Adam Cygan

CITIZENSHIP OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

The relationship between EU law and international law has, again, recently occupied the European Court of Justice with respect to the compatibility of the EU Treaty with international obligations. It will be recalled that in the Kadi judgment 1 the Court examined whether adoption of a UN Resolution in the form of a Council Regulation 2 which, prima facie, restricted the fundamental rights of Kadi was congruent with principles of EU law. In Kadi , the Court, adopting a constitutionalist position with regard to the protection of fundamental rights, held that protecting the applicants fundamental rights under the Treaty was a priority which could not be diminished, even when the EU was implementing a UN Resolution into EU law. Thus, in Kadi , the Court concluded that providing clear fundamental rights safeguards through judicial review of the Regulation was a fundamental principle of EU law. To this extent, the Court was only prepared to accept compliance with internal obligations if they were harmonious with principles of fundamental rights norms, as understood through the case law of the Court.

Public healthcare in the European Union: Still a service of general interest?

This article examines how recent judgments of the European Court of Justice have interpreted the concept of a service of general interest in Article 86(2) EC in the delivery of healthcare services. The article explores how and why the Court has afforded greater latitude to Member States in organizational matters by not applying competition rules. By contrast, the Court has actively promoted patient mobility and has not applied the derogation in Article 86(2) EC where it would restrict the free movement of services. Does the Courts policy of protecting individual rights undermine the ability of Member States to deliver a universal healthcare service within finite resources?