The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Compulsory Vaccination in a Fundamental Rights Perspective: Lessons from the ECtHR
Open accessAbstract
Abstract The multiple COVID-19 vaccines developed over the past months are typically thought of as the only means to meet the challenges posed by the current pandemic. Still, public opinion on vaccines is heavily divided. And, of course, discussions about compulsory vaccination, oftentimes based on fundamental rights arguments, tend to become heated. This note This note builds on the arguments developed in the author’s master thesis Anja Krasser, ‘Die grundrechtliche Zulässigkeit einer Impfpflicht in Österreich’ (Universität Graz 2019) which have previously been summarized in Anja Krasser, ‘Zur grundrechtlichen Zulässigkeit einer Impfpflicht’ (2020) 2020/206 RdM 136. analyses the issues at hand based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The protection of health and life from dangerous, potentially lethal and highly contagious diseases easily outweighs the risks caused by the side effects of vaccines (if approved by competent authorities). 4 19”
From Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“Even though such a sanction might be considered proportionate, 46 in societies highly sensitive to violence, forced administration might be rejected as absolutely unacceptable and contrary to inviolable human dignity. 19 54”
From Dark side of the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality: the case of mandatory vaccination (2025) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
How orthodox protestant parents decide on the vaccination of their children: a qualitative study
Ruijs, W. L. M., Hautvast, J. L. A., van IJzendoorn, G., van Ansem, W. J. C., van der Velden, K., & Hulscher, M. (2012) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-408 · Cited by 113
Lévy-Bruhl, D., Fonteneau, L., Vaux, S., Barret, A., Antona, D., Bonmarin, I., Che, D., Quelet, S., & Coignard, B. (2019) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2019.24.26.1900301 · Cited by 70
Demystifying the Math of the Coronavirus
Kohlberg, E., & Neyman, A. (2020) · Cited by 3
Schutzimpfungen - Rechtliche, ethische und medizinische Aspekte
Aigner, G., Grimm, M., Kletecka-Pulker, M., & Wiedermann-Schmidt, U. (2016) · Verlag Österreich eBooks · doi:10.33196/9783704674791 · Cited by 1
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- See also Boffa et al v San Marino (n 11) 35. 172 Christian Kopetzki, Unterbringungsrecht: 1: Historische Entwicklung und verfassungsrechtliche Grundlagen (Springer 1995) 416.
Cited by
Freedom, security, and the COVID-19 pandemic
Daemen, J. (2022) · Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy · doi:10.1080/13698230.2022.2100961 · Cited by 21
“Because such policies interfere with the right to bodily integrity and self-determination (Krasser, 2021, p. 232), they can actually be seen as an instance of security coming at the expense of basic liberties – the second in our overview of the connections between freedom and security.”
COVID-19, Law & Regulation: Rights, Freedoms, and Obligations in a Pandemic
Bennett, B., Freckelton, I. R., & Wolf, G. (2023) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192896742.001.0001 · Cited by 9
VACCINATION IN THE SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS: IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Horodovenko, V. V., Udovyka, L., & Shekhovtsova, T. О. (2021) · Wiadomości Lekarskie · doi:10.36740/wlek202111221 · Cited by 6
A default framework for fundamental rights impact assessment
García-Godínez, M. (2025) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-025-00761-1 · Cited by 7
Horák, F., & Dienstbier, J. (2025) · Journal of Medical Ethics · doi:10.1136/jme-2023-108998 · Cited by 6
“19 54 In such societies, the principle of proportionality is a priori not applicable to this category of sanctions; discussion of this observation is beyond of the scope of this article, however.”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Krasser, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Graz (AT)
- Corresponding author
- Krasser, Anja
- Venue
- ICL Journal
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2021-06-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 207-233
- ISSN
- 1995-5855 (ISSN-L)
- 2306-3734
- OpenAlex
- W3164355284
- Cited by
- 44
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 8.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- ICL Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Unipub UB Graz (Universität Graz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Legal, Health, Environmental and COVID-19 Challenges
- Social Sciences › Law › Legal Rights and Human Rights
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Keywords
- mandatory vaccination, COVID-19 vaccines, fundamental rights, European Court of Human Rights case law, right to life, right to respect for private and family life, public health measures, vaccine hesitancy, Austria
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Compulsory Vaccination in a Fundamental Rights Perspective: Lessons from the ECtHR. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/icl-2021-0010
- The paper
- Krasser, A. (2021). Compulsory Vaccination in a Fundamental Rights Perspective: Lessons from the ECtHR. ICL Journal. https://doi.org/10.1515/icl-2021-0010
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
