TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
GR2 (Government): And this convention is also a convention which has a constitutional standard in the Czech Republic.
GR2 (Government): The today's conception of the new Act on compensation or on liability is based on the state's liability.
GR2 (Government): When it comes to the threshold of seriousness, by law, secondary legislation is under preparation which should really facilitate the burden of proof when there are typical corollary effects.
GR2 (Government): There should be an independent expert commission which would assess each case individually at the administrative level.
GR2 (Government): And of course, there would be judicial review.
GR2 (Government): We also consider that vaccination is a medical intervention under the OVA Law Convention, but we would refer to the exception provided for by Article 26 in the name of the protection of public health.
GR2 (Government): And finally, from the various legal perspectives, and then I would like you, Mr. President,
GR2 (Government): to give the floor to Professor Primula.
GR2 (Government): When it comes to the Act of Social Solidarity, well, we think simply that it's a matter of the protection of health, which is mentioned in the second paragraphs of various provisions of the convention.
GR2 (Government): Of course, not in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, but we know the mechanism of limitations
GR2 (Government): under this provision.
GR2 (Government): So I would refer it's the protection of health with some exemptions and also with safeguards to which I have already alluded in my previous speech.
GR2 (Government): For this time being, thank you very much, and I would pass the burden of responding to your questions to Professor Primula.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Please, Mr. Prymula.
GR1 (Government): I will address a couple of your questions towards medical issues and related epidemiological aspects.
GR1 (Government): Basically, if you are talking about policies, so different countries may adopt different policies concerning mandatory immunization and voluntarily-based immunization in many countries is just combination.
GR1 (Government): And if we call for some proof of efficacy of such an approach, at least two papers have been published, and a recent one from previous year, I suppose, is showing that the mandatory immunization is better or increasing prevalence of measles vaccination by almost 4% and pertussis vaccination by about 2%.
GR1 (Government): So this is a proof.
GR1 (Government): Speaking about the Czech Republic, we may compare our mandatory immunization with coverage, for example, for hexavalent vaccine, 98%, going down recently for 92%, and the measles coverage from originating 98% to 88%.
GR1 (Government): But if we compare just voluntary-based immunization in the country with this pneumococcal immunization or HPV immunization, in those we are much lower for HPV, 60%, for pneumococcal immunization, 64%.
GR1 (Government): Speaking about possible individual targets for individual diseases, what should be herd immunity level, it is complicated to explain because for each disease, it's a different figure.
GR1 (Government): And for some disease, we do not have herd protection like tetanus because this is just individual protection.
GR1 (Government): And for tetanus, we do not have such a level, definitely.
GR1 (Government): But for measles, we need very high figures like 98%, and recently are going down in many European countries for vast majority of vaccines and diseases.
GR1 (Government): In hexavalent vaccine, it's around 95%.
GR1 (Government): So those are figures, and in many European countries, just we are going down.
GR1 (Government): Speaking about...
GR1 (Government): how may non-vaccinated children interfere with vaccinated children and how they can infect vaccinated children.
GR1 (Government): So basically, as we are talking about herd immunity and herd protection, in those, we may reach about 95%.
GR1 (Government): So if we are in school group, it's about 30 people.
GR1 (Government): So one or two of them may be not immunized, and we do not have any troubles interfering with the others.
GR1 (Government): But if we have more than this limited number of children unimmunized, we may interfere with the disease because our immunity may be overhelmed with exposure to higher proportion of agents and different bacterias.
GR1 (Government): So this is the reason why we should keep certain fragile balance in the group, and this is the reason why we try to keep relatively high immunization coverage.
GR1 (Government): Another question, what are the different mechanism of action, why we are immunizing against hepatitis B in such small children?
GR1 (Government): It's always a big discussion, why is that?
GR1 (Government): Because you are right, the exposure to hepatitis B in such a younger age, it's quite limited.
GR1 (Government): On the other side, it is a recommendation of WHO to immunize children as early as possible because if you are accidentally infected in such a young age, about 90% may develop chronic cirrhosis, and based on that, we may even die.
