The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) announced on Wednesday August 25 that it had rejected the request of 672 professional and volunteer firefighters against the vaccine obligation against Covid-19 in France the day before. “The court considered that these requests were outside the scope of article 39 of its rules”, which allows it to be seized under an urgent procedure when applicants are exposed to “A real risk of irreparable damage”.
The firefighters had invoked the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights relating to “Right to life” and at “Right to respect for private and family life”. They were asking the court to “Suspend the vaccination obligation” provided for by the law of 5 August 2021 relating to the management of the health crisis and also to suspend “The provisions providing for the prohibition to exercise their activity” for those of them who would not have “Not satisfied with the vaccination obligation” as well as “The interruption of the payment of their remuneration”.
An obligation “necessary in a democratic society”
The decision of the ECHR, taken by a panel of seven judges, does not however presage “Not of its subsequent decisions on the admissibility or on the merits of the cases in question”, specifies the court. In a press release announcing its intention to seize the court, described as “Main policeman of Europe”, the SUD-SDIS firefighters union insisted at the beginning of August on the fact that it was not “Not against the vaccine”, but against the vaccine obligation, “Very badly received, including by agents already vaccinated”.
It’s about “1er European judgment on the vaccine obligation against # COVID19 “, To tweeted the lawyer Nicolas Hervieu, specialist in the ECHR. The court, which sits in Strasbourg, had however already ruled in a case relating to the vaccination obligation, on April 8, seized by Czech parents who refused to have their children vaccinated against childhood diseases. The court considered that this obligation could be “Necessary in a democratic society”. This judgment, even if it did not relate to vaccination against Covid-19, is considered a setback for antivaccines.