1. Legal Standards Concerning Issues

• Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 96 / 2001 Sb. ms, on the adoption of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being in the Application of Biology and Medicine: the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention")
• Explanatory Report to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (not legally binding)
• Resolution of the CNR Board No. 2 / 1993 Sb., on the Declaration of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
• Act No. 258 / 2000 Sb., on the protection of public health
• Decree No. 537 / 2006 Sb., on vaccination against infectious diseases (implementing decree)
• Act No. 200 / 1990 Sb., on Offenses
• Act No. 500 / 2004 Sb., on Administrative Procedure (Administrative Procedure Code)
• Act No. 94 / 1963 Sb., on Family

2. Possible Solution
This manual serves parents who, for various reasons, refuse some vaccinations or vaccinations at all. He will brief you in the process that awaits you in asserting your rights and outline some aspects of your refusal to vaccinate you.

Whether you decide for any reason to choose from a compulsory vacancy calendar just some vaccinations or not to expect your child at all, you can use several ways. In addition to extreme options such as moving abroad or not registering your child with a pediatrician, it is possible to use different procedures or legal exceptions.

You can face the situation and let your pediatrician report to a local hygienic station. It is a demanding but perhaps the only one that can lead to a change of law (ie a well-guessed case tied to the winning judgment, which may be issued by the Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg).

However, you have to take into account that your child will not be able to attend nursery school and will not be able to participate in kindergarten schools or primary schools. ski lessons and summer camps. To use these activities, the child always needs a confirmation from a general practitioner about vaccination or contraindication.

According to § 46 paragraph 4 of the Protection Act you meet the health of your parents as meeting the vaccination obligation for children in 15 years. In the event of failure to comply with this obligation, you are most likely to be charged with committing a misdemeanor by a regional sanitary station, usually with financial penalties. It is also possible that you will be interested in a social and legal protection body for children whose visit is rather formal because a social worker's visit is only to determine if the child is not vaccinated due to neglect of parental responsibilities in the care of the child's health.

You may also have disagreements with your pediatrician. The practice of applying the abovementioned repressive measures is very diverse - from strict sanctions to parents' requests to shifting the term of vaccination and the form of tacit agreement between the doctor and the parents to the tolerant or even evasive hygiene response.

The statutory exception may be made by § 46 paragraph 2 of the Public Health Protection Act according to which a compulsory vaccination is not carried out in the case of detection of immunity from infection or the detection of a health condition that prevents the administration of a vaccine (permanent contraindication)

Permanent contraindication (neurologist, allergologist, immunologist, neonatologist, infectious scientist) who will issue a document. You must find a doctor who will be willing to give you such a certificate. This is definitely an effective way to solve the problem by avoiding child discrimination when admitting to kindergarten and school activities at elementary school, and you are also not forced to officially refuse vaccinations and to follow all the procedures described below.

3. Interpretation of legal norms and arguments
If you choose a "self-vaccinating calendar" or a refusal to vaccinate, you can refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms¹ and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine², which are transcriptions superior to prescriptions, but your reasons for refusing vaccination are important. According to the Ombudsman³ account should be taken of some situations that arise from the strict application of the Public Health Act, such as previous negative experiences with vaccination in the family, or other serious reasons. In our view, other serious reasons include parental convictions about the harmfulness of a particular vaccination, negative predilection for vaccination, but also philosophical, ethical or religious beliefs. The Ombudsman emphasizes the need for an individual approach to individual cases of individual decision-making on vaccination, and it is necessary to address the reasons for this. In justified cases, the possibility of granting an exemption should be considered. According to him, only unjustified failure to comply with the obligation to vaccinate should be sanctioned by a reasonable fine as the only possible sanction. This suggests that parents should clarify in advance why they do not want to have children vaccinated.

One of the most important arguments is that your otherwise healthy (though unvaccinated child) does not endanger public health. This is a crucial matter in the current situation when vaccination is mandatory. Pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention, the general rule of free and informed consent to medical treatment is applicable and can only be done on condition that the person concerned has given such consent. According to Article 6 of the Convention a legal guardian, that is to say, a parent, decides to consent to a medical intervention in a minor child.

According to our Constitution, the Convention has precedence over the laws. If the provisions of the law conflict with this Convention, the provisions of the Convention shall prevail. However, this does not apply where the Convention itself foresees a possible restriction by law. In our case, the free informed consent rule applies to any medical intervention, but may be restricted under the conditions Article 26 of the Convention, which permits the limitation of this right by law, for example, to protect public health, protect the rights and freedoms of others. Such a restriction in the legal order of the Czech Republic according to the opinion of the chief hygiene is laid down by the law on public health protection and its implementing decree. However, in order to be able to apply this limitation, your free decision on non-vaccination should be affected, for example, by the protection of public health. The decisive issue in relation to vaccination will be the threat to public health, ie the question whether the refusal of a particular vaccination could endanger public health or not.

