scholarly journals “Laws of Fear” in the EU: The Precautionary Principle and Public Health Restrictions to Free Movement of Persons in the Time of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Iris GOLDNER LANG
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Public Security ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
Movement Rules ◽  
The Eu

COVID-19 has demonstrated the fragility of EU free movement rules when we are faced with an unknown virus of such magnitude and strength that it threatens our lives, health systems, economies and society. The aim of this text is to show the dynamics between the threat of COVID-19 and the rules imposed as a response to the pandemic, which have impacted the functioning of the EU internal market and the Schengen area. The text will concentrate on the application of the precautionary principle and public health restrictions, caused by COVID-19, to free movement of persons in the EU. The analysis will lead to three conclusions. First, it will be shown that the decisions to apply free movement restrictions and the logic followed in the EU COVID-19-related documents can be viewed as a triumph of the precautionary principle. Second, it will be argued that implementing the precautionary principle has a transformative effect on the application of the principle of proportionality in EU law. Finally, it will be shown that COVID-19 has emphasised and increased the difference between the conditions for the applicability of public health restrictions when compared to restrictions based on public policy and public security grounds.

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.

Zasada proporcjonalności jako obiektywne uzasadnienie ograniczeń w swobodnym przepływie osób w Unii Europejskiej

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4 (1)) ◽  
pp. 55-73
Author(s):  
Joanna Ryszka
Keyword(s):  
Internal Market ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Eu

The principle of proportionality in the EU legal order applies, among others, to actions taken by Member States in the situation where they are willing to use, permitted by the EU law, derogation from its provisions, in particular – in the area of internal market freedoms. Derogation from those freedoms will not be justified if it is not absolutely necessary. National regulations must therefore be proportionate to the objective that these restrictions are to protect. With respect to the free movement of persons, as an example of these goals, the protection of fundamental rights could be mentioned. It is vitally important for the realization of an internal market due to the existence of interesting interactions occurring between them and specific ways of applying the principle of proportionality when they collide with each other.

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

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorna Woods ◽  
Philippa Watson ◽  
Marios Costa
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
European Union ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Public Security ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
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. 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.

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.

Balancing benefits and potential risks of vaccination: the precautionary principle and the law of unintended consequences

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111773
Author(s):  
David Robert Grimes
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Precautionary Principle ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Vaccine Hesitancy ◽  
Public Health Issue ◽  
Public Confidence ◽  
The Precautionary Principle ◽  
Life Saving ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Risk And Benefit

Vaccination is a life-saving endeavour, yet risk and uncertainty are unavoidable in science and medicine. Vaccination remains contentious in the public mind, and vaccine hesitancy is a serious public health issue. This has recently been reignited in the discussion over potential side effects of COVID-19 vaccines, and the decision by several countries to suspend measures such as the AstraZeneca vaccine. In these instances, the precautionary principle has often been invoked as a rationale, yet such heuristics do not adequately weigh potential harms against real benefits. How we analyse, communicate and react to potential harms is absolutely paramount to ensure the best decisions and outcomes for societal health, and maintaining public confidence. While balancing benefits and risks is an essential undertaking, it cannot be achieved without due consideration of several other pertinent factors, especially in the context of vaccination, where misguided or exaggerated fears have in the past imperilled public health. While well meaning, over reactions to potential hazards of vaccination and other health interventions can have unintended consequences, and cause lingering damage to public trust. In this analysis, we explore the challenges of assessing risk and benefit, and the limitations of the precautionary principle in these endeavours. When risk is unclear, cautious vigilance might be a more pragmatic and useful policy than reactionary suspensions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document