GR1 (Government): And the major reason is probably that we have just long life immunization schedule, and if those children are immunized in early childhood with higher coverage, we may stay with that schedule till the entire life, and this is the reason why we are not willing to move it to upper ages and the situation is quite patient in the situation with hepatitis B immunization, even in the Czech Republic, and hepatitis B is step by step disappearing because we are immunizing the whole public.
GR1 (Government): Another issue, list of compulsory vaccinations, why we have those nine diseases and what are procedures, how it is developed, basically, the original list of diseases was based on our law since 1960, and step by step, this is considered by expert if it is necessary to keep the whole list or if it is necessary to change something in that.
GR1 (Government): And after providing results of serological surveys, we are able to interfere with immunization schedule to postpone certain immunization and even to release some from the original list, and based on that, we have decided to move BCG immunization against TB because the risk of side effects was higher than the exposure to TB in the Czech Republic, so TB immunization, BCG immunization is not anymore mandatory for entire population but only for risk groups.
GR1 (Government): So recently, we have nine diseases on the list, and it's necessary to say that it's a correct approach because if we just mandate one vaccine, and it is measles, we have three-valent vaccine, and mumps and rubella should be immunized together.
GR1 (Government): So if we just declare one disease, we are immunizing, in reality, three diseases.
GR1 (Government): And similar approaches to six diseases and hexavalent vaccine, definitely, we may go for pentavalent vaccine, but the reality is that it's better to declare all those than only one and using in a relatively different way the others, but on the other side, at the end of the day, we will immunize the similar figure.
GR1 (Government): So we have nine mandatory vaccines in the system.
GR1 (Government): And the last question concerning serious adverse events and possibility how to compensate them and how many do we have.
GR1 (Government): So basically, recently, we have a system of pharmacovigilance in which we are reporting side effects.
GR1 (Government): These figures may be underreported.
GR1 (Government): This is quite obvious, but the reality is now that for hexavalent vaccine, we have 226 adverse events per year in 2018, and for the MMR vaccine, 130.
GR1 (Government): Based on international data and from recalculation for the Czech Republic, we may expect that those serious cases, and this is based mostly on US adverse events and their Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, we may expect about six serious cases to be reimbursed or compensated per year in the country.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Schorm, has the government then concluded their observations in the second round?
GR2 (Government): Well, yes, I think so.
GR2 (Government): I've just come to the fact that I've probably forgotten to respond to the question of who pays for treatment of effects.
GR2 (Government): Well, it's usually borne by the public health insurance scheme.
GR2 (Government): So I think this is provided for normally as any other diseases or health problems.
GR2 (Government): So this is probably all.
GR2 (Government): I really apologize if we have missed to respond to any of your questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I will give the judges the opportunity in a moment.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Ms. Candigliota, you have the floor.
AP1 (Applicant): I would like to address the question about the standard of proof.
AP1 (Applicant): I'm sorry I didn't understand well this question.
AP1 (Applicant): If the standard of proof is meant in the sense of the proof that the vaccination system is safe and is necessary, so we think that there is the obligation of the government to show the proofs, to have analysis and studies for every of each nine obligatory vaccinations.
AP1 (Applicant): Because it's not the parents and the families, they have no possibility to perform such analysis and studies and so on.
AP1 (Applicant): So I think that the government should be more active and should have some materials.
AP1 (Applicant): But even if we ask for such materials, they have completely nothing.
AP1 (Applicant): If the question was meant what are the criteria or standards for the exemption based on conscience, we think that there is different practice in different countries because there are countries, for example Canada, and there is this exemption based on conscience and there are criteria.
AP1 (Applicant): But our Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic in its decision also formulated such criteria.
AP1 (Applicant): The first criteria, I will say more about it.
AP1 (Applicant): The first is constitutional relevance of the arguments included in the conscious objection, importance and necessity of the reasons that the objecting person uses to support their opinion, consistency and persuasiveness of the arguments of the objecting persons, and social consequences that may result from accepted exemption.
