scholarly journals Az Európai Unió és a tagállamok válasza a COVID–19 pandémiára – a szabad mozgás jogának közegészségügyi korlátozásai

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
General Effect ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Right ◽  
Border Controls

Összefoglalás. A szabad mozgás és tartózkodás joga az uniós polgárság alapintézményének egyik leglényegesebb eleme. A 2020-ban kirobbant koronavírus világjárvány következtében az Európai Unió tagállamai az Európai Unió történetében először kénytelenek voltak radikális, korábban nem alkalmazott eszközökkel korlátozni a szabad mozgás és tartózkodás jogát annak érdekében, hogy megakadályozzák a vírus terjedését. A tanulmány keretében a COVID–19 világjárvány miatt bevezetett korlátozások alapulvételével annak vizsgálatára kerül sor, hogy a szabad mozgás joga közegészségügyi okból történő korlátozása milyen sajátosságokkal bír más, az Európai Unió alapszerződéseiben ugyancsak nevesített kivételekhez (közrend, közbiztonság) képest. A tanulmány ugyancsak vizsgálja azt a kérdést, hogy az Európai Unió által kibocsátott digitális zöldútlevél (vakcinaigazolvány) a Sinopharm és Szputynik-V vakcinával beoltott uniós polgárok számára is biztosítandó-e az uniós jog rendelkezései alapján. Summary. The right of free movement of EU citizens is the cornerstone of Union citizenship. To control the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19) and to protect the health and well-being of all Europeans, Member States gave a surprisingly quick response, taking unilateral restrictive measures affecting the operation of the internal market in an unprecedented way. On the one hand they have implemented serious travel restrictions at internal borders of the EU. On the other hand, several States have coupled travel bans/restrictions with a temporary reintroduction of border controls at their borders with other Members of the Schengen Area. During the first wave of the pandemic, altogether 17 Schengen States sent notifications regarding the reintroduction of border controls, which is particularly disheartening given that the lifting of EU internal border controls in the Schengen Area is one of the integration’s greatest achievements. There is no doubt that the Member States’ restrictions on free movement detailed in the paper are well-founded from the point of view of both public international law and European law. As to how they should be put into practice: that is another issue. Still, it is the preferential role of free movement as a part of integration that requires a deeper examination of controversial measures to ascertain whether these are in compliance with EU legal principles. Among the elements to be reviewed are proportionality and the prohibition on discrimination. It is beyond doubt that COVID-19 can definitely be regarded as a ‘disease with epidemic potential’ that can justify restrictions on free movement. However, the question arises whether Article 29 TFEU provides for the introduction of public health restrictions with general effect. In other words, does it allow for restrictions not based on individual assessment, as opposed to individual threats to public policy and public security? In answering the above question the paper puts a special emphasis on the delimitation of Member States’ public health and public policy/security justifications. At the time of writing (June 2021) several Member States have already started to issue EU Covid-19 passports. The article also seeks answer to the question whether the Digital Green Certificate could (or, at least, should) be provided for Union citizens vaccinated with Sinopharm or Sputnik-V (vaccines approved by Hungary as a Member State, under European Union law).

Restrictions on the Right of Entry and the Right of Residence on Grounds of Public Policy, Public Security, or Public Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 253-304
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Member State ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Right

This chapter assesses the restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security, or public health. The secondary legislation adopted specifically to give precision to this exception was Directive 64/221, which continued to apply until it was repealed by Directive 2004/38. It set out the meaning of and limitations upon the right of Member States to exclude or expel EU citizens or their family members on grounds of public policy, public security, and public health. All EU citizens and their family members who move from their home Member State to another Member State are entitled to enter and reside unless the host Member State can establish that one of these three grounds applies. These exclusions are foremost among the ‘limitations’ referred to in Article 21 TFEU on citizenship of the Union.

scholarly journals FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND RECOGNITION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGES ON THE EXAMPLE OF POLAND, IRELAND AND FRANCE

2021 ◽  
pp. 29-37
Author(s):  
Karolina BICZ
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
European Court ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

