Constitutional and conventional aspects of compulsory vaccination

V magistrski nalogi so analizirani pravni vidiki obveznega cepljenja skozi prakso ESČP in US. Obvezno cepljenje je najprej opredeljeno, potem pa so predstavljeni njegovi konvencijski in ustavnopravni vidiki. Obvezno cepljenje je dopustno. Sodišča so namreč v vseh analiziranih primerih potrdila, da je obvezno cepljenje sorazmeren ukrep za obvladovanje in preprečevanje širjenja nalezljivih bolezni, in tako bodo najverjetneje odločala tudi vnaprej. Ker je ESČP je ugotovilo, da lahko države same najbolje ocenijo, kateri ukrepi so potrebni za preprečevanje in obvladovanje širjenja nalezljivih bolezni, ukrep obveznega cepljenja spada v polje proste presoje države. Da je obvezno cepljenje dopustno, meni tudi teorija, ki predvsem v zvezi z zadevo Vavřička opozarja, da bi morale biti odločitve sodišč manj generalizirane in da bi morala sodišča upoštevati karakteristike vsakokratnega cepljenja. Zato so predstavljeni pogoji, ki se zahtevajo, da je obvezno cepljenje dopustno.In the master\u27s thesis, mandatory vaccination is analyzed through the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. Mandatory vaccination is first defined, followed by aspects related to the European Convention of Human Rights and the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. Mandatory vaccination is permissible. The courts have confirmed in all analyzed cases that mandatory vaccination is a proportionate measure for controlling and preventing the spread of infectious diseases, and they are most likely to continue making such decisions in the future. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that states are best placed to assess the necessary measures for preventing and controlling the spread of infectious diseases, making mandatory vaccination a matter of the state\u27s margin of appreciation. The permissibility of mandatory vaccination is also supported by the theory, particularly in relation to the Vavřička case, which argues that court decisions should be less generalized and that courts should consider the characteristics of each vaccination case. Therefore, the conditions required for mandatory vaccination to be permissible are presented