AP1 (Applicant): So we say that these criteria can be used also in other cases, not only in case of financial penalty, but also in case of access to preschool education.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the question about the...
AP1 (Applicant): There was another question, if the exemption of conscience is self-executing or an implementation in law is needed.
AP1 (Applicant): In the case I mentioned, the Constitutional Court concluded that the exemption of conscience is not a requirement and concluded that the exemption can be assessed on a base...
AP1 (Applicant): Can be assessed in case of financial penalty because the authorities have possibility to take into account the belief or conscience of the person.
AP1 (Applicant): We call it the material side of the offence and it means that the authorities can deal with the danger for the society of the offence.
AP1 (Applicant): So according to the Constitutional Court, in case of financial penalties, there is no need to implement this exemption into the law.
AP1 (Applicant): But the different situation is in the case of preschool education because the schools and the authorities have no legal basis for granting such an exemption.
AP1 (Applicant): There was an exceptional case of the Regional Court of Pilsen, Pilsen, and such an exemption was recognised also for the preschool education, but it was only one exceptional case that never happened again in other cases of other families.
AP1 (Applicant): If it comes to the questions regarding statistical data, we claim that the countries with the voluntary system of vaccination protect sufficiently the public health and this is the proof.
AP1 (Applicant): Of course, we don't have specific statistical data or analysis on this issue, but there is another very important and interesting question that in these countries with voluntary systems, the parent has no reason to cheat the system.
AP1 (Applicant): So the statistical data that are in these countries are more reliable than in, for example, Czech Republic because the parents are motivated, for example, to pay the doctor for the false medical certificate or to falsify the medical records.
AP1 (Applicant): I would say that not only the voluntary systems protect well the public health, but they have also good information to take measures, other measures to protect public health.
AP1 (Applicant): They know that all, what is the vaccination state of the children in, for example, kindergarten, but in Czech Republic we don't know because the parents are motivated to cheat in simply words.
AP1 (Applicant): So I would like to say that the protection of public health is illusionary in Czech Republic because when some epidemic arises, the authorities cannot know precisely if, for example, in a kindergarten really all children are vaccinated.
AP1 (Applicant): I know that, for example, in Germany there is a case law that in case of measles, the children who are not vaccinated can be excluded from the preschool education or school education, I don't know, but only, not permanently, but only for a limited time when there is the danger for the public health.
AP1 (Applicant): So I think that these measures are more effective than blanket mandatory vaccination with repression.
AP1 (Applicant): Regarding the best interest of the child, according to the Czech Constitutional Court and also I think according to the general interpretation, the best interest of the child is based on the parental decision making and we presume that the parents know better than anybody else what is best for the children.
AP1 (Applicant): Only in extreme cases the state can interfere in the parental rights.
AP1 (Applicant): Then I would like to say a few words about the side effects.
AP1 (Applicant): We claim that the side effects are not properly studied in the Czech Republic, but not only in the Czech Republic, there are no long-term studies comparing the state of health of fully vaccinated children and children who are not vaccinated.
AP1 (Applicant): There are some studies showing that vaccinated children suffer more of different chronical diseases.
AP1 (Applicant): The question, I would answer also to the question how to prevent polio and measles.
AP1 (Applicant): As I said before, I am convinced that the voluntary system of vaccination protects the public health well.
AP1 (Applicant): This system is based on positive motivation of parents and as I also mentioned, there are other measures, for example, temporary exclusion of a non-vaccinated child from the collective.
AP1 (Applicant): So I think that these are the measures that are proportionate and that can not only well, but better than the repressive system prevent infectious diseases.
AP1 (Applicant): Then I would like to answer the question about the consistency of Mr. Vavřička's conscience.
AP1 (Applicant): He was consistent during the whole procedure before the Czech authorities in the Czech Republic.
AP1 (Applicant): It is possible that he in his life changed his opinion that at the beginning he vaccinated his children and then he changed his conviction.
AP1 (Applicant): But according to the Czech Constitutional Court, the consistency is required only during the procedure before the authorities.