The article presents the issue of the free movement of persons in the European Union in the field of same-sex marriage rights, taking into account comparative elements. The research presents provisions of the European Union, as well as internal regulations in force in France, Ireland and Poland. The article discusses the approach to the analysed issue at the level of EU regulations and internal regulations of the examined Member States. Moreover, the interaction between EU and national regulations is an important research point. Besides the article shows case variants concerning the recognition of same-sex relationships due to the legal and ideological conditions in the analysed countries Also, the article analyses the impact and importance of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights for the studied topic. In addition, the study takes into consideration the impact of constitutional provisions on the legalization of homosexual couples in the analysed countries. The article is divided into parts covering the following issues: free movement of persons in the European Union, the right to family reunification of European Union citizens, relations between European Union law and the internal law of the Member States, recognition of same-sex marriages in France, Ireland and Poland, and summary. The opinions of A. Tryfonidou, H. Verschueren, P. Tulea and M. Bell were included in the study due to their importance to the research are.

scholarly journals Restrictions on European Union Citizens’ Freedom of Movement and Residence in the Country on Grounds of Public Policy, Public Security and Public Health

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Algis Junevičius ◽  
Rasa Daugėlienė
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Public Security ◽  
State Governments ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right

AbstractThe free movement of persons is one of the most successful European Union projects, serving as a majorly important factor promoting the European integration processes. The adoption of the Treaty on the European Union and the creation of EU citizenship implemented significant changes: the status of EU citizens and their right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States can no longer be interpreted in the way it was before the adoption of the Treaty on the European Union. There are no requirements for EU citizens within the Treaty to pursue professional or independent activities or to work under an employment contract in order to access provided rights. However, the right of free movement is not unlimited. The administrations of the Member State governments are authorized to impose restictions on the free movement of citizens. In the light of these facts, this article examines exceptions in the field of free movement of persons and indentifies concepts of public policy, public security and public health. Special attention is given to so-called rule limitation of restrictions and to the mechanism of protection against expulsion from the country. The article concludes by saying that the institutions of Member State governments have the right to evaluate threats within the territory of the country and to decide on the content of public security by themselves. However, their discretion can not be used as an instrument to treat the conduct of other Member State citizens in a worse way than that of their own local citizens.

Are we Ready for a “Microbiome-Guided Behaviour” Approach?

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (04) ◽  
pp. 708-724
Author(s):  
ANDREA LAVAZZA ◽  
VITTORIO A. SIRONI
Keyword(s):  
Fecal Microbiota Transplantation ◽  
Negative Attitude ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Fecal Microbiota ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Brain Functioning ◽  
The Central Nervous System ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Mind

Abstract:The microbiome is proving to be increasingly important for human brain functioning. A series of recent studies have shown that the microbiome influences the central nervous system in various ways, and consequently acts on the psychological well-being of the individual by mediating, among others, the reactions of stress and anxiety. From a specifically neuroethical point of view, according to some scholars, the particular composition of the microbiome—qua microbial community—can have consequences on the traditional idea of human individuality. Another neuroethical aspect concerns the reception of this new knowledge in relation to clinical applications. In fact, attention to the balance of the microbiome—which includes eating behavior, the use of psychobiotics and, in the treatment of certain diseases, the use of fecal microbiota transplantation—may be limited or even prevented by a biased negative attitude. This attitude derives from a prejudice related to everything that has to do with the organic processing of food and, in general, with the human stomach and intestine: the latter have traditionally been regarded as low, dirty, contaminated and opposed to what belongs to the mind and the brain. This biased attitude can lead one to fail to adequately consider the new anthropological conceptions related to the microbiome, resulting in a state of health, both physical and psychological, inferior to what one might have by paying the right attention to the knowledge available today. Shifting from the ubiquitous high-low metaphor (which is synonymous with superior-inferior) to an inside-outside metaphor can thus be a neuroethical strategy to achieve a new and unbiased reception of the discoveries related to the microbiome.

scholarly journals Comentarios a la propuesta del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo del certificado verde digital. Protección de datos sanitarios y análisis ético jurídico

Bioderecho.es ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gloria María González Suárez
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Commission ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Ethical Point ◽  
The Right

Con motivo de la situación actual a la que nos enfrentamos por la pandemia de la COVID-19 se ha planteado en diversas ocasiones la implantación de un certificado verde digital. El 17 de marzo de 2021 la Comisión Europea presentó una propuesta de creación del certificado con el fin de facilitar el ejercicio del derecho a la libre circulación dentro de la Unión Europea durante la pandemia. Todo ello plantea diversas cuestiones jurídicas en cuanto a la protección de datos sanitarios, el derecho a la libre circulación y la eficacia y proporcionalidad de medidas que deben ser objeto de análisis tanto desde el punto de vista jurídico como del punto de vista ético ya que, en ciertas ocasiones la aplicación de medidas puede afectar al derecho a la igualdad de los ciudadanos. Due to the current situation we are facing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the implementation of a digital green certificate has been proposed on several occasions. On March 17, 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal to create the certificate in order to facilitate the exercise of the right of free movement within the European Union during the pandemic. All this raises various legal questions regarding the protection of health data, the right of free movement and the efficacy and proportionality of measures that must be analyzed from both the legal and ethical point of view since, on certain occasions the application of measures may affect the right of equality of citizens.

