CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 11 January 2021 Published on 1 February 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 20874/18 Dragana BAŠA against Serbia lodged on 25 April 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the compulsory vaccination of persons in Serbia, including the compulsory vaccination of preschool/school-going children. In his application, the applicant, a parent, relies on various provisions of the Convention, as well as on Protocol No. 1 and Protocol   No.   12 thereto. Ultimately, the Constitutional Court ruled against the applicant and a number of other appellants who had raised the same issues before it. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Are the applicant’s complaints compatible with the provisions of the Convention, ratione personae , in so far as they relate to the compulsory vaccination of preschool/school-going children?   2.     Has the applicant exhausted and/or properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention?   4.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of her civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the Constitutional Court’s reasoning in the present case in breach of the applicant’s “right to a reasoned decision” within the meaning of that provision?   5.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private and/or family life, within the meaning of Article   8 §   1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   8 §   2?   6.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, and/or in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?