Declarations of State of Emergency in the EU Member States: An Overview

This list includes declarations of state of emergency in the EU Member States concerning the coronavirus pandemic (cut-off date : 30 March 2020, prepared by Jernej Letnar Černič). 17 Member States of the EU (out of 27) have so far declared state of emergency due to the coronavirus. Three of them (Estonia, Latvia and Romania) have notified the European Court of Human Rights that they have provisionally derogated from their obligations under the Europe Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms invoking its Article 15. 10 states that have not so far declared state of emergency have nonetheless adopted several preventive measures. This list is based on official sources wherever possible. It will be updated as the situation develops.  If you notice any errors or if you have any comments, please let me know.

cof

Republic of Austria: State of Emergency in place since 16 March 2020 and will last until 13 April 2020. https://www.bundeskanzleramt.gv.at/bundeskanzleramt/nachrichten-der-bundesregierung/2020/bundeskanzler-kurz-massnahmen-zur-eindaemmung-des-coronavirus-werden-bis-13-april-verlaengert.html

Kingdom of Belgium: State of Emergency in place since 13 March 2020 and will last until 19 April 2002, http://www.info-coronavirus.be/en/

Republic of Bulgaria: State of Emergency in place since 18 March 2020 and will last until 13 April, https://www.parliament.bg/en/news/ID/5056, https://www.parliament.bg/en/news/ID/5059; https://www.euractiv.com/section/coronavirus/news/belgium-enters-lockdown-over-coronavirus-crisis-until-5-april/

Republic of Croatia: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.koronavirus.hr/.

Republic of Cyprus: State of Emergency in place since 16 March 2020 and will last until 30 April 2020, https://www.pio.gov.cy/coronavirus/en/index.html,

Czech Republic: State of Emergency in place since 13 March 2020 and will last until 12 April 2020, https://www.mvcr.cz/mvcren/article/state-of-emergency.aspx,

Kingdom of Denmark: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.regeringen.dk/danish-governement-homepage/,

Republic of Estonia:  State of Emergency in place since 12 March 2020 and will last until 1 May 2020, derogated from Article 15 of the ECHR on 20 March 2020, https://rm.coe.int/09000016809cfa87,

Republic of Finland: State of Emergency in place since 18 March 2020 and will last until 13 May 2020, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/10616/hallitus-totesi-suomen-olevan-poikkeusoloissa-koronavirustilanteen-vuoksi, https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/article/-/asset_publisher/10616/hallitus-jatkaa-poikkeusoloihin-liittyvia-toimia-13-toukokuuta-saakka.

Republic of France: State of Emergency in place since 24 March 2020 and will last until 23 May 2020, https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000041746313&dateTexte=&categorieLien=id

Republic of Germany: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-de.

Republic of Greece: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://government.gov.gr/enimerosi-politikon-sintakton-apo-ton-kivernitiko-ekprosopo-stelio-petsa/.

Republic of Hungary: State of Emergency in place since 11  March 2020 – onwards, https://www.kormany.hu/en/prime-minister-s-office/news/government-to-introduce-state-of-national-crisis, https://www.kormany.hu/en/the-prime-minister/news/restrictions-on-movement-to-be-imposed-in-hungary.

Republic of Ireland: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.gov.ie/en/campaigns/c36c85-covid-19-coronavirus.

Republic of Italy: State of Emergency in place since 31 January 2020 and will last until 30 July 2020. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2020/02/01/20A00737/sg.

Republic of Latvia:  State of Emergency in place since 13 March 2020 and will last until 14 April 2020, derogated from Article 15 of the ECHR on 16 March 2020, https://rm.coe.int/09000016809ce9f2.

Republic of Lithuania: State of Emergency in place since 26 March 2020 and will last until 27 March (extension tbc), https://lietuva.lt/en/lithuanias-response-to-covid-19/, http://lrv.lt/en/relevant-information/coronavirus-in-lithuania/relevant-information-1/important-information-to-foreign-nationals-in-lithuania.

Republic of Luxembourg: State of Emergency in place since 18 March 2020 and will last until 18 June 2020, http://www.legilux.lu/eli/etat/leg/rgd/2020/03/18/a165/jo.

Republic of Malta, State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://deputyprimeminister.gov.mt/en/health-promotion/Pages/Novel-coronavirus.aspx.

Kingdom of the Netherlands: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.government.nl/topics/coronavirus-covid-19/tackling-new-coronavirus-in-the-netherlands.

Republic of Poland: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.gov.pl/web/coronavirus.