While the Treaty does not affect the existence of intellectual property rights, there are nonetheless circumstances in which the exercise of such rights may be restricted by the prohibitions laid down in the treaty. 2. Article 36 permits exceptions to the free movement of goods only to the extent to which such exceptions are necessary for the purpose of safeguarding the rights that constitute the specific subject-matter of the type of intellectual property in question. Perhaps the main advantage of this formula, apart from the fact that it narrows the scope of the exceptions permitted by Article 36, is that it allows subtle distinctions to be made depending on the type of intellectual property in issue. 3. The exclusive right conferred on the owner of intellectual property is exhausted in relation to the products in question when he puts them into circulation anywhere within the Common Market. Spelt out more fully, ‘the proprietor of an industrial or commercial property right protected by the legislation of a Member State may not rely on that legislation in order to oppose the importation of a product which has lawfully been marketed in another Member State by, or with the consent of, the proprietor of the right himself or person legally or economically dependent on him’. The expression ‘industrial and commercial property’ clearly embraces patents and trademarks. It also extends to such specialised areas as plant breeders’ rights. The court has held that copyright can also be a form of industrial or commercial property because it ‘includes the protection conferred by copyright, especially when exploited commercially in the form of licences capable of affecting distribution in the various Member States of goods incorporating the protected literary or artistic work’. The principle that the Treaty does not affect the existence of industrial and commercial property rights is derived from Article 222 of the treaty. This provides that ‘the treaty shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership’. Consequently intellectual property rights are unaffected by the provisions of the treaty unless they hinder free movement or offend the rules of competition. In Keurkoop v Nancy Kean (see below) the design of a handbag which was manufactured in Taiwan was registered in the Benelux countries but without the authority of the actual author. In Case 78/70, Deutsche Grammophon v Metro-SB Grossmärkte [1971] ECR 487, [1971] CMLR 631, the European Court stated:

1997 ◽  
pp. 110-114
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Member State ◽  
Intellectual Property Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commercial Property ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Exclusive Right

Article 202 TFEU

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitry Kochenov
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Member States ◽  
Freedom Of Movement

Article 186 EC Subject to the provisions relating to public health, public security or public policy, freedom of movement within Member States for workers from the countries and territories, and within the countries and territories for workers from Member States, shall be regulated by acts adopted in accordance with Article 203.

Right of Exit and Entry

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-112
Author(s):  
Elspeth Guild ◽  
Steve Peers ◽  
Jonathan Tomkin
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Legal Requirements ◽  
Member States ◽  
Permanent Residence ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the right of exit and entry provided for in the citizens’ Directive. Articles 4 and 5 of Directive 2004/38 affirm the right of Union citizens and members of their family to leave their Member State of origin and to enter any other Member State of their choosing. As such, these Articles constitute a ‘gateway’ for the exercise of rights of residence and rights of permanent residence provided for in the Directive. In addition to affirming the right of free movement, Articles 4 and 5 specify the administrative documentation and procedures governing travel between Member States. However, there have been significant failures to transpose these provisions correctly, with some Member States imposing exit controls on their own citizens, while some Member States blatantly ignore the clear legal requirements of the Directive.

23. Free movement of persons: limitations on grounds of public policy, public security or public health

2020 ◽  
pp. 540-556
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the European Union (EU) law concerning the free movement of persons and the limitations of this right on grounds of public health, public security, or public policy, including the ‘rule of reason’ and expulsion, refusal of entry or an entry ban due to criminal offences or other personal conduct. It analyses the relationship between the Citizens’ Rights Directive (CRD) (Directive 2004/38/EC) and its relationship with Treaty provisions. It considers the substantive scope of the derogation provisions and the procedural guarantees in the CRD applicable to EU citizens and their family members facing expulsion, refusal of entry or entry bans.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document