scholarly journals What Is EU Public Health and Why? Explaining the Scope and Organization of Public Health in the European Union

Author(s):  
Scott L. Greer ◽  
Holly Jarman

Abstract Public health is notoriously difficult to define, and that is the case for public health in the European Union as much as other political systems. In this article, the authors try to identify the actual scope and meaning of public health as it is institutionalized in the EU political system. Using a mixture of historical policy and legal analysis, the authors show how the evolution of the institutional space called public health in the EU has been shaped by the EU's distinctive constitutional nature, its focus on regulation, and the legacy of its focus on market making as well as the preferences of its political leaders. The European Union does have an increasingly large space named “public health,” in which health ministers, the health directorate-general, and invocation of its public health treaty article 168 can be found, as well as a much broader and older area of activities justified by the need to manage adverse health consequences of market-making policies in other areas such as labor standards and agriculture. The COVID-19 crisis of 2020 not only led to a strengthening of EU public health but also showed that the EU is one of the many political systems in which the legal and bureaucratic domain of public health is far smaller than the actual issues affecting the public's health.

2019 ◽  
Vol 67 ◽  
pp. 06026
Author(s):  
Oleksii Klok ◽  
Olha Loseva ◽  
Oleksandr Ponomarenko

The article studies theoretical and methodological bases of the strategic management of the development of administrative territories, considers the essence of strategic management and formulates the advantages of using it in management of administrative territory. Based on the analysis of the key provisions of the EU regional policy, the strategy of “smart specialization” is considered as the most common approach to territorial development. Using the experience of the countries of the European Union as a basis, a BPMN diagram, describing the conceptual bases for the formation of a competitive territory strategy, was built. Practical approaches to the formation of strategies for the development of administrative territories operating in Ukraine, regulatory acts, in particular, that had a direct impact on the formation of the existing model of strategic territorial management, were analyzed. The main requirements to the content of the strategic plan were considered and the list of key provisions and analytical methods (socio-economic analysis, comparative analysis, SWOT-analysis, PESTLE-analysis, sociological analysis) was formulated. Using the comparative legal analysis of the experience of the European Union as a basis, a number of features can be highlighted that must be taken into account in the process of forming the administrative territory development strategy.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valero Garces Carmen

Training and employability are two terms that frequently appear in the speeches both in those in charge of designing educational policies as well as in reports of economics or market trends. Training is necessary for integration into the job market. The aim of this article is to provide data extracted from several studies on university – language service providers (LSP) relations in the European Union for the period 2010-2017. The EU DGT (Directorate - General for Translation) through the European Master´s in Translation network (EMT network) and EUATC (European Union of Associations of Translation Companies), developed those studies. The first and last studies focused on language service providers’ companies (LSP) while the second offers information on graduates and their training. In this way we aim to show both sides of the situation, which can be summed up in the following way: What are employers looking for and what can the graduates offer?. The results of the research presented seem to indicate that translator education and training is a shared responsibility of universities and LSP in a highly competitive market


2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoling Yuan ◽  
Kun Hu ◽  
Jie Xu ◽  
Xuchen Zhang ◽  
Wei Bao ◽  
...  

SummaryHuman mobility was associated with epidemic changes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China, where strict public health interventions reduced human mobility and COVID-19 epidemics. But its association with COVID-19 epidemics in the European Union (EU) is unclear. In this quasi-experimental study, we modelled the temporal trends in human mobility and epidemics of COVID-19 in the 27 EU states between January 15 and May 9, 2020. COVID-19 and human mobility had 3 trend-segments, including an upward trend in COVID-19 daily incidence and a downward trend in most human mobilities in the middle segment. Compared with the EU states farther from Italy, the state-wide lockdown dates were more likely linked to turning points of human mobilities in the EU states closer to Italy, which were also more likely linked to second turning points of COVID-19 epidemics. Among the examined human mobilities, the second turning points in driving mobility and the first turning points in parks mobility were the best factors that connected lockdown dates and COVID-19 epidemics in the EU states closer to Italy. Our findings highlight the state- and mobility-heterogeneity in the associations of public health interventions and human mobility with changes of COVID-19 epidemics in the EU states.


Author(s):  
V. O. Tyumentsev

The subject of this article is the competence of the European Union (EU) in the public health field within the territory of the Member States of this organization. The purpose of this article is to analyze how the EU's competence is distributed in relation to the competence of the member states using the primary treaty of the organization as a source. The article examines the powers of the EU organization within both the main and additional competence and analyzes how the EU interacts with the member states in the framework of health protection in accordance with the legal provisions of the primary source. The main and additional competence of the EU is considered separately, and there is also an analysis of the features and possible prospects of the legal regulation of health protection within the relevant branch of the law of the European Union.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 113-119
Author(s):  
Violeta Motulaitė

