Tokens: 10
.
I
have
dealt
with
this
kind
of
problem
in
Tătar
v.
Romania
(
no
.
67021/01
,
27
January
2009
)
and
Băcilă
v.
Romania
(
no
.
19234/04
,
30
March
2010
)
and
the
issue
is
always
the
same
.
The
modern
doctrine
of
the
principle
of
precaution
offers
an
elegant
solution
to
this
legal
enigma
by
transferring
a
priori
the
burden
of
proof
onto
the
appropriate
party
.
In
Tătar
and
Băcilă
cases
,
clearly
this
ought
to
have
been
the
Romanian
State
.
In
our
case
,
the
burden
of
proof
,
if
we
were
to
be
guided
by
the
principle
of
precaution
,
ought
to
have
been
on
the
company
which
had
produced
the
vaccine
and
on
the
doctors
who
have
injected
it
in
an
allegedly
irreproachable
way
.
If
that
burden
were
to
be
placed
on
them
they
would
make
an
extra
effort
to
show
that
the
vaccine
had
in
fact
been
produced
and
administered
lege
artis
and
the
case
would
be
,
without
undue
burdening
of
the
experts
,
resolved
.
This
would
have
occurred
,
of
course
,
if
those
who
carried
the
burden
were
able
to
show
that
the
allegations
on
the
part
of
the
applicant
were
in
fact
without
any
scientific
basis
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O