CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 juin 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   Communicated on 12 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54372/15 Aleksandra SKERLEVSKA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 26 October 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns misdemeanour proceedings in which the Bitola Court of First Instance convicted the applicant for having refused to allow compulsory vaccination of her new-born baby, an offence punishable under sections 33(2) and 67(6) of the Infectious Disease Protection Act ( Закон за заштита на населението од заразни болести , Official Gazette nos.   66/04, 139/08, 99/09, 149/14) and imposed a fine in the amount equivalent to 200 euros. The applicant complained that she had not been sufficiently informed about the quality of the vaccines and possible side-effects that had prevented her from making an informed decision. She also alleged an unjustified interference with her parental rights and her freedom of conscience and religious belief. On 19 May 2015 the Bitola Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment without addressing the applicant’s arguments. QUESTIONs tO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant’s conviction for having refused to allow compulsory vaccination of her new-born baby constitute an interference with her right to respect for her private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 (see Solomakhin v. Ukraine , no. 24429/03, §§   33 ‑ 39, 15 March 2012 and Boffa and Others v. San Marino , application no.26536/95, Commission decision of 15 January 1998, DR 92)?