We will use the funds to cover the expenses of:

• the work of a lawyer in the joint representation of all applicants - writing a summary statement, preparation of an oral speech at a court hearing, communication with the court and with domestic and foreign partners - costs approx. EUR 1.875
• professional translator of legal English for the translation of a written statement, its attachments and oral presentation - costs approx. EUR 3.000
• participation of the legal team in the hearing of Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on 1st July 2020 (travel and accommodation) - costs approx. EUR 1.125
• organizational and other activities (travel organization, media coverage, providing photo documentation, etc.) - costs about EUR 750

Our main arguments are as follows: 

• Denying the access of the children to preschool education cannot be the punishment for the child not being fully vaccinated. Any restrictions on the access of the child to education resulting from the protection of public health must be convincingly reasoned and cannot be arbitrary. 
• Despite the individual member states having a wide margin of appreciation in the matter of health care system including the vaccination system, such a system may not entirely ignore the right to freedom of thought and conscience. On the contrary, it must take regard and cord weight to such a right, and it must enable some exemptions based on this right. Such a system cannot and may not force people to act contrary to their conscience and against the best interest of the child.
• Apart from that the vaccination policy must include and reflect respect to the right to freedom of thought and conscience, it must be transparent, well reasoned, proportionate, without the influence of persons who are in conflict of interest, and last but not least, it must include fair satisfaction for those who suffer harm to their health. 

The gravest errors on the side of the government are the following ones:

• Vaccinations are introduced as mandatory and accordingly, repressive measures are adopted in a non-transparent manner, without sufficient reasoning, disproportionately and irrationally, with involvement and influence of people who share vested interests in the matter and are in a massive conflict of interest. 
• Despite one of the chambers of the constitutional court of the Czech Republic having adjudicating an exemption from the blanket mandatory vaccination policy on the grounds of freedom of thought and conscience, the applicants were not given an opportunity of such an exemption. 
• In the case of harm to persons’ health originating as a result of mandatory vaccination even after the recent adoption of the compensation bill, the right to just satisfaction of the harm is not guaranteed.

For more information see:

• Recording of the hearing before the Grand Chamber (1 July 2020)
• Dissenting opinion of Judge Kateřina Šimáčková on the decision and reasoning of the Constitutional Court (court file Pl. ÚS 19/14)
• Dissenting opinion of Judge Kateřina Šimáčková on the decision and the reasoning of the Constitutional Court (court file PI. ÚS 16/14)

Thank you for your support. We believe that with your help we can change the system.