect public health, the qualified
the law and having an extremely wide personal scope and impact. These circumstances
make it difficult for the legal position of the person, which may be due to vaccination
damage to health, and it is therefore appropriate that legislation responsibly
consider supplementing the legal regulation of the Institute the compulsory vaccination against
infectious diseases on the adjustment of the liability of the State for the amount implied
the consequences. It should happen more, that such legislation is not in
other States not unique (cf. a single complaint, which in
This matter has been addressed by lawmakers, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia in the
decision of 12 July 2005. 2.2004, SP. zn. U-I-127/01).
88. The proposal of the complainants on the cancellation of parts of the legislation was
also the proposal to repeal the provisions of § 29. 1 (a). (f)) of the law on
Offences Act, more specifically, the proposal for the deletion of the text about the violation of the prohibition or
the obligations laid down in or stored to prevent the emergence and spread of
infectious diseases. Even this proposal could not be met. The reason for this
It is already the substantive merits of the shot of the infraction, which the complainants
asked to cancel. As is evident from the wording of the law on the protection of the public
health, the failure to fulfil obligations in relation to the prohibition or mandatory
vaccinations are only part of the facts. The penalties may be
stores also for offences resting in another hearing before e.g.
the vaccine requirement (see violations of the obligations pursuant to the provisions of § 45
to 75b of the law on protection of public health, for example. the duties to be performed and
to comply with the obligations of protiepidemické measures to isolate the sick on
Department of infectious diseases, etc.).
89. Of all of the above reasons, the Constitutional Court did not find the reason for the cancellation
the relevant legal provisions, for the fundamental rights guaranteed by article. 2
paragraph. 3 of the Constitution, article. and article 9 of the Convention. 2 (2). 2 and 3, article. 3 (3). 3, article. 4,
7, 10, 11, 15, 31 and article. paragraph 32. 4 of the Charter is not violated by them.
Therefore, the Constitutional Court under section 70, paragraph. 2 Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the
The Constitutional Court, the proposal to repeal section 46 of the Act on the protection of public health
and the repeal of section 29. 1 (a). (f)) of the provincial offences Act completely rejected.
The President of the Constitutional Court:
JUDr. Rychetský in r.
Different opinion, pursuant to section 14 of Act No. 182/1993 Coll., on the Constitutional Court,
as amended, a decision of the Assembly, judge