The European Court of Human Rights rejected 672 French firefighters' request for vaccinations

Rejection can be a milestone. European Court of Human Rights (CEDH) on Tuesday rejected a request by 672 French professional firefighters and volunteers against the Covid-19 vaccine obligation imposed on them.
According to the law of August 5, 2021The court announced on Wednesday.

“The Court held that these requests were outside the scope of Article 39 of its rules” which allows for them to be obtained under an emergency procedure when the plaintiffs are at “a real risk of irreparable harm.”

The first European ruling on compulsory vaccination

The firefighters invoked the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to the “right to life” and “the right to respect for private and family life”. They demanded the court to “suspend the obligation of vaccination” stipulated in the law of August 5, 2021 related to health crisis management, as well as to suspend “the provisions stipulating the prohibition of practicing their activity” for those among them. Those who “did not meet the vaccination” as well as “stopped paying their wages”.

The European Court of Human Rights’ decision, which was taken to set up seven judges, does not “predict its subsequent decisions on the admissibility or merits of the cases involved,” as the Court specifies.

In a press release announcing its intention to file a case with the court, described as “Europe’s chief policeman”, the South Sudan Firefighters Union at the beginning of August insisted on the fact that it was “not against the vaccine” but against the vaccine. A commitment “very poorly received, including by agents who have already been vaccinated”. This is the “first European ruling on vaccine compliance against #COVID19,” lawyer Nicholas Herveaux, a specialist at the European Court of Human Rights, wrote on Twitter.

However, the court, located in Strasbourg, had already ruled in a case related to vaccination, on April 8, by Czech parents who refused to vaccinate their children against childhood diseases. The Court considered that this obligation may be “necessary in a democratic society”. This ruling, even if it has nothing to do with vaccination against Covid-19, is considered a setback for anti-vaccines.

See also  Health card: Malls fear 'huge trouble'

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here