Big Brother Watch and Others v. the United Kingdom

vaccination requirements may significantly implicate other rights, such as freedom of movement under Article 2, Protocol No. 4. Nevertheless, the Court's use of the term "social solidarity" seems to send a message that it would not be disproportionate for states to impose compulsory COVID-19 vaccination in the name of that solidarity, as having the highest level of vaccination would protect people who are vulnerable to COVID-19, including the elderly, the immunocompromised, and people with comorbidities. At the same time, there is no uniform practice as to how the highest level of vaccination should be achieved. As a result, if a state were to introduce mandatory COVID-19 vaccination, Vavika indicates that such a state would enjoy a wide margin of appreciation under the ECHR. This is further underpinned by the observation that the Court tends to grant a particularly wide margin of appreciation in the field of bioethics. 9 On our reading, unless the measure would be clearly disproportionate (such as the imposition of a blanket obligation without possibilities of exemptions for those with contraindications), the ECtHR would probably accept mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 to be in accordance with the ECHR.