AP1 (Applicant): It is accepted that the person before had another opinion and changed it.
AP1 (Applicant): When it comes to compensation, I would like to mention another case of my client that is an infant who is permanently paralyzed in half of his face and according to his doctors, there is a causal link between the vaccination, obligatory vaccination and the harm he suffered.
AP1 (Applicant): But the government and the Czech courts refused any compensation arguing that there is no state liability for the negative impact of vaccination.
AP1 (Applicant): Furthermore, here present Mr. Primula elaborated record
AP1 (Applicant): that there is no causal link between the damage and the vaccination and he has never seen the child and I think that it also shows the conflict of interest of this expert.
AP1 (Applicant): And I would like to conclude that I really appreciated the question how far can the solidarity or mandatory solidarity can go because it's very important question.
AP1 (Applicant): The government argues that there are some children that cannot be vaccinated and we need to protect them.
AP1 (Applicant): So the other people are obliged to undergo vaccination that can potentially harm their health and in some cases it really harms and very severely the health.
AP1 (Applicant): I think that the arguments of the government can be well used also for the obligation to donate a kidney to a sick person because the principle is the same and I think that we can recognize that it's not acceptable to give an obligation to a healthy person to donate his kidney because of public interest, because of interest of other people that unfortunately are not healthy.
AP1 (Applicant): So I would like to hold the view that autonomy of the person must be respected and the person cannot be forced to be subjected to a potentially harmful intervention for the benefits of the others.
AP1 (Applicant): I think that there is the interest of public health but the obligation and repression is not acceptable.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Are there... Judge, Pastor Vilanova please.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): C'est une question que je veux...
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Une question que je voudrais reposer à l'expert de la République tchèque.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): A ma question de savoir quel était, plus ou moins, le pourcentage d'accidents graves alliçant donc avec la vaccination obligatoire...
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Il m'a répondu, il me semble avoir compris que, selon lui, il y avait à peu près 226 accidents graves, donc par an, en liaison avec la vaccination obligatoire.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Pouvez-vous donc confirmer ce chiffre-là?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Pouvez-vous également dire qu'est-ce que vous entendez par accidents graves?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Et également, c'était ma question principale, le pourcentage, donc 226 cas par an, mais par rapport à quel nombre approximatif de personnes vaccinées.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Le pourcentage, et qu'est-ce que vous entendez exactement par accidents graves?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Are there other judges wishing to clarify or seek clarification?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): No.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Mr. Prymula, would you please provide an answer if you can?
GR1 (Government): Yes, please, Mr. President.
GR1 (Government): Basically, in the Czech Republic, we have a cohort about 100,000 children, newborns.
GR1 (Government): What's a little bit higher in recent time, but we do not have full coverage.
GR1 (Government): So let's suppose we have, per one shot, 100,000 kids.
GR1 (Government): We have scheduled two plus one for hexavalent vaccine, what means 300,000 shots per dose.
GR1 (Government): We have those 228 adverse events, but it's necessary to say that many of them are very mild because those are reported to the system.
GR1 (Government): Some of them, it's a febrile reaction, 38.5, for example, without any consecutive events afterwards.
GR1 (Government): So what I was referring to, we suppose that really serious adverse events will be about five to six with long-life possible sick relies.