Republic of Portugal: State of Emergency in place since 19 March 2020 and will last until 2 April 2020; https://dre.pt/web/guest/pesquisa/-/search/130399862/details/normal?l=1, https://dre.pt/web/guest/home/-/dre/130473161/details/maximized.

Republic of Romania: State of Emergency in place since 16 March 2020 and will last until 15 April 2020, derogated from Article 15 of the ECHR on 20 March 2020, https://rm.coe.int/09000016809cee30

Republic of Slovakia: State of Emergency in place since 12 March 2020 until undefined date, https://www.mzv.sk/web/en/covid-19, https://newsnow.tasr.sk/policy/government-declares-state-of-emergency/, https://spectator.sme.sk/c/22356193/emergency-situation-applies-from-thursday-morning.html?ref=tab.

Republic of Slovenia: State of emergency has so far not been declared, https://www.gov.si/en/topics/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/.

Kingdom of Spain: State of Emergency in place since 14 March 2020 and will last until 14 April, https://elpais.com/espana/2020-03-14/consulta-el-real-decreto-por-el-que-se-declara-el-estado-de-alarma-en-espana.html.

Kingdom of Sweden: no state of emergency has so far been declared, https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazards-and-risks/disasters-and-incidents/2020/official-information-on-the-new-coronavirus

Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije (2019)

Založba Nove univerze je v lanskem letu pod uredništvom Mateja Avblja in s sodelovanjem številnih slovenskih pravnih strokovnjakov izdala nov komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije. Starejši komentar je dostopen na naslednji elektronski povezavi.

KURS

 

Nova številka slovenske revije za človekove pravice – Dignitas, št. 83-84

Izšla je nova številka znanstvene revije Dignitas – edine slovenske revije za človekove pravice (št. 83-84)! Tokratna številka je posvečena deseti obletnici uveljavitve Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah. Zahvaljujem se gostujoči urednici Katarini Vatovec za skrbno uredniško delo in vsem avtorjem za prispevke.ovitek hrbet 17 mm-page-001-4-2

25-letnica uveljavitve Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic v Sloveniji

14. novembra 2019, je v Ljubljani potekal Akademski forum Nove univerze ob 25-letnici uveljavitve Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic v Sloveniji.

76689081_2377417419029946_8194310972383428608_n

Uvodni nagovor je imel sodnik v imenu Slovenije na Evropskem sodišču za človekove pravice izr. prof. dr. Marko Bošnjak, pogovor pa je vodil izr. prof. dr. Jernej Letnar Černič. V pogovoru so sodelovali tudi: prof. dr. Rajko Knez, predsednik Ustavnega sodišča RS; mag. Damijan Florjančič, predsednik Vrhovnega sodišča RS, izr. prof. dr. Janez Čebulj, nekdanji predsednik Ustavnega sodišča RS; prof. dr. Peter Jambrek, prvi predsednik Ustavnega sodišča RS. Povzetek Akademskega foruma bo objavljen v prihodnji številki znanstvene revije Dignitas (št. 83-84) in v eni od prihodnjih številk Pravne prakse. Dogodek je sofinancirala ARRS.

Uresničevanje sodb Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice v slovenskem pravnem redu

V tretji letošnji številki Pravosodnega biltena je izšel moj prispevek o “Uresničevanju sodb Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice v slovenskem pravnem redu” (str. 35-50). Povzetek je na voljo spodaj. Vabljeni k branju !

Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice (evropsko sodišče) je osrednji evropski varuh človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, kamor se lahko posamezniki obrnejo, če države in njihovi pravni redi ne morejo oziroma ne želijo učinkovito zavarovati njihovih pravic. Ko Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice poda sodbo zoper državo pogodbenico Evropske konvencije o človekovih pravicah (evropska konvencija), jo mora ta izvršiti v domačem pravnem redu. Pričujoči prispevek v zvezi s tem obravnava uresničevanje evropske konvencije in sodb evropskega sodišča v slovenskem pravnem redu. Namen prispevka je pojasniti značilnosti sodb evropskega sodišča in jasno poudariti obveznosti vseh vej državne oblasti, da izvršujejo sodbe evropskega sodišča zoper Slovenijo in uresničujejo njegove sodbe tudi v drugih primerih. Evropska konvencija je del slovenskega pravnega reda in zato neposredno zavezujoča za slovenska sodišča.

