Freedom to Conduct Business During the Covid-19 Pandemic

Dalia Vasarienė, L. Jakulevičienė
{"title":"Freedom to Conduct Business During the Covid-19 Pandemic","authors":"Dalia Vasarienė, L. Jakulevičienė","doi":"10.5334/tilr.246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unprecedented restrictions on various human rights were applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, and considered crucial in most cases to halt the spread of infection. Yet, a number of critical issues were raised concerning the scope and proportionality of said restrictions. Among these, the freedom to conduct business was one of the most affected by measures implemented in the first lockdown which was applied in many Member States of the European Union. This article analyzes the protection of this freedom in situations of emergency, its conflict with the right to health, and explores whether jurisprudential and doctrinal bases applicable before the pandemic could be applied or if new principles need to be developed to address unprecedented situations like COVID-19. The criteria to determine the proportionality of these restrictions from the perspective of International and EU human rights law are also discussed. The authors argue that the freedom to conduct business, although not envisaged directly in the European Convention on Human Rights, is part of the right to property, and thus should be protected in the same manner. Based on that, the approach to the deprivation of the right to use property and denial of the essence of the freedom to conduct business should be applied similarly, though not identically, to the approach of de facto expropriation, where a question of full or partial compensation may be relevant in case of substantial business losses. For other restrictions the availability of compensatory measures should be one of the key aspects while considering the proportionality of COVID-19 measures in restricting the rights of individuals or businesses.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.246","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unprecedented restrictions on various human rights were applied during the COVID-19 pandemic, and considered crucial in most cases to halt the spread of infection. Yet, a number of critical issues were raised concerning the scope and proportionality of said restrictions. Among these, the freedom to conduct business was one of the most affected by measures implemented in the first lockdown which was applied in many Member States of the European Union. This article analyzes the protection of this freedom in situations of emergency, its conflict with the right to health, and explores whether jurisprudential and doctrinal bases applicable before the pandemic could be applied or if new principles need to be developed to address unprecedented situations like COVID-19. The criteria to determine the proportionality of these restrictions from the perspective of International and EU human rights law are also discussed. The authors argue that the freedom to conduct business, although not envisaged directly in the European Convention on Human Rights, is part of the right to property, and thus should be protected in the same manner. Based on that, the approach to the deprivation of the right to use property and denial of the essence of the freedom to conduct business should be applied similarly, though not identically, to the approach of de facto expropriation, where a question of full or partial compensation may be relevant in case of substantial business losses. For other restrictions the availability of compensatory measures should be one of the key aspects while considering the proportionality of COVID-19 measures in restricting the rights of individuals or businesses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Covid-19大流行期间开展业务的自由
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,对各种人权实施了前所未有的限制,在大多数情况下,这些限制被认为对阻止感染的传播至关重要。然而,就上述限制的范围和相称性提出了一些关键问题。其中,开展业务的自由是受第一次封锁期间实施的措施影响最大的自由之一,该措施在欧洲联盟的许多成员国都实施了。本文分析了在紧急情况下对这一自由的保护及其与健康权的冲突,并探讨了在大流行之前是否可以适用适用的法律和理论基础,或者是否需要制定新的原则来应对COVID-19等前所未有的情况。从国际人权法和欧盟人权法的角度探讨了确定这些限制的比例性的标准。作者争辩说,虽然《欧洲人权公约》没有直接设想经营商业的自由,但它是财产权的一部分,因此应以同样的方式加以保护。在此基础上,剥夺财产使用权和剥夺经营自由的实质的办法应同样适用于事实上的征用办法,但不是完全相同,因为在这种情况下,如果发生重大商业损失,可能涉及到全额或部分赔偿的问题。对于其他限制,在考虑COVID-19措施在限制个人或企业权利方面的相称性时,补偿措施的可用性应成为关键方面之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊最新文献
Perjanjian Kredit Macet Pemilikan Rumah (KPR) Terhadap Kebijakan Rumah Subsidi Pada Bank Papua Kebijakan Afirmatif Rekrutmen Anggota Polri Khusus Orang Asli Papua Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Perempuan Atas Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Dalam Rumah Tangga Penerapan Kebijakan Hukum Pidana Sanksi Kimia Dalam Penegakan Hukum Partisipasi Masyarakat Dalam Pembentukan Peraturan Daerah Kabupaten Mimika
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1