TrustHLT/LaCour huggingface dataset:
AP1 (Applicant): History has proven on many occasions that medical science had been wrong and that certain procedures were more harmful than beneficial.
AP1 (Applicant): History has also indicated that involuntary interference with the physical integrity of human beings threatens human dignity.
AP1 (Applicant): With all due respect to the success of vaccination against serious infections, nowadays it cannot be stated without any reservation that the entire list of existing vaccinations and a high-tech overcrowded vaccination scheme is ambiguously beneficial for the health of all children.
AP1 (Applicant): If the government and other member states argue that the obligation to vaccinate is not related to forced vaccination to which a human being has to be subjected, but merely to penalization and exclusion from the preschool facilities, we would like to respond to that by insisting that this doesn't mean that this indirect way of enforcement is proportional.
AP1 (Applicant): Whether it is direct physical enforcement of mandatory vaccination or indirect sanctions of the impact in the light of interference with the rights of children remain very similar, because some children will at the end be vaccinated as a result of the pressure placed on their parents contrary to their best interest.
AP1 (Applicant): The very fact that the applications have not been, sorry, the very fact that the applicants have not been vaccinated or fully vaccinated doesn't mean they were not under the threat on interference with their physical integrity.
AP1 (Applicant): Or would an imposition of a penalty in response to a legitimate exercise, for example, of the right to freedom of expression instead of physical silencing of the speaker be acceptable?
AP1 (Applicant): What is substantial is the fact that the state forces the parents by imposing sanctions to act against their conscience and against what they consider best for the health of their children.
AP1 (Applicant): It is worth mentioning that driving a person to act against their will or conscience qualifies under the definition of degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention.
AP1 (Applicant): The third argument I would like to address is the act on compensation for damage to health caused by compulsory vaccination that came into effect in April 2020.
AP1 (Applicant): In our submission, we, among others, noted that this act was criticized by the experts in healthcare as it failed to provide sufficient extent of compensation.
AP1 (Applicant): Since then, in the course of legislative procedure, the situation has been substantially aggravated concerning the chances of the injured party to fair compensation.
AP1 (Applicant): The compensation was limited solely to cases of, I quote, extraordinary grave harm on health of a person, which is the expression defined by the case law of the Supreme Court in a very restrictive manner.
AP1 (Applicant): According to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 27th June 2019, file number 25CDO4201, 2018, this term cannot be deemed to include internal injuries due to which the relevant person fell into a three-week-long unconsciousness and was better ridden for the period of six months without a possibility to move.
AP1 (Applicant): In line with the decision of the Supreme Court, the consequences of such harm have to be so grave as to permanently exclude the injured person from the majority of spheres of social life.
AP1 (Applicant): In the virtue of act on compensation, will the overwhelming majority of the injured parties not have a valid entitlement to compensation should the harm not to be extraordinary grave?
AP1 (Applicant): We also know here that the injured parties who have suffered health damage as a result of vaccination in the period since 2014 until the mentioned act on compensation became effective will not enjoy a valid entitlement to compensation at all since this period the harm is not attributable to any provider of healthcare services nor to the state.
AP1 (Applicant): It is therefore obvious that the act on compensation in the current form doesn't meet the requirements of the Convention on Biomedicine concerning the right to fair compensation.
AP1 (Applicant): Mr. President and honorable judges, to conclude, I would like to mention
AP1 (Applicant): that this very case is being addressed in our society at an unprecedented times of coronavirus pandemic that has represented and still represents many limitations, restrictive measures, but also many concerns.
AP1 (Applicant): But not even this fact and not even the significant concerns of some fraction of the public can lead to the conclusion that the state has the opportunity to interfere disproportionately with the fundamental human rights and freedoms, needless to say, with the physical integrity of a healthy human being without any symptoms of a disease.
AP1 (Applicant): Here I would like to refer to the explanatory report accompanying the article on free and informed consent of the Convention of Biomedicine.
AP1 (Applicant): There is no doubt that certain governments want to have the widest and unlimited authority to interfere with human rights in healthcare issues.
AP1 (Applicant): Equally, there is no doubt that from the side of the state and government experts, there might be other interests in play than the welfare of the society.
AP1 (Applicant): We are not seeking before this court to determine a common European health policy.
AP1 (Applicant): We are merely pleading for our arguments to be heard as in the dissenting opinions of the Czech Constitutional Court Judge, Katerina Simáčková.
