Communicated on 12 June 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 11504/18
J.Č.
against Croatia
lodged on 2 March 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant is a Croatian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Novi Marof. She is represented before the Court by Ms S. Mandac, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 3 October 2014 the Varaždin Minor-Offences Court found the applicant guilty for refusing mandatory vaccination of her daughter, V., born on 23 June 2013, and reprimanded her (sudska opomena).
The applicant argued that her elder child had been diagnosed with a severe form of autism after having been vaccinated with the same vaccine and that therefore she had asked that immunology tests be carried out before she approved vaccination of her daughter. However, that had been refused as “being too expensive”.
The applicant’s subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on 11 June 2017 by the Constitutional Court. It was served on the applicant on 5 September 2017.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that her conviction for refusing mandatory vaccination of her child was contrary to the principle of legal certainty since the approach of the national courts to that issue was inconsistent.
She further complained under Article 7 of the Convention that the legislation governing the issue of mandatory vaccination of children was insufficient and unforeseeable.
She also complained that her conviction in minor-offences proceedings for refusing mandatory vaccination of her second child in the particular circumstances of the present case violated her right to respect for her private and family life.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the approach of Croatian minor-offences courts to punishment of parents for refusing mandatory vaccination of their children been consistent and in compliance with the principle of legal certainty, as required under Article 6 § 1 and Article 7 of the Convention?
2. Did the act of refusing mandatory vaccination of her child of which the applicant was convicted constitute a criminal offence under national law at the time when it was committed, as envisaged by Article 7 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant’s conviction in minor-offences proceedings for refusing mandatory vaccination of her child violate her right to respect for her private and family life?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy