C 275/14
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
18.7.2022
2.5.
In terms of legal certainty, national measures that are problematic in this respect include the introduction of restrictive measures with unclear interpretation; contradictions between government policy and underlying legal measures; and such frequent changes to the law as to make it exceptionally difficult for ordinary citizens to understand what they may and may not do.
In an emergency situation, risk and uncertainty are heightened, and the public looks to the government — and public authorities more generally — for clear guidance on what they can and cannot legally do.
2.6.
With regard to accountability to the law, problems with parliamentary and judicial oversight of government action related to COVID-19 can be seen in the marginalisation of parliaments.
Before February 2021, less than half of the EU Member States had set up specialised parliamentary committees, published reports or scheduled regular debates on COVID-19-related measures, and in less than a third of cases government measures had been scrutinised (e.g. by a debate or vote in parliament) or amended by parliaments (10).
Judicial review is the process by which courts ensure that governments act lawfully, and is particularly important in times of crisis, when fundamental rights may be severely restricted.
A number of concerns have been raised across the EU as to the effectiveness of judicial review and access to justice in the context of COVID-19 measures (11).
The closure of courts, or the restriction of access to courts to only certain types of proceedings negatively affected citizens’ capacity to resolve their disputes, and undermined access to justice particularly where the most vulnerable members of society have been disproportionately affected by measures introduced in response to the pandemic.
Judicial systems in most Members States were ill-prepared for the crisis because of their low level of digitalisation and because some parts of society, notably vulnerable groups, lacked sufficient information on how the judiciary works, thereby lacking access to it.
2.7.
It may ultimately be concluded that the rule of law can guide the most effective action in response to public health emergencies (12), and is an essential value, not only in ordinary times, but also, and perhaps even more so, in times of crisis.
In the context of the efforts made through the NextGenerationEU instrument to repair the immediate economic and social damage brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, the EESC reiterates its support for the Commission’s proposal for a regulation creating a new tool that would allow for economic corrective measures with regard to Member States that commit serious and persistent violations of the values listed in Article 2 (13).
3.
Fundamental rights 3.1.
The COVID-19 pandemic has put tremendous pressure on all the institutions and infrastructures that support and protect fundamental rights in the EU.
The quickly deteriorating medical services and the large-scale socioeconomic crisis threatened the life, health and wellbeing of the majority of people on the continent and increased risks of poverty.
This especially hit specific groups affected by a concrete and continuous disruption of social services resulting from their long-term underfunding and the lack of preparedness of the system to face crises.
In this regard, the EESC reiterates its call for a binding European framework for a decent minimum income in Europe (14).
3.2.
The EU and its Member States should engage in a deep societal reflection on the origins of the crisis and the reasons why most European health systems were pushed to the verge of collapse because of the pandemic.
Years of austerity policies have led to a general trend of disinvestment in the health sector and other key social services (assistance to dependent and vulnerable persons, nursing homes, etc.), creating a time bomb that exploded in the face of a major health challenge.
As the Conference on the Future of Europe unfolds, all involved should be encouraged to draw lessons from this crisis in order to lay the ground for the reconstruction of the welfare state.
Resilience is an empty word if all efforts are not put towards the
(10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
J. Grogan, Extraordinary or extralegal responses?
The rule of law and the COVID-19 crisis (Democracy Reporting International, May 2021).
J. Grogan, Extraordinary or extralegal responses?
The rule of law and the COVID-19 crisis (Democracy Reporting International, May 2021).
J. Grogan and N. Weinberg, Principles to Uphold the Rule of Law and Good Governance in Public Health Emergencies (RECONNECT Policy Brief, August 2020): https://reconnect-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/RECONNECTPB_082020B.pdf OJ C 62, 15.2.2019, p. 173.
OJ C 190, 5.6.2019, p. 1.
This EESC opinion received a counter opinion that was rejected but received at least a quarter of the votes cast.