Your right under the Convention can undoubtedly be applied in the case of refusal of compulsory tetanus vaccination (not portable), TB ("... child forms of tuberculosis are not transportable ...")⁴. In these cases, this is not an infectious disease or a disease communicable to a pediatric population, and non-vaccination can not lead to the spread of these diseases and thus to a threat to public health. Therefore, Article 26 of the Convention can not be applied tetanus and TB vaccination may be refused in full under Article 5 of the Convention without being sanctioned for such a refusal. If the tetanus vaccine in one vaccine dose is combined with other vaccines against diseases that are, in the opinion of doctors, infectious, then this is not your problem. It is a state problem, respectively. public health authorities to be able to offer you a vaccine that does not contain the tetanus component.

A less clear but very controversial case is to restrict your right to informed consent to compulsory vaccinations against type B viral hepatitis. This disease is transmitted only by body fluids, especially blood or sperm, and not by droplet infection, as in other compulsory vaccinations. So the chance that your baby (infant) will get this jaundice with good parental care is virtually nil because of the mode of transmission. (The frequent argument is the possibility of infection after a wound syringe but: "The 1998 Hygienic Service in the period from January 2001 to 113 registered XNUMX people injured by a needled needle in Prague, who were subsequently medically examined and monitored while the acquisition of virus infection hepatitis or HIV has not been proven in any way. ")⁵.
More likely, it is almost impossible to transfer it to others and thus jeopardize public health.

As for other compulsory vaccinations, it is up to you to prove that your healthy, unvaccinated child does not endanger public health and challenge the purpose of the vaccination. Surely for this proof there are backgrounds, studies and literature⁶, the association can help you find the search ROZALIO who are trying to promote better parenting information about vaccinations, or parents who already have the problem of refusing to vaccinate their experience.

In dealing with public health authorities use the term "public health threats", which is defined in the Public Health Protection Act as "a situation in which the population or its groups are exposed to a hazard from which the burden of risk factors of natural, living or working conditions exceeds a generally acceptable level and represents a significant risk of harm to health." by not endangering public health and that non-vaccination does not pose a significant risk of harm to health. For example, you can provide information about vaccination from some European countries where field vaccinations are voluntary. Despite the fact that some of our compulsory vaccinations are not widely vaccinated abroad (eg tuberculosis in Germany and Italy), the incidence of the disease is not higher than in the Czech Republic, so there is no threat to public health. This issue is also mentioned by Ombudsman Anna Šabatová for the magazine Seventh Generation⁷: "All advanced European countries are weeping, but by far not all of them have compulsory vaccinations." The Ombudsman in his report⁸ states: "It is true that under the Public Health Protection Act, vaccination in our state is mandatory, but it is not compulsory in other advanced democratic countries. It can not be said that in these countries, such as Austria and Germany, the standard of protection of children's rights is therefore lower than in the Czech Republic. "Consequently, it can not be said that the standard of protection in these countries public health, and therefore can not in any way talk about public health threats in the event of an informed decision by parents not to vaccinate their child.

The term "public health threat" also clarifies the Explanatory Report to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine in paragraph 151, which provides an interpretation of Article 26 of the Convention: "Compulsory isolation of a patient with a serious infectious disease, if necessary, is a typical case of an exception for the protection of public health." According to this explanation, then the provisions of Article 26 should not apply to a healthy child and extensive preventive care. The possible objection that it could become infected due to non-vaccination and then threaten other people can not succeed because the concept of a medical "intervention" which the parent is denied according to the Convention includes, in accordance with paragraph 29, Explanatory Reports as well as preventive care that vaccination undoubtedly it is.

The explanation of the Preamble to the Convention contained in the Explanatory Report further indicates that the threatened interests of the individual and society are not equivalent. As stated in Article 2 of the Convention, they are graded to reflect the fundamental priority attached to the interests of the individual over the interests of society. As further explained in the explanation, Article 26 of the Convention is defined so that the general interest becomes priorities only in very specific situations and with respect to precisely defined legal guarantees. According to this definition, the exception provided for in Article 26 of the Convention can not be in line with a routine routine vaccination obligation that absolutely does not take into account the specificity of individual situations. It also does not respond to it, in the case of health damage due to vaccination, the absence of a special legal rule in the Czech legal order, which in such cases would determine legal liability and financial compensation, as is the case abroad (the Czech legal order contains only the General State Responsibility Act damage).

It is also a question of the number of people at risk that the term "public health threat" is intended to be. Due to the mode of transmission of the above-mentioned type B hepatitis, it can only be an individual (if this danger can be admitted - a small child does not belong among the risk groups as addicts or promiscuous people, etc.).

