This article analyses the question of compatibility of COVID-19 passes with the European Convention of Human Rights. The present commentary’s point of reference is the European Court of Human Rights inadmissibility decision in Zembrano v. France. Nevertheless, the main focus is not given to the admissibility criteria but to the more general considerations concerning restrictions of individual rights and freedoms introduced in the context of the current pandemic. The article offers some insights into the necessity and proportionality of an interference (the COVID-19 pass requirement). It also discusses if such measures are discriminatory or not
COVID-19 pass ; victim status ; abuse of the right of individual petition ; exhaustion of domestic remedies ; right to private and family life ; discrimination
Arai, Y. (2001) The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Antwerp/Oxford/New York: Intersentia.
Bivolaru v. Romania, appl. no. 28796/04, Judgement of 28 February 2017.
Centrum för Rättvisa v. Sweden [GC], Application no. 35252/08, Judgement of 25 May 2021.
Communaute genevoise d'action syndicale (CGAS) v. Switzerland, appl. no. 21881/20, Judgement of 15 March 2022.
Cope, K., Stremitzer A., “Governments Are Constitutionally Permitted to Provide “Vaccine Passports”— Some May Also Be Constitutionally Obligated to Do So”, Journal of Nuclear Medicine, vol. 62(6), June 2021: 771-772, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.262434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2967/jnumed.121.262434
Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf (accessed 4.1.2022).
European Court of Human Rights, Guide on Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, 2021, https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_14_Art_1_Protocol_12_ENG.pdf (accessed 13.3.2022).
General comment no. 18, Non-discrimination, 21 November 1989, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.1.
Giubilini, A., Minerva F., Schuklenk U., Savulescu J., “The ‘Ethical’ COVID-19 Vaccine is the One that Preserves Lives: Religious and Moral Beliefs on the COVID-19 Vaccine”, Public Health Ethics, vol. 14, Issue 3 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/phe/phab018
Green Pass: Which Countries in Europe Require a COVID Vaccine Pass to Get Around?, https://www.euronews.com/travel/2021/10/12/green-pass-which-countries-in-europe-do-you-need-one-for (accessed 10.2.2022).
Harris, D.J., O’Boyle M., Bates E.P., Buckley C.M. (2014), Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, OUP, 3rd ed. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199606399.003.0001
Jaskiernia, Jerzy, “Challenges Posed by the COVID-19 Pandemic to the Protection of Human Rights”, Stosunki Międzynarodowe – International Relations, no. 4(56) (2002), DOI: 10.7366/020909614202004.
Kalfagiannis and Pospert v. Greece, Application no. 74435/14, Decision of 9 June 2020.
Kapelańska-Pręgowska, J. Inadequate State Response to Protect Life and Health in Times of COVID-19 as a Violation of Human Rights Obligations – the Example of Poland, 2022 EJIL: Talk!, https://www.ejiltalk.org/inadequate-state-response-to-protect-life-and-health-in-times-of-covid-19-as-a-violation-of-human-rights-obligations-the-example-of-poland/ (accessed 3.3.2022).
Kudła v. Poland, Application no. 30210/96, Judgement of 26 October 2000.
Milanović M., “Covid Passes and Non-Discrimination", https://www.ejiltalk.org/covid-passes-and-non-discrimination/ (accessed 30.12.2021);
Miroļubovs and Others v. Latvia, Application no. 798/05, Judgement of 15 September 2009.
Pretty v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 2346/02, Judgement of 29 April 2002.
Nawrot, O., Nawrot J., Vachev V., (2022) “The Right to Healthcare during the Covid-19 Pandemic under the European Convention on Human Rights”, The International Journal of Human Rights, DOI: 10.1080/13642987.2022.2027760. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2022.2027760
Roman Zakharov v. Russia [GC], Application no. 47143/06, Judgement of 4 December 2015.
S.A.S. v. France [GC], Application no. 43835/11, Judgement of 1 July 2014.
Schabas, W. A. (2015) The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary, Oxford: OUP.
Tacik, P. “The Blizzard of the World: COVID-19 and the Last Say of the State of Exception”, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Iuridica, vol. 96 (2021). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/0208-6069.96.02
Terhes v. Romania, application no. 4933/20, decision of 20 May 2021.
Toromag, s.r.o. v. Slovakia, Application no. 41217/20 and four other applications, communicated on 5 December 2020.
Which Countries in Europe Will Follow Austria and Make COVID Vaccines Mandatory?, https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/02/01/are-countries-in-europe-are-moving-towards-mandatory-vaccination (accessed 10.2.2022).
Zhdanov and Others v. Russia, Application nos. 12200/08, 35949/11, 58282/12, Judgement of 16 July 2019.
Zwaan-de Vries v. The Netherlands, communication no. 182/1984, Views of 9 April 1987, CCPR/C/29/D/182/1984.
Zweig, S. A., Zapf A. J., Beyrer Ch., Guha-Sapir D., Haar R. J., “Ensuring Rights while Protecting Health: The Importance of Using a Human Rights Approach in Implementing Public Health Response to COVID-19”, Health and Human Rights Journal, vol. 23, no. 2, December 2021.
Total abstract views : 58
PDF Downloads : 65