AP1 (Applicant): We are pleading for this court to designate the limitations that at the moment have remained unrestricted of the arbitrary Czech repressive vaccination policy.
AP1 (Applicant): We are seeking for this court to declare that the rights of the applicants conferred by the Article 8 and 9 of the Convention and Article 1 of the Additional Protocol were violated.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Ms. Candigliota.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I now turn to my colleagues on the bench, the judges who are wishing to put questions to the parties.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Wojtyczek.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): I have four questions.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): The first one is addressed to both parties and concerns the repartition of the burden of proof and the standard of proof.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): I would like to hear the view of both parties on the issue of the burden of proof in this case and of the standard of proof applicable to this case.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): My second question is also addressed to both parties and concerns the judgments of the Czech Constitutional Court, which recognize the right to conscientious objection in respect of vaccination.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Are these judgments self-executing, or do they require implementing legislation?
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): I would like to hear the view of both parties on this issue, whether this right can be asserted without implementing legislation, or does it require legislation which would enable to assert this right to conscientious objection.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Now, the third question is also addressed to both parties.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): The policies in respect of vaccination vary from one state to another.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): There are states which introduce mandatory vaccinations.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): There are states which base their policies upon positive incitements and recommendations.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Are there any statistical data which would enable us to evaluate the efficiency of both approaches and the spread of the different diseases in the context of mandatory vaccinations and the context of the opposite policy based upon incitements and recommendations?
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): And finally, the fourth question, which is addressed mainly to the government, maybe the applicants would also like to comment on this issue.
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): What are the precise targets concerning the immunization level among the population in percentage to eradicate the nine diseases which are on the list of diseases in respect of which there is an obligation to vaccinate?
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): Are there precise numbers concerning the level of herd immunity which is necessary to be reached in order to eradicate the disease?
Krzysztof Wojtyczek (Judge): And are there differences among the nine diseases which are concerned by this obligation to vaccinate?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Chanturia.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): Thank you, Mr. President.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): I have one question for the government, one question for the applicants, and one question for both.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): The first question, in its judgment, the Constitutional Court of Czech Republic, in its judgment of 3rd February 2011, decided that the protection of individual autonomy requires that, exceptionally, the persons concerned not be forced to undergo compulsory vaccination.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): My question is follow.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): Have there been any concrete cases in which children were admitted to preschool facilities without having vaccinated according to existing law?
Lado Chanturia (Judge): And the second question, it relates to Article 9 of the convention.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): Had the children been vaccinated, what repercussions would this have had on their, on children's and their parents' beliefs under the Article 9 of the convention?
Lado Chanturia (Judge): And third question, you all know that vaccination could provoke some health complications.
Lado Chanturia (Judge): Who would be responsible for the costs of the treatment necessary in relation to those complications?
Lado Chanturia (Judge): Thank you.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Harutyunyan.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): So I have two questions.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): One already my colleague, Judge Wojtyczek, asked.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): And I think, I hope that my questions for government and particularly for Mr. Prymula, maybe he as a medical expert will be able to spread the light on this.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): First, of course, I would like, it will be interesting for me to know if there is some research comparing the situation in both situation, the countries where it is a mandatory duty in vaccination and in the countries where it is not mandatory.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): Whether we have a research-based statistical data so that the mandatory duty in mandatory duty country, the situation is better.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): And what is the result of that?
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): And the second question, if how the children who are not vaccinated can infect the ones who are already vaccinated and they have immunity?
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): Because when we are speaking about the interest of children who have to be vaccinated and the interest of others.
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): So I would like to know you as a medical expert, can you explain us?