The initiative of the Conference on the Future of Europe (CFE) stems out of the necessity to re-evaluate the European Union project after the Brexit, the wave of populism and nationalism and the changing geopolitical environment in the world, as well as to reflect upon the European unity ten years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty. As mentioned in this Franco – German initiative, it was meant to address all issues at stake and guide the future of Europe with a view to turning the EU more united and sovereign. It should have focused on policies and it should have identified the main reforms to be implemented as a matter of priority in each block of policies, setting out the types of changes to be made. The current public health crisis has redefined the problems and priorities of the EU. Some issues have become less topical, some have remained relevant and some have emerged as high priorities only now.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild

When Covid-19 was acknowledged to have arrived in Europe in February-March 2020, politicians and public health authorities scrabbled to find appropriate and effective responses to the challenges. The EU obligation contained in Article 9 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requiring the EU (including the Member States to achieve a common protection on human health, however, seems to have been missing from the responses.) Instead, borders and their control became a site of substantial political debate across Europe as a possible venue for effective measures to limit the spread of the pandemic. While the most invasive Covid-19 measures have been within EU states, lockdown, closure of businesses etc., the cross-border aspects (limitations on cross border movement) have been important. In the European Union this had important consequences for EU law on border controls, in particular free movement of persons and the absence of controls among Schengen states. It also implicated border controls with third countries, including European Free Trade Area (EFTA and Switzerland) all states neighboring the EU, the UK (having left the EU on 1 January 2020) the Western Balkans and Turkey. While EU law distinguishes between Schengen borders where no control takes place on persons, non-Schengen EU borders, where controls take place but are limited to identity checks and border controls with third countries and external borders with third countries (non-EFTA or Swiss) the responses of many Member States and the EU institutions abandoned many aspects of these distinctions. Indeed, the difference between border controls between states (inside Schengen, the EU, EFTA, or outside) and internal restrictions on movement became increasingly blurred. Two approaches—public health and public policy—were applied simultaneously and not always in ways which were mutually coherent, or in any way consistent with the Article 9 TFEU commitment. While the public health approach to movement of persons is based on ensuring identification of those in need of treatment or possibly carrying the disease, providing treatment as quickly as possible or quarantine, the public policy approach is based on refusing entry to persons who are a risk irrespective of what that may mean in terms of propagating the pandemic in neighboring states or states of origin. I will examine here the ways in which the two approaches were applied in the EU from the perspective of EU law on border controls.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 652-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrycja DĄBROWSKA-KŁOSIŃSKA

Decision 1082/2013 on Serious Cross-border Health Threats (Health Threats Decision) was adopted in 2013 with the aim of preparing for and responding to serious health threats. In this legislation, the European Union adopts an “all-hazards” approach which strongly relies on the exchange of information as a driver of regulatory activities. This article first demonstrates that the electronic systems of information exchange constitute a key tool in EU Health Crisis and Disaster Management (“EHCDM”). Second, it identifies the distinctive features of these mechanisms in the EU context: the reinforcement of a statutory policy shift towards securitisation of public health, the peculiarity of the EU composite administrative procedures as well as the facilitation of the quality of the sense-making activities. Finally, the article uncovers the possible problems which may affect the adequate functioning of EHCDM and argues the routes for further research. The piece links legal analysis with the interdisciplinary conceptual lens to offer an important contribution to closer characterisation of the EHCDM as a field in its own right together with a better understanding of the EU public health law and administration in the context of transboundary crisis management and health security governance.


2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 883-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
Perihan Elif Ekmekci

AbstractDisease outbreaks have attracted the attention of the public health community to early warning and response systems (EWRS) for communicable diseases and other cross-border threats to health. The European Union (EU) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have published regulations in this area. Decision 1082/2013/EU brought a new approach the management of public health threats in EU member states. Decision 1082/2013/EU brought several innovations, which included establishing a Health Security Committee; preparedness and response planning; joint procurement of medical countermeasures; ad hoc monitoring for biological, chemical, and environmental threats; EWRS; and recognition of an emergency situation and interoperability between various sectors. Turkey, as an acceding country to the EU and a member of the WHO, has been improving its national public health system to meet EU legislations and WHO standards. This article first explains EWRS as defined in Decision 1082/2013/EU and Turkey’s obligations to align its public health laws to the EU acquis. EWRS in Turkey are addressed, particularly their coherence with EU policies regarding preparedness and response, alert notification, and interoperability between health and other sectors. Finally, the challenges and limitations of the current Turkish system are discussed and further improvements are suggested. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2016;10:883–892)


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 841-850
Author(s):  
Amandine GARDE

The marketing of tobacco, alcohol, unhealthy food and gambling services is harmful to public health, the European economy and sustainability. If the European Union (EU) has embraced the regulation of cross-border marketing for tobacco products for over two decades, it has consistently resisted evidence-driven calls to regulate the marketing of other harmful commodities, preferring instead to rely on ineffective industry pledges. This contribution reflects on why the EU has failed to use its competence to regulate cross-border marketing more systematically to protect health and highlights why the time is ripe to reconsider the issue, before concluding with a possible way forward.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document