Although the Explanatory Report to the Convention is not legally binding, it has a good arguing potential. However, it is always up to the administration or the court to decide whether to accept this interpretation and how to interpret certain provisions in the end.

___________

1 Resolution of the Board of the CNR No. 2 / 1993 Sb., On the proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms:

• Article 6, paragraph 1: Everyone has the right to life.
• Article 15, paragraph 1: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion is guaranteed.
• Article 31: Everyone has the right to health protection.
• Article 32, paragraph 1: Parenting and family are protected by law.

2 No. 96 / 2001 Sb. ms, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine

• Article 2 - The Supremacy of a Human Being: The interests and welfare of a human being will outweigh the interests of society or science.
• Article 5 - General rule: Any health care intervention can only be performed on the condition that the person concerned has given free and informed consent to it. This person must be duly informed in advance of the purpose and nature of the procedure as well as of its consequences and risks.
• Article 6 - Protection of persons unable to give consent, paragraph 2: If a minor is legally incapable of giving consent, the treatment can not be performed without the permission of his or her legal representative, official or other person or body authorized to do so by law. The opinion of a minor will be taken into account as a factor whose liability increases in proportion to the age and degree of maturity.
• Article 26 - Limitation of the exercise of rights, paragraph 1: No limitation may be applied to the exercise of the rights and safeguards contained in this Convention other than those laid down by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, crime prevention, health or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

3 Ombudsman's Comprehensive Activity Report for 2003, 133. Available from Protector.com,
Ombudsman's Comprehensive Activity Report for 2004, 107. Available from: Ochrance.cz
4 MUDr. Karel Křepela - Tuberculosis of Children and Adolescents and their Differential Diagnostics, Maxdorf-Jessenius 1995
5 MUDr. Laura Krekulová, 2.interni Department, Central Military Hospital and MUDr. Vratislav Řehák, Department of Infectious Diseases IPVZJ: What Is Viral Hepatitis? , Triton 1999
6 For example: M. Hirte: Vaccination - Pros and Cons, Fountain 2002, G. Buchwald: Vaccination - Trade in Fear, Alternative 2003, R. Neusstaedter: Problems with Vaccination, 1995 Alternative
7 It makes sense to bring sacrifices (interview with Anna Šabatová). Available from: SedmaGenerace.cz
8 Ombudsman's Comprehensive Activity Report for the Year 2002

4. Refusal to vaccinate in the maternity ward, at a pediatrician, on a hygienic station
In the Czech Republic, the first vaccination is carried out at the maternity hospital, namely vaccination against tuberculosis. Here, vaccination may be refused without any further explanation, referring to an implementing decree which provides that vaccination is to be carried out by 4. day by the end of 6. weeks after birth.The refusal to vaccinate against TB in the maternity hospital is in full compliance with the law.

In addition, parents come in contact with a pediatrician, § 45 paragraph 2 of the Public Health Protection Act imposes an obligation to ensure and carry out all specified vaccinations to the extent stipulated by the Implementing Decree. This provision is generally interpreted as meaning that if a doctor fails to comply with his duty (because his parents will not allow him to carry out the vaccination), he / she has to report this fact in cooperation with the public health authorities. Although this obligation is not imposed by doctors, however, according to § 45 paragraph 1 of the Public Health Protection Act, doctors are obliged to cooperate with public health authorities. In practice, doctors report the refusal to vaccinate, otherwise they are subject to fines, suspension of licenses and termination of contracts with insurance companies. There are few doctors who leave their child's refusal to vaccinate, so parents can expect to be contacted by a health care facility. However, many doctors are willing to agree to a postponement of vaccinations; it is ideal to sign a statement that the delay was chosen on the request and responsibility of the parents. This will give you the much needed time to focus on issues, gain information, or just grow your child's body.

It is also possible to contact the health care facility directly and tell them that you do not want to vaccinate your child and your reasons. This may affect the assessment of the seriousness of the offense and the related determination of the type of sanction and its assessment.

The last option (very hypothetical) is to ask the Ministry of Health as a Public Health Protection Authority for an exemption from compulsory vaccination as proposed by the Ombudsman as one of the sources of 1. While the Ministry is not expressly empowered by law to grant such exceptions, it is possible to find support in the provisions on the powers of the Ministry in Section 80 (1) (a) and (e) of the Law on the Protection of Public Health. These are provisions under which the ministry directs and controls the performance of state administration in the protection of public health and is responsible for designing and implementing national policies in the field of public health protection and conducting vaccination. Such a request would need to be fully justified.

