ABSTRACT
For the Court, this conclusion was bolstered by the observations that vaccination was not administered against the will of the applicants;that there is no consensus between member states over a single model to achieve the highest level of vaccination;that the introduction of a legal duty to vaccinate children raises sensitive moral or ethical issues;and that the case concerns matters of healthcare policy (paras. 276–79). [...]the Court considered that the measure satisfied the proportionality test. Furthermore, the Court underlined the temporal nature of the exclusion, as all children—also when not vaccinated—can still be enrolled in primary school (para. 307). [...]the Court concluded that the Czech Republic had not overstepped its margin of appreciation and consequently that there was no violation of the right to private life (paras. 310–11). [...]the Court held, also by sixteen votes to one, that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaints of the five child applicants under Article 2, Protocol No. 1 in light of the previous findings under Article 8 (para. 345).
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the fraught relationship between host States’ obligations under investment agreements and their regulatory powers in the field of public health. First, tribunals addressing the merits of health measures have exercised considerable deference to States under existing treaties. Second, the recent generation of treaties spells out health considerations to encourage respondents or tribunals to adopt broad interpretations of the right to regulate, general exceptions, or article-specific carve-outs. Clauses modelled on GATT exceptions may prove difficult to invoke due to the ‘necessity’ threshold. Finally, the Kyoto Protocol may serve as a model of incentivising private investment in the public health sector.