CASE OF VAVŘIČKA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC
Hearing: Vavřička v. the Czech Republic (no. 47621/13) and 5 other applications (nos. 3867/14, 73094/14, 19306/15, 19298/15 and 43883/15) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2020-07-01 00:00:00)
Application no.: 47621/13
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2021-04-08 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2021:0408JUD004762113
Respondent state: CZE
Articles of the Convention: 8;8-1;8-2;35;35-1;35-3-a
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković;Pere Pastor Vilanova;Tim Eicke
Represented by: CANDIGLIOTA Z.
Issue: Sections 46(1),(4),(6), 50 and 80(1) of the Public Health Protection Act (Law no. 258/2000 Coll., as amended) ; Section 29(1)(f) and (2) of the Minor Offences Act (Law no. 200/1990 Coll., as amended) ; Section 34(5) of the Education Act (Law no. 561/2004 Coll., as amended) ; Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Law no. 2/1993 Coll.) ; Civil Code (Law no. 40/1964 Coll., as amended)
Strasbourg case-law cited: Advisory opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law of a legal parent-child relationship between a child born through a gestational surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother [GC], request no. P16 2018 001, French Court of Cassation, § 38, 10 April 2019;Association of Parents v. the United Kingdom, no. 7154/75, Commission decision of 12 July 1978, DR 14;Bayatyan v. Armenia [GC], no. 23459/03, § 110, ECHR 2011;Baytüre and Others v. Turkey (dec.), no. 3270/09, §§ 28-30, 12 March 2013;Boffa and Others v. San Marino, no. 26536/95, Commission decision of 15 January 1998, Decisions and Reports (DR) no. 92-B, p. 34;Budayeva and Others v. Russia, nos. 15339/02 and 4 others, §§ 128-130, ECHR 2008 (extracts);Dubská and Krejzová v. the Czech Republic [GC], nos. 28859/11 and 28473/12, 15 November 2016;Evans v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 6339/05, § 77, ECHR 2007 I;Furdík v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 42994/05, 2 December 2008;Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 47039/11 and 358/12, ECHR 2012 (extracts);İbrahim Keskin v. Turkey, no. 10491/12, § 62, 27 March 2018;Kotilainen and Others v. Finland, no. 62439/12, §§ 78 et seq., 17 September 2020;L.C.B. v. the United Kingdom, 9 June 1998, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998 III;Molla Sali v. Greece [GC], no. 20452/14, § 85, 19 December 2018;Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, § 135, ECHR 2010;Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy [GC], no. 25358/12, 24 January 2017;Pretty v. the United Kingdom, no. 2346/02, §§ 82-3, ECHR 2002 III;Radomilja and Others v. Croatia [GC], nos. 37685/10 and 22768/12, §§ 123-126, 20 March 2018;Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 38224/03, § 83, 14 September 2010;Solomakhin v. Ukraine, no. 24429/03, 15 March 2012
External sources: Resolution 1845(2011) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on “Fundamental rights and responsibilities”;International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;Convention on the Rights of the Child;European Social Charter;General Comment No. 15 of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child on “the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health” of 17 April 2013 (CRC/C/GC/15)
Conclusion: Preliminary objection joined to merits (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Exhaustion of domestic remedies;Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Manifestly ill-founded;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione materiae;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)
Separate opinion: TRUE