5. Initiation of the offense proceedings by the Regional Hygiene Station
When the Regional Hygiene Station ("KHS") learns the fact that you have refused compulsory vaccination, will initiate infringement proceedings against you in the health sector according to § 29 paragraph 1 g) of the Act on Offenses. By doing so, you have failed to fulfill an obligation established or imposed to prevent and spread infectious diseases. For it can be fined up to 10 000 CZK in the offense proceedings, in the order of up to 4 000 CZK. The fine may be imposed by the KHS on each parent separately, which allows the family law, as both parents have parental responsibility. The participants are informed in writing about the commencement of the infringement proceedings.

In rare cases where parents did not report their child to any pediatrician, there is hardly any possibility for KHS to find out that the child has not been vaccinated. (You would have to either tell it yourself, or you could find it through a healthcare facility authorized to carry out vaccination, which can extract from the population's records data about residents who are required to vaccinate.) But if he learns in any way then he will be the offender the procedure under § 46 paragraph 3 of the Public Health Protection Act is preceded by a written decision by which the KHS notifies parents of the obligation to submit the child to the vaccination and determines the healthcare facility that will carry out the vaccination within the specified time. You have the option of appealing against this decision, which has suspensive effect, which means that you are not required to submit this decision within a time limit until the superior authority has decided on the appeal. If you do not appeal, or if the appeal body confirms the decision subsequently, you must submit the decision, otherwise the offense will be initiated.

Regarding deadlines, the law does not specify the length of time between the start of the offense and the oral hearing until the decision of the KHS. When the administrative authority sums you up and when it makes a decision, it depends only on it. There is only one the limitation period from the day of committing the offense to the legal force of the decision, which is one year (more in the 9 section).

6. Order to impose a fine from KHS
The KHS may, at the same time as the notice of the commencement of the offense proceedings, issue an order for the imposition of a fine under § 87 of the Infringement Act. Using the Command Management Institute can, if there is no doubt, commit the offense. This penalty may be imposed by the KHS on each parent separately. The fine may be imposed in 4 000 CZK. The fine must either be paid within the time limit, or against the order filed with the KHS within 15 days of delivery. By submitting a resist, the order is canceled and the administrative body continues the proceedings. The defendant can not impose a higher fine than that specified in the order.

The award of a fine in the administrative procedure may be more advantageous, so it is possible for the Office to design this procedure in accordance with the principle of speed and economy of public administration procedures.

___________

1 Ombudsman's Comprehensive Activity Report for 2003, 124: Available from: Ochrance.cz
"At the end of the year, 2002 started to work with the Ministry of Health to provide a consultative body to the Minister for Preventive Diseases, which should, among other things, also authorize exceptions to vaccination indications. However, the first case of an exemption request is due to be debated only at the beginning of 2004. As the Ministry of Health prepares an amendment to the Act on Public Health Protection, it can be seen from the analysis of the current situation as an appropriate solution to incorporate the possibility of this exception into the forthcoming amendment. The Ombudsman will enforce the inclusion of this provision in law. "

7. Oral hearing in the KHS offense proceeding
On the basis of Section 74 of the Offense Act, you will be summoned in writing to the oral hearing where the staff of the Office will recapitulate the course of the offense and explain to you what the facts of the offense are about and fulfill the facts in the protocol . In the absence of the accused, the matter may be dealt with only if it refuses to appear, although properly summoned, or does not appear without proper excuse or important reason.

At the time of the hearing, the child can represent only one of the parents, it is necessary to bring with it the power of attorney (so-called empowerment) from the other parent.

At the oral hearing, you can once again comment on the reasons for your refusal to vaccinate. This is very important not only for assessing the seriousness of the offense and the circumstances in which it was committed, which may have a great effect on the sanction imposed. On the basis of recorded statements, it is also possible to attempt to use according to § 48 paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure principle ne bis in idem¹ (not twice in the same case) and try to avoid future sanctions for refusing further vaccines or refusing to vaccinate other children. The condition is to specify that you, for example, refuse to vaccinate a certain disease (or more illnesses) in general as such in all other cases. To express your opinion in this way allows you § 36 paragraph 2 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. In the future, you can try to appeal that you have been punished for this offense once, because the subjective aspect of the offense (the internal relationship to the offense, your motives and motives, the fault) remains the same.

Ask for a copy of the protocol, you have the right to do so according to § 15 paragraph 1 of the Administrative Procedure Code. If you do not see anything at the hearing of the Office and you suspect it is not lawful, always ask for each oral statement to be confirmed in writing, including the statement from which the provisions of the law are based. If they refuse to do so, have your supervisor called and you want it. It's also a good idea to have a dictaphone at the oral hearing with the authorities and record everything. All of these materials may later be useful when proving in the appeal proceedings or, where appropriate, in bringing an action before a court.

When signing a protocol, read it well, suggest changes, or write it yourself. Never sign anything that you do not agree with. If you are under great pressure, you can add an addendum to your signature I did not understand the content.

You have the right to inspect the file and have a copy of the documents you have selected, and you can also browse the contents of the file with the camera.

