Fundamental (Human) Rights versus Emergency Measures

Excerpts from the Case-law of the CJEU and ECtHR

Abstract

The response of States to the outbreak of a COVID-19 pandemic in the European Region from spring 2020, such as curfews, limited opening hours, restrictions on activities, the use of masks and possible vaccination requirements to prevent further spread and mitigate consequences, may raise a number of human rights issues. The role of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is to ensure that the EU law is observed in the interpretation and application of the Treaties and to work together with the national courts to ensure the uniform interpretation and application of EU law. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the principal guardian of the European system of human rights protection, based on the European Convention on Human Rights. It is therefore not difficult to see that, in this unique period since the outbreak of the pandemic, the role of the courts has been even more decisive in a number of cases dealing with the fundamental and human rights aspects of the (restrictive) state measures taken in the wake of the COVID-19 epidemic. The paper selects cases from the CJEU and the ECtHR relating to the COVID-19 epidemic. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the approaches and judgments of the two courts, with a focus on providing the reader with a comprehensive overview of the role of the courts in interpreting the law in times of public health emergencies. In addition, the presentation of the cases provides an insight into the measures or procedures used by each Member State to deal with the pandemic.