In Case Of Cancellation Of Nr. 258/2000 Coll. And From No. 200/1990 Coll.

Original Language Title: ve věci zrušení části z. č. 258/2000 Sb. a z. č. 200/1990 Sb.

Subscribe to a Global-Regulation Premium Membership Today!

Key Benefits:

Subscribe Now

Read the untranslated law here: https://portal.gov.cz/app/zakony/download?idBiblio=83948&nr=97~2F2015~20Sb.&ft=txt

97/2015 Sb.



FIND



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,



as follows:



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,

rejected.



Justification



(I).



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.



II.



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.



III.



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

the jabbers.



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.



IV.



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.



In the.



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.

392/2005 Sb.



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).



VI.



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.



VII.



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

the award.



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

It contained.



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;

96/2001 Coll.)].



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

National adjustments.



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

diseases. "



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.



VIII.



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:



section 46



(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

the documentation.



(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

the following:



section 29



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.



IX.



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

freedoms). "



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

as parents.



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.



X.



The reservation Bill



X/a



Judikatorní postulates



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. "



X.



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

the Decree.



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.



X/c



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.



XI.



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

the restrictions.



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

compulsory vaccination.



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:

http://www.uvzsr.sk/docs/info/epida/Seven_Key_Reasons.pdf).



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

diseases

(http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/lsa/1

22391. pdf).



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.



XII.



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

vaccination.



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

Catherine Simackova.