8. Evidence in the KHS Offense Procedure
According to § 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure the administrative body is obliged to proceed in such a way that the state of the case, for which there are no reasonable doubts, is established. This means that the facts of the case must be sufficiently established to make the decision, in particular, lawful, in order to protect the rights and legitimate interests of individuals from excessive and pointless interference in order to address the public interest. It should be remembered that an administrative authority is not only a law, but also international treaties (including the Convention) that are superior to laws.

In accordance with § 50 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the administrative body must provide the basis for the decision making, in particular, your proposals and statements, evidence, etc. The documents are provided by the administrative body itself, upon request of the participant, the administrative body may admit the proposed and marked evidence. From the interpretation in the publication Administrative law² It follows that if the participant himself provides proof, the administrative authority is obliged to include it in the file as the basis for the decision and in the justification of the decision must explain how the evidence has been evaluated and how it has been dealt with.

The participant has the right to propose evidence and to make other petitions for the duration of the proceedings until the decision has been taken in accordance with § 36 paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. The administrative authority also has to allow participants under § 36 paragraph 3 of the Code of Administrative Procedure to be able to comment on all the grounds for the decision. This includes the obligation of the administrative authority to inform the participants before making the decision, with all the documents at its disposal and on which it will base its decision-making process. The law on offenses is also regulated by the offense law: the accused party has the right to comment on all the facts that are blamed for him and to prove them, to apply the facts and to propose evidence for his defense, to make suggestions and remedies.

According to § 51 paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, all means of proof that are suitable for the determination of the condition of the case and which are in accordance with legal regulations may be used to prove the evidence. These are in particular letters, witness testimony and expert opinion. Participants are even required to label the evidence to support their claims. An administrative body is not bound by the proposals of the participants, but always makes the necessary evidence to determine the state of affairs. All the evidence and evidence is evaluated by the administrative authority according to its considerations, taking into account all that emerges in the proceedings.

In case of refusal of vaccination a medical finding on child health can be used as evidence, a specialist article, a study that points to the potential risk of vaccination in case of health problems that are present in your child etc. You can use the arguments and interpretations of the legal regulations listed in 3.

9. Decision to impose a fine
If you are not convinced by an administrative authority about the reasons for your refusal of an immunization during the administrative proceeding, you will be fined (each parent separately). You will receive a written notice.

According to Section 12, the amount of the fine shall take into account the gravity of the offense, in particular the manner in which it was committed and its consequences, the circumstances in which it was committed, the degree of fault, the motive and the person of the offender. It can be assumed that the amount of the fine (in the 10 000 CZK max. 4 000, in the 79 1000 CZK) should be determined by the number of vaccinations you have rejected and how they are considered serious threats to public health. The fine, if it was not awarded in the course of the order, requires a lump sum of the cost of the XNUMX CZK perpetrated proceedings on each parent individually, based on § XNUMX Act on Offenses.

It is important to know that after the 1 year has elapsed since the offense was committed, the offense is time-barred pursuant to § 20 of the Offenses Act and he can no longer be penalized. This means that the administrative authorities have a year in which 1 has been granted a final decision on the imposition of a fine. Therefore, if the proceedings are reached in such a way that the final decision of the appellate body (the Ministry of Health) is not issued within 1 of the offense, it is not possible to impose the fine.

Previously, there was an unresolved question of when an offense was committed. Now, according to the interpretation of the sanitary station, the day of committing the offense is the last day of the period during which the child was to be inoculated according to the decree. Thus, for example, in the case of non-vaccinating tuberculosis to be vaccinated according to the Decree no later than the end of the sixth week following the birth of the child, 1 is to be forfeited for one year from the time the child has completed six weeks of life. In the case of measles, rubella and mumps, the decree does not set a deadline for vaccination. Therefore, it is very problematic to talk about committing a misdemeanor if these diseases are not vaccinated. The Act on Offenses provides for a requirement to determine the time of the offense. This requirement can not be met on the basis of the existing wording.

In theory, a failure to fulfill a vaccination obligation could be classified by the public health authority as a so-called continuing misdemeanor. This would mean that the administration would be able to grant repeated penalties for maintaining an unlawful situation. Such an interpretation would, however, contradict the decision of the Constitutional Court (footnote No. 8). This interpretation would also be meaningless, because some diseases can be vaccinated only in childhood, therefore non-vaccination can not be perceived as permanent unlawfulness. In our view, it is necessary to interpret the offense in favor of the accused according to the principle in dubio for reo (in case of doubt, the prescription should be interpreted in favor of the accused).

