НШСУ-en

ENSURING A BALANCE OF INTERESTS IN DISPUTES REGARDING THE MANDATORY VACCINATION

ENSURING A BALANCE OF INTERESTS IN DISPUTES REGARDING THE MANDATORY VACCINATION

УДК 342.721                                                                                                                                                                                               PDF

DOI 10.37566/2707-6849-2020-4(33)-4

ORCID 0000-0003-1825-3981

ORCID 0000-0003-1504-8384

 

Olena ANTONIUK

assistant judge of the patronage serviceensuring the work of the second judicial chamber of the secretariat, The Civil Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court,Candidate of Law, Associate Professor

 

Yuliia PAVLIUCHENKO

Associate Professor of Economic Law, Donetsk

Vasyl Stus National University, Candidate of Law, Associate Professor

 

ENSURING A BALANCE OF INTERESTS IN DISPUTES   REGARDING THE MANDATORY VACCINATION

The establishment of compulsory preventive vaccinations raises a problem of balance with the right to personal integrity and the need to consent to medical intervention. The severity of this problem is added by the established restrictions on the implementation of individual rights of citizens, for example, the right to preschool and school education. The purpose of this article is to concretize the criteria for assessing the balance of interests in disputes regarding the mandatory vaccination.

The study concluded that the provisions of the law on compulsory preventive vaccinations indicate an excess of public interest over private interests of individuals.

The analysis of legislative norms on the issuance of a certificate, which is necessary for admission to preschool and school education, is carried out.Based on, conclusions were drawn about its content, the dependence of its issuance on the availability of all mandatory preventive vaccinations, the distribution of duties of a doctor and a healthcare institution lackingall such vaccinations.

It is argued that when a court is considering cases, the balance between the private interest of a particular person and the public interest in health protection is assessed through the legality and proportionality of interference with human rights. Based on the analysis of a number of court decisions, it was concluded that the proportionality of the intervention is achieved if the state: a) has given the right to choose a person (including the child's parents) to carry out mandatory preventive vaccinations or not; b) created equal conditions for children to receive, regardless of whether or not they have compulsory vaccination of school education; c) provides guarantees of vaccine safety for mandatory vaccinations.

It is substantiated that the balance of interests will also be observed if a person can exercise the right to compensation for harm in court if the preventive vaccination entailed harm to health or was carried out without the consent of the person (legal representative in cases provided for by law), or using a low-quality, inadmissible for use in accordance with the procedure established by law, vaccines.

Keywords: medical intervention, the right to personal integrity, compulsory preventive vaccinations, the right to education, proportionality of interference with human rights, balance of interests, criteria for assessing the balance of interests.

References

 

  1. 1.    Letter of the Directorate of pre-school and school education of the Ministry of Education of Ukraine from January 28, 2020 № 4/433-20 and a joint Letter of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the Ministry of Education of Ukraine. URL: https://dostup.pravda.com.ua/request/61416/response/149327/attach/3/4%20433%2020.pdf [ukr.]
  2. 2.   On the implementation of the Decision of the operational headquarters of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine to respond to situations of infectious diseases that can be prevented by vaccination: the order of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine of October 25, 2019. № 2164. URL: https://moz.gov.ua/article/ministry-mandates[ukr.]
  3. 3.   Gubanova, O. Children's vaccination through the prism of private and public law: the European experience. Law Forum, 2018.№ 2. pp. 45–55 [ukr]
  4. 4.   Havronyuk M. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. Legal Bulletin of Ukraine. 1998. № 27. С. 30 [ukr.]
  5. 5.   Krasytska L. Civil law regulation of personal non-property rights of citizens: Monograph. Donetsk: Department of Internal Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, 2002. 164 p. [ukr.]
  6. 6.   Civil Code of Ukraine: Scientific and practical commentary (explanations, interpretations, recommendations on the use of positions of higher courts, the Ministry of Justice, scientists, specialists). Vol. 4: Objects. Pravochini. Representation. Lines / by editor I. Spasybo-Fatyeyeva. Kharkiv: FO-P Kolisnyk A. A., 2010. 768 p. [ukr.]
  7. 7.   Letter of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine of Ukraine of April 24, 2018. № 111-01/123. URL: https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/news/ Новини/2018/04/23/mon-25-04-18.pdf [ukr.]
  8. 8.   On the system of public health care and ensuring the sanitary and epidemic well-being of the population: the draft law of September 7, 2020. № 4058. URL:  http://w1.c1.rada.gov.ua/pls/zweb2/webproc34?id=&pf3511= 69855&pf35401=534520 [ukr.]
  9. 9.   Demchenko, I., Dubitskaya N. Legal regulation of compulsory vaccination: arguments «for» and «against». Journal of Kyiv University of Law. 2017. № 4. pp. 133–138 [ukr.]
  10. 10.            Selected decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on Ukraine 2012. Part two / by editor E. Zakharov. NGO «Kharkiv Human Rights Group». Kharkiv: Human Rights Publishing House LLC. 2017. 364 p. [ukr.]
  11. 11.            Jeremy McBride. An Analysis of Covid-19 Responses and ECHR Requirements. March27, 2020. URL: https://echrblog.blogspot.com/2020/03/an-analysis-of-covid-19-responses-and.html/[engl.]
  12. 12.            The Judgment of the Supreme Court of December 5, 2018 in the case of № 128/2994/15-ц. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/78627365[ukr.]
  13. 13.            Resolution of the Vinnytsia Court of February 12, 2019 in case № 128/2994/15-ts. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/79859824 [ukr.]
  14. 14.            The Judgment of the Supreme Court of May 21, 2020 in case №806 / 1127/16. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89353038 [ukr.]
  15. 15.            Decision of the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court of November 14, 2019 in case № 120/1732/19-a. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/85360028 [ukr.]
  16. 16.            ThеJudgment of the Supreme Court of March 13, 2020 in case 20120/1732/19-a. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88187267 [ukr.]
  17. 17.            Resolution of the Vinnytsia District Administrative Court in the decision of March 11, 2020 № 120/1733/19-a. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88201786 [ukr.]
  18. 18.            The Judgment of the Supreme Court of  April 17, 2019 in case № 682/1692/17. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/81652333 [ukr.]
  19. 19.            The Judgment of the Supreme Court of January 30, 2020 in case № 815 / 409/18. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/87269138 [ukr.]
  20. The Judgment of the Supreme Court of June 12, 2020 in case № 15815/3122/18. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/89793010# [ukr.]