Armen Harutyunyan (Judge): If they are vaccinated and already they have immunity, how the other ones who are not vaccinated can be dangerous for them?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very much, Judge Seibert-Fohr.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I would like to address both parties, the government and the applicant, concerning two issues.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): The one is, the first one is about the best interest of the child, and the second one is about the question of necessity that you have already dealt with.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Now, with regard to the best interest of the child, I was wondering who decides on what is the best interest of the child.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): The question means, to what extent do parents' rights play a role over here?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): On the other hand, what happens if the parents' attitudes divert from scientific evidence, including recommendations given by the World Health Organization?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Now, let me turn to the question of necessity, which is also relevant to both parties.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I was wondering, if I go through all of the different vaccinations, they have different mechanisms, and I'm sure that the expert will be able to elaborate on that.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I would like to ask the question, why is vaccination of young children against hepatitis B necessary or not?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): After all, it seems to be transmitted via blood contact, a risk that does not seem to be that high in preschool.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): So I would like to appreciate your comments on that, especially since the expert, Mr. Primolov,has referred to measles and pertussis.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): However, we have seen that we have nine vaccinations over here, so I would be interested in hearing what are the reasons for the mandatory vaccination of tetanus and diphtheria.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): To what extent does it protect the health of others?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): You have referred extensively to herd immunity, so you may want to elaborate a little bit on to what extent the single vaccinations contribute to herd immunity.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Now, with respect to the applicant, you have made the argument that the mandatory regime does not provide for any kind of exceptions.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): I would like to hear...
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): You were questioning the necessity with regard to all vaccinations.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): So let's turn to poliomyelitis, for example, or measles.
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): To what extent would allowing exception be contrary to the aim of providing protection against these kinds of diseases?
Anja Seibert-Fohr (Judge): Thank you very much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Judge Bošnjak.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): I have two questions for the government, but of course the applicants are very welcome to comment on this if they so wish.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): My first question refers to the list of compulsory vaccinations, namely how is this list actually drawn up?
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): In particular, I'm interested in hearing what are the criteria to include or not to include a specific vaccination on the list.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): In this particular respect, my question is a little bit similar or continues the question of my colleague, Judge Seibert-Fohr.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): In this particular respect, I'm also interested in the procedure of drawing up such a list.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): In particular, what is the role of experts?
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): How is their independence from conflict of interest guaranteed?
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): And how are any critical views taken into account when drawing up such a list?
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): My second question pertains to the issue of compensation of those children who suffer certain negative consequences from compulsory vaccinations.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): It is my understanding that up to a certain point, the Czech law, the Czech legislation provided for such compensation.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): Later on, this was no longer the case.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): However, if I understand correctly, there have been some very recent developments which, according to the applicants, set very high threshold for such compensation.
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): I would like to hear from the government, but of course the applicants are also welcome to comment, what are or what were the reasons to first abolish such compensation in case of such consequences, to reintroduce it again, and what are the reasons to put a specific threshold in this particular respect?
Marko Bošnjak (Judge): Thank you so much.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Thank you very mutch. Le juge Pastor Vilanova, s'il vous plaît.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): J'ai 3 questions.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): La 1re dirigée à l'avocat qui représente M. Pavlichka, après, donc, une question dirigée au gouvernement et, finalement, donc, une question qui intéresse les 2 parties.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Ceci n'obstant, rien n'empêche, donc, qu'il y ait des répliques, donc, à la question posée et aux requérants et au gouvernement.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Donc, venons-en, donc, à la 1re question, qui est celle dirigée, donc, aux requérants.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Pour autant que je sache, et ça intéresse, une fois de plus, M. Pavlichka, il s'oppose, donc, à faire vacciner ses enfants contre 3 vaccins, la poliomyélite, l'hépatite B et le tétanos.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Or, il apparaît que M. Pavlichka a, dans le passé, fait vacciner ses enfants.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Est-ce que cette démarche est complètement cohérente?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): 2e question, celle dirigée, donc, au gouvernement et notamment, donc, à son expert.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Est-ce qu'on connaît le pourcentage d'effets secondaires graves, j'insiste, graves, dans le cadre de la vaccination obligatoire?
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Et enfin, donc, une question dont je veux agréer aux 2 parties.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Il a été question de la Convention d'Oviedo et, notamment, ce qui intéresse les interventions médicales.
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Judge): Est-ce que, à votre avis, la vaccination constitue une intervention médicale au sens de la Convention d'Oviedo?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): Merci beaucup. President Lemmens.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I have a question primarily for the government, but of course the applicant can, or the applicants can also reply.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): It refers to what the Constitutional Court held in its judgment of 2015, where it stated that vaccination represents an act of social solidarity, and each individual must undergo vaccinations in order to protect the health of society as a whole.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And you ended your pleading by referring to this statement of the Constitutional Court and by adding that there is a shared responsibility, that is, including an individual responsibility.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): I have two questions.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): The first one is the following.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): The Convention protects individual rights.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): That's the system of the Convention.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Now how does social solidarity or a shared responsibility relate to those rights in the Convention system?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Is that a sort of a fundamental duty that exists apart from the rights, or is it just an argument to demonstrate a justification under the Convention of limitations to rights?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And the second related question is how far does such an individual responsibility or an individual solidarity go?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): What are limitations, if any, to such a responsibility of citizens in society?