Intentional stretching of the proceedings so that limitation can be made may be risky, if the participant does not come to the oral hearing without proper excuse and sufficient reasons, the administrative body may award a fine up to the amount of 50 000 CZK or have the person show police . On the basis of Section 74 of the Law on Offenses, the administrative body may also discuss the case in the absence of the accused if he refuses to appear or does not properly rule. It can not be helped by not taking a decision or a summons, because, according to § 24 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, the document is considered to be delivered to 10. the day after the document was ready to be picked up (even if for serious reasons it is possible to ask for a waiver of the missed act). Proceedings may be delayed, for example, by proposals for processing an expert opinion, which may take some time. If the whole process is stretched for a whole year, the allegation of the offense is time-barred.

If you have been convicted of an offense several times, that is, you have refused several vaccinations, so according to § 57 the Offenses Act, all offenses in joint proceedings are dealt with and according to § 12 paragraph 2 of the Offense Act a fine may be imposed for only one offense punishable most severely (max. up to 10 000 CZK). So it's a good idea if you have refused more vaccinations so that the KHS learns as soon as possible. Otherwise, if you have another vaccinated vaccination schedule, another offense will be initiated against you. Our law does not allow for repeated fines for the same act (with some exceptions - eg fine fines). Therefore, if your child, despite the decision to impose a fine, do not ingest vaccines against which he / she should have been vaccinated according to the vaccination schedule and for which you have been fined, then the KHS may again proceed according to the points mentioned above and re-impose the obligation to have the baby vaccinated, but can not save a new fine. The KHS then discusses the matter, but will be forced to stop the proceedings for the reasons set out in § 76 (1). g) of the Act on Offenses, because the same act has already been legally decided.

The principle of not being punished twice for the same act can be attempted to prevent even if you are vaccinating another disease if you refuse to vaccinate as such, or if you are vaccinating other children - in the 7 section. In these cases, however, it is not certain whether you will be successful with such an argument.

10. Appeals to the Ministry of Health
Under §§ 81 and 51 the Offense Act in conjunction with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedure, you can appeal to the Ministry of Health against the decision to impose a fine within 15 days of its delivery by filing an appeal with the KHS that issued the decision. A timely appeal against a decision on an offense has a suspensive effect that can not be ruled out. This means that the obligation to pay the fine is postponed until the decision of the Ministry and according to § 82 Act on Offenses, the Ministry can not change the imposed sanction to your detriment, ie increase the fine.

You do not need to re-attach all the evidence to the appeal, they are based on a file with KHS, which hand over the file to the appeal body. You can only mention the list of evidence in the appeal. You can not submit new evidence anymore unless it is evidence or suggestions that you could not have previously applied for objective reasons. Otherwise, the appellate body will not take them into account. The Ministry has no time limit to resolve your appeal and decision. It's up to him how fast things are handled.

If you do not succeed and the Ministry rejects your appeal in a written decision, then you are obliged to pay 15 days after delivery of the decision the fine that has been charged to you by the KHS, together with the administrative fee. If, however, according to § 72 paragraph 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, you submit to 2 for a month before an administrative court - a motion for review of the court's decision on a misdemeanor, you can request the Ministry under § 83 Act on Offenses to postpone the execution of the decision comply. An application for suspension of enforceability must be made without delay.

___________

1 Kadečka S. et al. Administrative Procedure. Prague: ASPI, as, 2006, s. 205.
"It is an obstacle to the matter decided when the same obligation can be granted for the same reason only for the same person. Therefore, if the administrative authority finds that the case has already been judged beforehand, it can not initiate proceedings in this case. The administrative body must assess whether it is the same person, the same reason and the same right or obligation. "
In this case, the findings of the Constitutional Court in the matter of the returnees of the basic military service issued under file no. Mark IV. ÚS 81 / 95 and IV. ÚS 81 / 97, which in legal terms addressed the identical issue of repeated prosecution for the same deed. These cases were conducted according to the same scenario, when the decision to take up duty, refusal, prosecution, judgment, new decision, new refusal, new prosecution, and new conviction were initially taken. The Constitutional Court annulled the second judgment because it violated the ne bis in idem principle.
Instances of vaccine refusal are similar in nature, so the procedure must be the same. It is therefore not possible to punish again the parents for refusing the same vaccination, for which they have already been fined. The question may be questioned in the case of another vaccine and, in the case of vaccination of other children, parents should use the legal interpretation of the concepts of "identical act and behavior" for their benefit.
This principle is also enshrined in Article 4 in Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Although there is talk of criminal proceedings and criminal offenses, the interpretation of the European Court of Human Rights is such that the provision also applies to offenses.
2 Kadečka S. et al. Administrative Procedure. Prague: ASPI, as, 2006, s. 167.

