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.