‘Laws of Fear’ in the EU: Precautionary Principle and Public Health Restrictions to Free Movement of Persons in the Time of COVID-19

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iris Goldner Lang
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Iris GOLDNER LANG

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 ◽  
pp. 165-186
Author(s):  
Christian NK FRANKLIN

AbstractWhilst the European Union’s aim of achieving an ‘ever closer Union’ is not an objective of EEA cooperation, homogeneity demands that we follow the same path: as the Union gets ever closer, so too does EEA cooperation, in light of the demands of the fundamental principle of homogeneity. This is particularly well demonstrated by looking at developments in the field of the free movement of persons. The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA Court) in this field shows that in situations where homogeneity is put to the test, there seems little to suggest that a more national sovereignty-friendly approach has been adopted than under EU law. Notwithstanding the integral differences between the EU and EEA legal constructs, the EFTA Court has proven highly adept at keeping pace with EU developments in the field through a number of bold and creative interpretations of EEA law, and by using different tools to arrive at uniform conclusions.


Author(s):  
Angelo Marletta

The European Union (EU), as unprecedented institutional and polity project, is responsible for the fulfilment of a set of policy goals that go beyond the mere sum of the interests of its Member States. The establishment of an ‘area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to . . . the prevention and combating of crime’ is probably one of the most demanding goals of the integration process, whose fulfilment requires commitment to coherent action on several levels: vertically, between the EU and the Member States, through incorporating the implementation of the Treaty objectives in the development of their respective criminal policies, and horizontally, between the Member States themselves, by developing mutual trust.


2019 ◽  
pp. 522-582
Author(s):  
Elspeth Berry ◽  
Matthew J. Homewood ◽  
Barbara Bogusz

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the scope of the right of the free movement of persons in the EU; the relevant Treaty provisions and secondary legislation provisions regarding the free movement of persons in the EU; the specific rights granted to workers and EU citizens under their general right of free movement; and limitations on the rights of free movement as provided for in primary and secondary legislation.


Author(s):  
Robert Schütze

This chapter highlights the complex constitutional arrangements governing the free movement of persons. The EU Treaties distinguished between two classes of economic migrants, namely, employed and self-employed persons; and today's Treaty title dealing with persons still addresses ‘Workers’ and the ‘Right of Establishment’ in two separate chapters. With the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, the two special chapters on persons were complemented by the general rules on EU citizenship. Unsurprisingly, there has been a complex relationship between the two specific sources of free movement rights and the EU citizenship provisions. Their symbiotic relationship is particularly embodied in the ‘Citizenship Directive’. The chapter then considers the possible justifications for Member State restrictions on the free movement of persons.


2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.


2020 ◽  
pp. 540-556
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers

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.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 125-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANJA WIESBROCK

AbstractThis paper analyses the mutual influence and self-perpetuating cycle of legitimacy of EU legal scholars and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in expanding and broadening the free movement rights of Union citizens and their family members. It is argued that legal scholars have played a dual role in promoting the constitutional paradigm of an ever-expanding scope of directly enforceable residence and movement rights in the EU. First, by presenting the expansion of free movement rights as an inevitable outcome of the EU constitutional order based on directly enforceable individual rights, scholars have played a significant role in legitimizing the jurisprudence of the Court in the face of initial resistance from the member states. Second, legal scholars have been an important source for the Court of Justice in developing its case law in this area. The Advocates General in their opinions have drawn on an expanding field of scholarship presenting the expansion of free movement rights as an inherent feature of the EU as a constitutional legal order. Spurred by the objective of turning the EU into more than an internal market, the opinions of the Advocates General have mostly been followed by the Court. Legal scholars have thus served not only as a legitimizing force, but also as a source of inspiration for the perceived constitutionalization of free movement rights in the EU.


Author(s):  
Nigel Foster

Foster on EU Law offers an account of the institutions and procedures of the EU legal system as well as focused analysis of key substantive areas including free movement of goods, free movement of persons, citizenship, and competition law including state aids. This clear two-part structure provides a solid foundation in the mechanisms and applications of EU law. The book considers the supremacy of EU law in relation to ordinary domestic, member state constitutional law, and international law including UN Resolutions. It includes a consideration of EU law and the UK, including a consideration of the Brexit referendum result and its possible consequences, also of Germany, and France as well as a briefer look at a number of other member states. It also contains discussion of human rights, in particular the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the moves of the EU to accede to the ECHR. It follows the further developments of Art 263 TFEU and has re-arranged the material on the free movement of persons to take account of the judgments of the Court of Justice.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessio M. PACCES ◽  
Maria WEIMER

The COVID-19 pandemic is changing the face of Europe. Member States’ divergent responses to this crisis reveal a lack of unity in the face of a humanitarian catastrophe. At best, this undermines the effectiveness of health protection within the European Union (EU). At worst, it risks breaking up the Union altogether. Divergent national responses to COVID-19 reflect different national preferences and political legitimacy, and thus cannot be completely avoided. In this article, we argue that these responses should be better coordinated. Without coordination, the price for diversity is high. Firstly, there are damaging spill-overs between Member States, which undermine key pillars of European integration such as the free movement of persons and of goods. Secondly, national policy-making is easily captured by local interest groups. Our proposal is that the EU indicates – not mandates – a European exit strategy from asymmetric containment policies of COVID-19. In particular, the EU should help Member States procure and validate tests for infection and immunity. The EU should also indicate ways in which testing could be used to create safe spaces to work, thereby restoring the free movement of persons and of goods. We see a great advantage in such EU guidance: it could improve mutual learning between Member States, which have faced different timings of the epidemic and learned different lessons. Although the local political economy has so far delayed learning and undermined cooperation, the EU can mitigate both effects and indicate the way for Europe to resurrect united from the ashes of COVID-19.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document