11. Review of the administrative offense of the offense
The review of the decision on the offense is carried out in the administrative judiciary in accordance with the Code of Administrative Procedure. The action is filed with the local jurisdiction in the specified 2 month period. The details of the action are set out in § 71 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and further information in §§ 65 et seq. The date of receipt of the application to the court is commenced. The court does not have a given time when it has to deal with the matter, it depends on the use of the court and other factors. In the event of failure, a cassation complaint may be lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court in Brno within 2 weeks of service of the decision. He may admit the suspensive effect of the Regional Court's decision on your application. The details of the cassation complaint are set out in § 106, further information on the cassation complaint is given in §§ 102 and the following administrative court rulings. You must be represented by a lawyer in the proceedings. If you are a socially weak family, you can contact the Czech Bar Association and request it with reference to § 18 Law on Advocacy. The Chamber will appoint you a lawyer if you have been at least two attorneys for any reason (including financial ones) to refuse and provide proof of your family's income. If you do not even have a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court, you have the opportunity to appeal to the Constitutional Court within the Czech courts.

The Supreme Administrative Court has decided once in the matter of compulsory vaccination, to the detriment of the parentswho have refused some vaccinations with their underage children. In his judgment¹ dismissed the cassation complaint of parents who referred to 15 articles 1 and 16 paragraph 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and articles 5 and 6 to the Convention, namely their religious and philosophical beliefs and the fact that they did not grant a free and informed consent to vaccination. The Ministry of Health has stated that the law establishing the obligation to receive regular vaccinations is not in contradiction with the international treaty, as it allows restrictions on the rights to safeguard the rights and freedoms of others and to protect public health in accordance with Article 26 of the Convention. The court has given the interpretation to the Ministry of Health. The fact that the complainant did not pay all the objections and arguments he could have made was also a part of it. The judgment shows that the Explanatory Report to the Convention has not been taken into account, the protection of public health by vaccination has not been questioned, expert opinions and literature on vaccine risks and other arguments have not been submitted. In our opinion, this decision was somewhat unfortunate because it was the first decision in the matter and the complainants had no idea how many counter-arguments could be submitted. On the contrary, the Ministry of Health utilized all the arguments in its favor.

12. Constitutional complaint, complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, other means
According to the § 72 Act on the Constitutional Court, within 60 days from the delivery of the decision, it is possible to file a constitutional complaint to the Constitutional Court, if the final decision in the proceeding violated the applicant's fundamental right or the freedom guaranteed by the constitutional order. In your complaint, you can challenge a violation of a valid international document - the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which our Republic is bound by the Constitution, but also the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. In the Czech Republic, the Constitutional Court has never decided on the question of compulsory vaccination, so it is possible to expect the first decision in the future. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court, in another decision, has dealt with the issue of free decision-making on matters of health care.²

To file a complaint, you must be represented again by a lawyer. This mandatory representation has been in force since the very beginning of the proceedings, so it is essential that a complaint be lodged with a qualified lawyer. All the details of the complaint to the Constitutional Court can be found at www.concourt.cz.

Once you have exhausted all the possibilities to secure your rights in the Czech Republic, you can turn to European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. More detailed information on complaints is provided by the Strasbourg Civil Society Committee. The ECtHR has not yet decided on the issue of compulsory vaccination. However, it may be assumed that when interpreting the Convention and the concept of "public health threats" it will take into account the Explanatory Report to the Convention (more in section 3.). When considering and measuring whether the right of the state to prescribe vaccination against the volition of medical intervention and human freedom, the court will certainly take into account the regulation in the other Member States. Therefore, we believe that the Czech Republic would not be able to justify the impossibility of refusing compulsory vaccination on grounds of public health protection. The president of the Czech Vaccine Society, prof. In a timetable, CT24 said that in most western countries vaccination is not mandatory, but it also works, just because we have chosen another model. This only proves that the Czech Republic has failed to choose a model to protect the rights of individuals to provide informed consent to the procedure. The ECtHR can also assess under separate management whether there are no discrimination against families of unvaccinated children who can not be admitted to kindergarten and who are unable to participate in school activities (more in section 2). It is also competent to assess whether repeated prosecution and punishment for the same offense (more in section 7.)

Another option is to contact and inform about your problem the Ombudsman, who has been engaged in mandatory vaccination for several years and has been promoting conceptual changes to the system. The more people turn to it with their impetus, the greater the weight will be attributed to the problem. In message³ for the 2004 year, the Ombudsman states that he has repeatedly asked the Department of Health to address the issue of possible exceptions in the event of a refusal to vaccinate for serious reasons, at the same time suggesting that he should consider amending legislation. The Ministry of Health continued to take a negative attitude towards these proposals.

13. In case of non-payment of the fine
Once the decision to impose a fine has become final and if you do not already have the option of postponing enforcement, it is in your interest to pay the fine within the time limit. Otherwise, you are in danger of eventually paying a lump sum, including the cost of execution.

