Jelić: 102 applications from Montenegro before the European Court, each mandatory-vaccination case is judged separately

The applications filed by Montenegrin citizens before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, over the obligation to vaccinate, have nothing in common with the legal practice of that court regarding forced vaccination. However, the practice established by a judgment against the Czech Republic does not prejudge the outcome of the Montenegrin cases, because each one is assessed separately, according to the specific circumstances. This was explained in an interview with Radio Free Europe by lawyer Sava Jelić, who represents more than 100 citizens who filed applications with the European Court in Strasbourg against Montenegro, after their children were denied access to nursery school due to the lack of mandatory vaccinations.

The number of applications before the court in Strasbourg is increasing and now stands at 102, according to the lawyer, who said that for some of them a court judgment is expected soon.

The lawyer said that in this matter, he is acting pro bono.

He said that, in his opinion, “there is no question of forced vaccination in this case, because the Strasbourg court ruled on the forced vaccination of children in the Czech Republic in the case of Vavricka, which is a different issue.”

“In our case, it is not a question of forced vaccination, but of the denial of the right to education, which is a right that belongs to every child,” Jelić said, adding that the issue is the state taking steps that, as he claims, violate children’s rights, including the right to education and the right to a family life.

He explained that the applications concern the period from 2017 to 2020, when the children of those citizens were denied access to educational institutions, and stressed that “the parents did not refuse the vaccines completely, but requested, for various reasons, to postpone them or not to receive them on the dates set by the doctor.”

Jelić also said that he does not have information on how many citizens have filed such applications in total, because he cannot know whether other lawyers have filed similar applications, adding that it is possible that the number is even higher.

He noted that it is not known when the European Court will rule on these applications, saying that “the applications have been accepted and are now being examined by the court.”

“I would not be surprised if a judgment is made this year, because some cases are in the final phase,” the lawyer said.

Asked whether there is a possibility that the court could rule in favour of the state, Jelić said that such a possibility exists, but that “the practice of the European Court regarding the right to education in similar cases suggests that the applicants’ rights have been violated.”

He added that the Montenegrin state has also responded to the applications, stating in its response that “the restrictions were justified, were provided by law and had a legitimate aim, which was the protection of public health.”

Jelić said that the state’s response does not change the essence of the dispute, because, according to him, “the key question is whether the restriction was proportionate to the aim pursued.”

He stressed that the parents’ demand was not to abolish mandatory vaccination, but to allow their children to attend nursery school, while they themselves would decide on the timing of the vaccinations.

“The state could have achieved the same aim through less restrictive measures, such as allowing children to attend nursery school under certain conditions, instead of a complete ban,” Jelić concluded.