ALGEMENE MEDEDELING

In de loop van januari 2025 wordt deze online omgeving geïntegreerd in Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), waarna deze omgeving wordt opgeheven. Vanaf dat moment linkt deze URL automatisch door naar Boomportaal.

DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072021006002016

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open

Rulings

ECtHR 8 April 2021, application no. 47621/13 and 5 others (Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic), Privacy, Miscellaneous

Mr. Vavřička and Others – v – the Czech Republic

DOI
Toon PDF Toon volledige grootte
Samenvatting Statistiek Citeerwijze
Dit artikel is keer geraadpleegd.
Dit artikel is 0 keer gedownload.
Aanbevolen citeerwijze bij dit artikel
, "ECtHR 8 April 2021, application no. 47621/13 and 5 others (Vavřička and Others v. the Czech Republic), Privacy, Miscellaneous", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2021):129-129

    Mandatory vaccination policies may not be contrary to art. 8 ECHR.

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • Summary

      Mandatory vaccination policies may not be contrary to art. 8 ECHR.

    • Judgment

      The Court:

      • Decides to join the applications;

      • Decides, unanimously, to join to the examination of the merits of the complaints of the applicants Brožík and Dubský under Article 8 of the Convention the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to those complaints;

      • Declares, unanimously, the complaints under Article 8 of the Convention admissible;

      • Declares, by a majority, the complaints under Article 9 of the Convention inadmissible;

      • Declares, unanimously, the complaints under Articles 2, 6, 13 and 14 of the Convention inadmissible;

      • Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention and finds that, accordingly, the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the Article 8 complaints of the applicants Brožík and Dubský has become moot and as such calls for no examination;

      • Holds, by sixteen votes to one, that there is no need to examine the applications of the child applicants separately under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.


Print dit artikel