According to Martin Buijsen, professor of Health law at Erasmus School of Law, whether the vaccination passport is a form of indirect vaccination must be answered affirmatively. The vaccination passport should offer citizens more freedom this summer, such as going on a holiday or visiting a festival. In the Leidsch Dagblad, Buijsen states that such a vaccination passport is not contrary to fundamental rights.
The vaccination passport has two pillars. First, it is an opportunity to open up society more. Secondly, it is also an incentive for citizens to get vaccinated. Buijsen states that this is not a bad thing since the vaccination coverage must be increased. He is convinced that the corona pass will come, but only when enough Dutch people have been allowed to get vaccinated. Suppose you want to prevent the intensive care units from being overloaded. In that case, it is undesirable if a quarter of the population refuses to be vaccinated, while herd immunity is not shown. At the beginning of June, the cabinet wants to decide on the introduction of a vaccination passport. Such a passport could show that the holder has been vaccinated, tested negative, or has recovered and has enough antibodies. The corona pass is also intended to provide access to events in the Netherlands.
Dreaded dichotomy
Opponents of the corona passport fear a dichotomy in society. It is feared that citizens will only be able to participate in social life with a corona passport in the future. The petition started "For an open society, without compulsory testing and vaccination" has been signed 152,292 times. Professor Buijsen expects lawsuits against the corona pass but indicates that they have no chance of success. He understands that this is seen as a restriction of freedoms, but there is no alternative, according to him.
Restriction of privacy
The Covid crisis often refers to the limitation of fundamental rights. Freedom of movement is central to the introduction of a vaccination certificate. This falls under the fundamental right to respect for privacy. This is a fundamental right that may and can be curtailed, but several conditions are attached to it. Legally, Buijsen sees no obstacles in the way of this. The containment must be regulated by law, subsidiary and proportional, and serve a legitimate purpose. Nor should it become a permanent condition, and the restriction should not last longer than necessary. This restriction is necessary to achieve herd immunity as quickly as possible. Sometimes individual rights has to give way to the collective goal, as is the case here.
- Professor
- More information
You can read the full article (in Dutch) here.
