患者获得跨境医疗服务的权利,在患者所在成员国可以获得有效的固定治疗,但所使用的治疗方法与患者的宗教信仰不符。

Laura Šāberte
{"title":"患者获得跨境医疗服务的权利,在患者所在成员国可以获得有效的固定治疗,但所使用的治疗方法与患者的宗教信仰不符。","authors":"Laura Šāberte","doi":"10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.","PeriodicalId":34542,"journal":{"name":"Socrates","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībai\",\"authors\":\"Laura Šāberte\",\"doi\":\"10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Socrates\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Socrates\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Socrates","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2020年10月29日,欧盟法院在a诉卫生部案(第C-243/19号)中作出判决。法院在判决书中分析了与拉脱维亚有关的重要法律问题。因此,这篇文章的目的是分析在患者所在成员国可以获得有效的医院治疗,但所使用的治疗方法违背患者的宗教信仰时,有关患者跨境医疗保健权的主要诉讼。文章还分析了行政诉讼法规定的客观调查和禁止机关、法院妨碍司法的原则是否得到了遵守。在这篇文章中,分析了欧洲联盟和各国在病人接受跨境医疗保健权利领域的法律框架和科学文献。还研究了国家法院案件的主要诉讼事实和拉脱维亚共和国最高法院参议院要求欧洲联盟法院作出初步裁决的请求。其次,分析了欧盟法院总检察长杰拉德·霍根的意见和判决。此外,还对拉脱维亚共和国最高法院参议院的判决进行了调查。在文章的最后,作者提请注意国家法院法律分析的一些问题,这些问题可能与客观调查和禁止机构和法院妨碍法律的原则不相容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Pacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībai
In October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
期刊最新文献
The importance of judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the European Union with a special focus on countering EU threats and crime more effectively Role of medical practitioners in prevention and investigation of violence against children, and need to strengthen interdisciplinary cooperation in Latvia Crime Forecasting in the Digital Age: A Theoretical Framework The Legal Nature of Patient Duties Effective Application of Provisional Measures under the Brussels Ibis Regulation
×
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