Description
Rapporteur The NederlandsOn 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), to be a global pandemic. Over the year that followed, EU Member States have been among those most negatively impacted, initially suffering some of the world’s highest mortality rates. Amid successive waves of infection and the (re)introduction of highly restrictive measures by national authorities, the responses to the pandemic have exposed critical issues for the rule of law in EU Member States. National governments have primarily led the COVID-19 responses, with relatively minimal coordination at the EU level.
The important legal questions this has raised are intricate and specific to each and every EU Member State. This report is based, therefore, on in-depth assessments carried out by 35 national experts covering all EU Member States. This third report by DRI on COVID-19 and the rule of law follows those published in May 2020 and July 2020, respectively, and covers measures by the Member States in the period from October 2020 to February 2021. The comparative evaluation and analysis of Member States’ responses is further supported by research by the 2021 “Power and the COVID-19 Pandemic” symposium, a global database of countries’ responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was launched in February 2021 and will run through May 2021.
This report identifies five critical areas of concern for the rule of law across EU Member States and provides recommendations on how to address them.
1. Many COVID-19 measures introduced by governments using executive powers do not have a clear basis in law.
RECOMMENDATION: In responding to the epidemic, governments should clearly identify the legal authority for their measures. Any reform of existing or introduction of new health emergency laws, including in preparation for future pandemics, should set explicit limits, conditions and checks on government power.
2. Many COVID-19 rules are vague or change too quickly for people and implementing authorities to keep track of and to adapt their behaviour.
RECOMMENDATION: Policies and rules should be as clear as possible and be made public in a timely and consistent manner. They should also include an evidence-based rationale.
3. Oversight over executive action is insufficient.
RECOMMENDATION: States should ensure effective oversight of COVID-19 measures, through dedicated parliamentary scrutiny, continued public access to impartial courts and engagement with national human rights institutions.
4. There has been little or no public consultation on COVID-19 measures.
RECOMMENDATION: To the extent possible, states should provide opportunities for structured feedback from the public, the expert community and civil society as part of drafting and reviewing COVID-19 measures.
5. Governments have not provided clear exit strategies on how restrictive measures will be rolled back and, eventually, eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION: As a matter of priority, governments should develop and disseminate a staged and sequenced exit plan for the reduction of COVID-19 measures, which should be updated as new information becomes available, including the possibility that measures will need to be reintroduced if the prevalence of the virus risks exponential growth.
| Period | 2021 |
|---|---|
| Work for | Democracy Reporting International |
| Degree of Recognition | International |