IMG_20191110_160219

Nova številka slovenske revije za človekove pravice – Dignitas, št. 81-82

Izšla je nova številka revije Dignitas – slovenske revije za človekove pravice (št. 81-82, 2018), ki vključuje spodnje prispevke.ovitek hrbet 17 mm-page-001-3

Reform of Democracy 
and the Rule of Law in Slovenia

The rule of law is the fundamental basis for the functioning of any constitutional democracy in a free and democratic state. It is a precondition for a person’s self-fulfilment and a functioning economy. A strategic constitutional and actual priority for Slovenia is to lay the foundations for the functioning of a real rule of law, which need to be internalised by the people, both in the public and the private sector. The rule of law is a precondition for the functioning of all state systems, as well as its social subsystems, particularly the economy. Slovenia started its path towards the rule of law only after declaring independence in 1991. In adopting a new Constitution—despite legal continuity from the previous state—Slovenia accepted explicitly and with high political consensus the values of the rule of law and the protection of human rights, setting them at the top of its normative, constitutional and legal framework. Slovenia thereby also met the criteria for joining the Council of Europe, which confirmed in 1994 the adequacy of its normative rule-of-law framework, both formally and in terms of content. Precisely a modern normative framework, modelled on Western European states with an established tradition of the rule of law, is the greatest strength and best guarantee of lawfulness in Slovenia. However, problems arise when it comes to putting it into practice. A fundamental issue of the rule of law in Slovenia is the huge gap between the normative framework and its realisation by those entrusted with this task.

The state of constitutional democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia is alarming. Confirming this proposition requires no in-depth comparative law analysis. It suffices to take a brief look at the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which demonstrates the degree of Slovenia’s compliance with the minimum standards of the rule of law as set down in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court’s jurisprudence shows that in Slovenia the rule of law is not actually working in all the areas essential for individuals. This is demonstrated by high-profile rulings against Slovenia in areas such as the prohibition of torture and police brutality, medical malpractice and its investigation, as well as ensuring the right to family life, in particular through appropriate engagement of social work centres. Moreover, according to the Court, anyone seeking legal protection in Slovenian courts risks a violation of his or her right to a trial within a reasonable time. As the Court has pointed out, this right is systemically violated due to inadequate legislation and inefficiency in the administration of justice. Moreover, most judicial proceedings in Slovenia are carried out selectively, meaning that people with ties to formal or informal centres of power often get a free pass. This undermines the very foundation of the formal rule of law, which builds on equality before the law. A state that fails to meet even the formal conditions of the rule of law—and equality before the law certainly is one of them—of course cannot be said to be governed by the rule of law.

This scientific publication was prepared as part of the research project entitled The Reform of Democracy and the Rule of Law in Slovenia (Slovenian Research Agency, project no. J5-7359). The general aim of this research project was to examine the state of democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia, and attempt to design reform proposals. The research analysed the influence of the Council of Europe (CoE) through the European Court of Human Rights and the European Union (EU) through the Court of Justice of the EU on the conditions for the functioning of democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia. The analysis focused on how effectively the judicial, the legislative and the executive branch of power in Slovenia protect democracy and the rule of law. Moreover, the project examined how effectively the Slovenian law protects human rights and fundamental freedoms. Here, the question was why flaws in the functioning of democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia persist despite the influence of the Council of Europe and the EU. This way, we tried to determine the inconsistencies and shortcomings in the Slovenian public sphere, and prepare proposals for correcting these flaws. The overarching aim of the research was therefore to find ways to reform the democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia.

IMG_20170312_133308[1]

 

In terms of content, the project was divided into four separate parts. In the first part, we studied the historical reasons, especially the socialist legacy, and analysed their role in the current state of democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia. The second part focused on the endogenous factors that have been affecting—positively or negatively—democracy and the rule of law in Slovenia since 1991. This part also included an important comparative dimension, as we analysed Slovenia’s experience with the functioning of democracy and rule of law with other transition countries, as well as states that can be regarded as well-functioning societies. The last two parts were dedicated to exogenous factors. The third looked into Slovenia’s democratisation and progress in the rule of law under the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), while the fourth and final part analysed in the same manner the influence of the EU’s acquis communautaire.

These recommendations are the latest addition to the numerous scientific publications prepared and published as part of the project over the last three years. Since this project falls into the realm of legal theory research, which results in written academic discussion that rarely brings immediate effects in practice, the project at first had a more indirect positive influence on the society than a direct impact. Academic writing creates positive effects in the society in the long term by expanding and spreading knowledge. Initially this knowledge is limited to specialised and closed epistemic groups, but gradually it spreads to students, and through them to the wider public space. This is why the research team has decided to expand the scientific articles and monographs, which help inform experts and the public on the possibilities of reforming democracy and the rule of law, with this specialised publication, offering concrete recommendations for stakeholders in this reform area, as well as NGOs advocating the victims of alleged violations of all kinds of human rights that are assumed to have resulted from the state’s shortcomings in this respect.