If you do not pay a fine and other charges resulting from the KHS procedure within the standstill period, the documents for further proceedings will be forwarded to the tax office. The tax office has the obligation to ask you to pay in 8 a substitute period. Against this appeal, 15 may be appealed for days, but it is not possible to state the same reasons as in the previous proceedings. You can appeal only to court or other administrative proceedings already in progress on the same matter, which you must prove. At the same time, it is appropriate for the tax office to file a request for postponement of the payment of the fine, but the office does not have to comply with the request. Upon request for payment in the alternative (or after a decision on appeal), provided that the fine has not been paid, the tax authority will proceed to execution under the Tax Administration Act and the Civil Procedure Code. Execution of the decision may be ordered, in particular, by a bank execution order, a wage or retirement deduction, and the sale of movable property.

14. Parental rights and responsibility
Parental rights and responsibilities concern not only the above mentioned regulations (the Convention and the Charter), but also the Family Act, which defines parental responsibility as a summary of the rights and obligations in the care of a minor, including, in particular, the care for his or her health ... etc. Furthermore, the Act determines that measures restricting parental responsibility can only be determined by the court. It follows that your child's health is your responsibility only and the state can only get rid of it by court. However, this is contrary to the vaccination duty imposed by the law, which deprives parents of responsibility for the health of the child. Therefore, the parent is not able to decide freely on the basis of the information obtained and in accordance with his / her own beliefs about what is best for the health of the child. This is a serious breach of parental rights, since there is no doubt that there is a certain risk of harm to health due to vaccination and because the parent is unable to refuse the vaccination.

In practice, the public health authority (or the doctor) may initiate an organ of social and legal protection for children, whose staff then appeals to parents to refer to the law on socially legal protection of children to fulfill the vaccination obligation. The extreme pressure is the threat of limiting or eliminating parental responsibility for neglecting parental responsibilities in the care of the child's health. Parents may also be threatened by taking a child if the child does not vaccinate. The Family Act permits the suspension, restriction or removal of parental responsibility only if the parent neglects childcare and if the child's interest so requires. In the past, it may have happened that the child was from the family (for reasons of parental persuasion and the refusal to vaccinate), it has not been so long ago and this form of coercion is abandoned.

Unfortunately, in the past, there have been cases where, at the proposal of a body for social and legal protection of children, the parents' parental court has partially deprived parental responsibility of the decision to vaccinate the child. Then he set up a child's guardian who had given his parents permission to inoculate the child and accompanied him to perform the vaccination. Such a procedure is unacceptable and contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and international conventions. We have not met such practices for a long time. For example, in Italy, the practice of vaccination has been inadmissible for decades. The Ombudsman states in his press release⁴: "Experience shows that often a mere refusal to vaccinate a child is automatically considered an inadequate parental care of a child. Parents who refuse to vaccinate may be threatened not only by a fine but also by placing a child in institutional care without any further examination of the reasons for refusing to do so. Such a procedure should be regarded as entirely unacceptable. This would be contrary to the interest of the child, which is also contrary to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. "

___________

1 Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 28. February 2006, ref. 5 As 17 / 2005-66, www.nssoud.cz.
2 From the finding of the Constitutional Court of 18. May 2001, sp. Mark IV. ÚS 639 / 2000: "From the constitutional principle of integrity of personality integrity follows the principle of free decision-making on matters of own health care; therefore, in the application of provisions permitting certain medical procedures or examinations to be performed without the express consent of the individual (patient), it is necessary to save the essence of this freedom and proceed with maximum restraint. However, this inviolability of personality integrity as a basic constitutional principle and the resulting principle of free decision-making on issues of health care is not absolute and unlimited in any society. Therefore, the provisions of the Act on Health Care of the People determine the situations under which medical acts can be carried out also against the will of a citizen (patient). This could include, for example, the situation where a person experiencing mental illness or intoxication threatens himself / herself or his / her surroundings, or when it is necessary to save life or health. However, the Constitutional Court has undoubtedly shown from the established circumstances of the case that no such situation has occurred. "
The result of the finding is the impossibility of carrying out medical treatment without the consent of the patient (or legal guardians) unless the cases are explicitly mentioned in the Public Health Care Act. Vaccination is not one of these cases.
3 Ombudsman's Comprehensive Activity Report for the Year 2004
4 Press Release: Health and Health Care. Protection of public health. In Brno on 17. February 2004

15. Literature and sources of information

•  Original parental manual from Paracelsus
• Website of the Ombudsman: http://www.ochrance.cz
• Interview with physician Lukáš Dostál: Vaccination: A difficult (and forbidden) choice. Available from: http://www.evalabusova.cz/rozhovory/dostal_lukas.php
• It makes sense to bring victims (interview with Anna Šabatová). Available from: http://www.sedmagenerace.cz/index.php?art=clanek&id=115
• Kadečka S. et al. Administrative Procedure. Prague: ASPI, as, 2006

 Uploading ...