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).
Eetilised valikud COVID-19 pandeemia tingimustes