GR1 (Government): So this was the figure.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): That then means that we are coming to a close in our hearing.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I would like to thank the parties for their submissions and answers to the court's questions.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je déclare ouverte l'audience publique sur la recevabilité et le fonds des affaires G.I.E.M., s.r.l. contre Italie, Hôtel Promotion, Bureau s.r.l. et R.I.T.A. Sarda s.r.l.  contre Italie, et Falgest s.r.l. et Gironda contre Italie.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les affaires ont été introduites devant la Cour respectivement le 21 décembre 2005, le 2 août 2007 et le 23 mars 2011 par quatre sociétés ayant leur siège en Italie, G.I.E.M. s.r.l., Hôtel Promotion, Bureau s.r.l. et R.I.T.A. Sarda s.r.l. et Falgest s.r.l., et par un ressortissant italien, Monsieur Filippo Gironda, en vertu de l'article 34 de la Convention.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Elles ont été attribuées à la quatrième section de la Cour conformément à l'article 52, paragraphe 1 du règlement de la Cour.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): La requête G.I.E.M. s.r.l. a été communiquée au gouvernement italien le 30 mars 2009.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les requêtes Hôtel Promotion, Bureau s.r.l. et R.I.T.A. Sarda s.r.l. et Falgest s.r.l. et Gironda ont été déclarées partiellement irrecevables et communiquées au gouvernement respectivement le 5 juin 2012 et le 30 avril 2013.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le 17 février 2015, la Chambre a décidé de se dessaisir dans chacune de ces affaires au profit de la Grande Chambre, aucune des parties ne s'y étant opposée.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Le gouvernement est représenté par son co-agent, Madame Paola Accardo.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Les parties requérantes sont représentées comme suit.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Dans l'affaire G.I.E.M. S.r.l, par Maître Giuseppe Mariani, assisté de Maître Francesco Rotunno et Riccardo Riccardi et de Madame Chaterine Millaseau, conseillère.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Dans l'affaire Hôtel Promotion, Bureau S.r.l. et R.I.T.A. Sarda S.r.l., par Maître Giuseppe Lavitola et Vittorio Manes, assisté de Monsieur Francesco Mazzacuva et Madame Nicola Recchia et Alessandra Santangelo, conseillère.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Dans l'affaire Falsgeste S.r.l. et Gironda, par Maître Anton Giulio et Andrea Saccucci, assisté de Monsieur Alessio Sangiorgi et Madame Giulia Borgna, conseillère.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Ayant consulté le co-agent du gouvernement et les représentants des parties requérantes, j'ai fixé ainsi l'ordre de parole.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Nous entendrons successivement Madame Paola Accardo pour le gouvernement, puis Maître Mariani, Rotunno, Lavitola, Manes, Lana et Saccucci pour les requérants.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je précise que j'ai autorisé Maître Mariani à s'exprimer en italien.
Dean Spielmann (JudgeP): Je donne la parole à Madame Accardo.
GR1 (Government): Mesdames, Messieurs de la Cour, Avant tout, le gouvernement italien désire remercier la Cour pour avoir confié à la Grande Chambre les questions très délicates proposées par les trois affaires, comme l'avait souhaité Monsieur le juge Pinto d'Albumquerque dans son opinion un parti dissidente, joint à l'arrêt du 29 octobre 2013 dans l'affaire Varvar.
GR1 (Government): Le gouvernement italien attache beaucoup d'importance à la matière en discussion, car la protection du paysage est annoncée dans l'article 9 de la Constitution italienne, conjointement à celle du patrimoine artistique et historique du pays.
GR1 (Government): Il salue ainsi les acclarements que la Cour apportera à la Grande Chambre sur la confiscation en tant que mesure de protection de l'aménagement du territoire.
GR1 (Government): Plusieurs intérêts de la collectivité sont en jeu.
GR1 (Government): La protection du paysage, de l'environnement et de l'aménagement d'espaces urbains vivables et bien organisés.
GR1 (Government): Situation qu'il faut conserver au mieux, car les conséquences négatives qui découlent de sa méconnaissance peuvent affecter les générations futures, de façon similaire à celle concernant la sauvegarde du patrimoine artistique et historique.
GR1 (Government): Nous rappelons ici que l'Italie est caractérisée par un développement côtier de plus de 8 800 kilomètres, dont font partie plusieurs sites naturels remarquables.
GR1 (Government): Parmi eux se trouvent des mêmes un certain nombre de forêts, forêts qui dans les temps ont subi une réduction progressive.
GR1 (Government): Par suite, une mesure comme la confiscation du terrain faisant loger dans le tissement illicite doit être évaluée dans son but primaire de rétablir le correct aménagement du territoire et révéler une grande importance pour la protection des biens qui appartiennent à la collectivité.