Uitgeverij Paris × Close
Review of European Administrative Law (REALaw)
2023 / 3 (October) 1
 
  • Editorial: European Administrative Law and the Challenges of Uncertainty online pdf
Articles
  • Angelica Ericsson - Doctoral candidate, Faculty of Law at Lund University

    National Pre-Authorisation Schemes to Ensure Public Health – Scientific Uncertainty, National Policy Choices, and the Risk of Bias online pdf
  • Wilke de Braal - PhD researcher at Tilburg University, The Netherlands, and EU law advisor at the Netherlands Ministr

    National Responses to Great Uncertainty in EU Authorisation of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals online pdf
  • Silvia Lazzari - PhD candidate at Università Sapienza (Rome)

    The Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure Facing the Challenge of Uncertainty: An Overview of the European and Italian Legal Framework online pdf
  • Camille Lanssens - Research Fellow Belgian Fund for Scientific Research (F.R.S.-FNRS) Centre de droit public et social

    The Court of Justice of the European Union’s review of uncertain scientific appraisals: what role for the Impact Assessment Guidance? online pdf
  • Sofie Oosterhuis - PhD Candidate in European Administrative Law at Utrecht University

    The rise of complex decision-making in the European Union: boards of appeal as a mechanism to mitigate challenges of scientific uncertainty online pdf
  • Marco Almada - PhD candidate, European University Institute (EUI)

    Automated Uncertainty: A Research Agenda for Artificial Intelligence in Administrative Decisions online pdf
Book Review
  • Jane Reichel - Professor in Administrative Law, Faculty of Law, Stockholm University

    Ida Koivisto, The Transparency Paradox. Questioning an ideal online pdf

National Pre-Authorisation Schemes to Ensure Public Health 

– Scientific Uncertainty, National Policy Choices, and the Risk of Bias

Toon als PDF
Angelica Ericsson - Doctoral candidate, Faculty of Law at Lund University*


Scientific uncertainty is clearly a prominent hurdle in public health policy and the policy choices made to tackle this uncertainty are largely left to the Member States. Indeed, the Court of Justice of the EU has long since held that the health and the life of humans rank first among the interests that Member States can legitimately pursue – even if they restrict the market freedoms in doing so – and that, therefore, very considerable powers are left to Member States in the field of public health. Over the years, Member States have often turned to the regulatory tool of pre-authorisation schemes to protect national public health, especially in the face of scientific uncertainty. Through such schemes, everything from pesticides to food additives have been restricted from entering national markets. But how can the EU be sure that the inherent discretion of such authorisation schemes does not give effect to national bias? This article will explore how the EU has developed various ‘objectivity safeguards’, mainly through case-law, in order to contain the risk of such bias. In the end, even if considerable policy powers are left to Member States in the field of public health, a pre-authorisation scheme would not be considered as a justified restriction to free movement, unless the national system provides sufficient safeguards.

Inloggen


Wachtwoord vergeten?

Abonneren op dit tijdschrift

Om toegang te krijgen tot het gehele artikel heeft u een abonnement nodig. Meer informatie over de abonnementsvormen en prijzen kunt u hier vinden.

Abonneren op dit tijdschrift

Indien u een los artikel wilt bestellen, stuur een e-mail naar info@uitgeverijparis.nl