Paul Lemmens (Judge): And you could apply that to what is at stake here.
Paul Lemmens (Judge): Can individuals be expected or even be required to contribute to a system of general prevention of diseases?
Robert Spano (JudgeP): I see no further request for questions.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The court will now withdraw for 30 minutes.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): We will reconvene at 11 sharp, as one of the parties needs to withdraw to an adjacent room.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is suspended until 11.
Robert Spano (JudgeP): The hearing is resumed and I call Mr. Schorm for the government.
GR2 (Government): I should like to thank the outset for all the questions.
GR2 (Government): There are very many, and I hope we will be able, at least to some extent, to satisfy your legitimate curiosity.
GR2 (Government): I would nonetheless also like to refer to our written submissions that have been quite numerous as well during all these proceedings on the six applications.
GR2 (Government): When it comes to the issue of the conflict of interests, I would highlight as the first thing that in light of what our counterpart on the applicant side has said earlier, it looks like the problem were the people and not the situation, the problem of vaccination.
GR2 (Government): So I think this has to be borne in mind when thinking about the questions of the conflict of interest.
GR2 (Government): Before every meeting of the National Committee on Immunization, members are obliged to declare any possible conflict of interest they could have with regard to any issue on the agenda.
GR2 (Government): And it's also in line with the disclosure code adopted by the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations.
GR2 (Government): I would also highlight that there are various National Immunization Advisory Committees according to the WHO standards, and the WHO has set six functionality criteria, such as the legislative or administrative basis, formal written terms of reference, et cetera, et cetera, and mandatory disclosure of any conflict of interest.
GR2 (Government): I should also like to highlight that according to a study prepared some years ago in 2008 for the WHO, there are National Immunization Committees in 53 member states that comprise the Euro region, and the majority of them have no representation from public and or advocacy groups.
GR2 (Government): All members are mostly representative of the governmental agencies and medical professional societies.
GR2 (Government): So I think our approach is in conformity with the prevailing approach.
GR2 (Government): When it comes to the issue of the burden of proof, maybe I should put a question whether it is a matter of proving that it is necessary to vaccinate against certain diseases.
GR2 (Government): Well we consider this to be basically an expert question which is aimed at the national authorities, and they are the best placed to respond to these issues.
GR2 (Government): There was a question about the Constitutional Court's judgment which established an exemption.
GR2 (Government): This judgment is self-executing and does not require any additional legislation.
GR2 (Government): Only the authorities must deal with objections based on this kind of exemptions.
GR2 (Government): In practice, there are virtually no cases, but the courts always highlight that when something has happened to another child in the family, this could be a legitimate reason for an exemption based on conscience.
GR2 (Government): So this is constant in the courts' case law.
GR2 (Government): I would also like to highlight that no one from the applicants has been forced really to accept vaccination.
GR2 (Government): So when there was refusal from the parents, there was no vaccination.
GR2 (Government): So we think that the people who refuse bear the consequences in the name of the health, of the public health, of the members of the society.
GR2 (Government): The fine is very low and the non-admission to a nursery school is not a sanction per se.
GR2 (Government): It is a measure in order to secure security and health of children.
GR2 (Government): The best interest of the child, the interest really lies in the best protection, the highest attainable protection of health of children, which is mentioned in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
GR2 (Government): I have already referred to that in my speech.
GR2 (Government): In any event, although this is a very generally expressed best interest of the child, it can always be assessed in light of the objections raised by parents in individual proceedings.
GR2 (Government): And the Convention on the Rights of the Child is normally self-executing.
GR2 (Government): And of course, there are not only administrative proceedings but also judicial review.
GR2 (Government): When it comes to the issue of compensation for damage caused by compulsory vaccination, the truth is that up to the end of 2013, if I'm not wrong, under the old civil code, the liability was borne by the medical care provider.
GR2 (Government): This was considered as inconsistent with the mandatory character of the obligation to provide vaccination.
GR2 (Government): But nonetheless, there was a gap in the legislation.
GR2 (Government): I would highlight nonetheless that there was still the possibility to refer to Article 20 of the OVA Law Convention, which establishes the possibility to ask for compensation.