CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 28 August 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 23445/21 Mikuláš BADO against Slovakia lodged on 28 April 2021 communicated on 10 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the repercussions on the applicant’s freedom of movement of the measures taken in Slovakia in response to the spreading of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus that causes COVID-19. In particular, on 1   October   2020 the Government of the Slovak Republic declared a state of emergency and this was followed by other resolutions of the Government and decrees ( vyhláška ) of the Public Health Authority ( Úrad verejného zdravotníctva ) of Slovakia, restricting the freedom of movement and imposing other limitations and extending and adjusting the existing regime. Among others, a lockdown was imposed with exceptions for designated purposes and subject to various conditions, including having passed a   COVID-19 test with a negative result, while such tests were valid for a   limited time and had accordingly to be re-taken. The applicant did not undergo any testing and therefore could not benefit from the given exception. He complains that making the said exception dependant on having repeatedly to undergo a medical test which would itself constitute an   interference with rights protected under Article 8 of the Convention was illegitimate, disproportionate and discriminatory. In so far as such arrangement stemmed from decrees of the Public Health Authority, there was no remedy for the protection of his rights. The application raises questions under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 and Articles 14 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a restriction on the applicant’s right to liberty of movement, guaranteed by Article   2 §   1 of Protocol No. 4? In particular, was that restriction in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article   2 § 3 of Protocol No. 4, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to protect the population’s health? What is the State’s margin of appreciation in this context? Have the authorities envisaged or considered any less severe measures in the present case to achieve the aim pursued?   2.     Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his right to freedom of movement in relation to persons who underwent COVID-19 testing with a negative result, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? If so, did he exhaust that remedy in order to comply with the requirements of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?