Link:  https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-04/cp200041de.pdf 

de en fr

Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union

PRESSEMITTEILUNG Nr. 41/20

Luxemburg, den 2. April 2020
Urteil in der Rechtssache C-830/18

Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße / PF u. a.
 
Eine Maßnahme, die einem Bundesland erlaubt, die Übernahme der Schülerbeförderung von der Voraussetzung eines Wohnsitzes in diesem Bundesland abhängig zu machen, stellt eine mittelbare Diskriminierung von Grenzarbeitnehmern und ihrer Familie dar
Im Fall der Schülerbeförderung im deutschen Bundesland Rheinland-Pfalz ist dieses Wohnsitzerfordernis nicht durch die effiziente Organisation des Schulsystems als zwingender Grund des Allgemeininteresses gerechtfertigt

Link: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-04/cp200040en.pdf

Languages: bg es cs da de et el en fr hr it lv lt hu mt nl pl pt ro sk sl fi sv

Court of Justice of the European Union

PRESS RELEASE No 40/20

Luxembourg, 2 April 2020
Judgment in Joined Cases C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17

Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic
 
By refusing to comply with the temporary mechanism for the relocation of applicants for international protection, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have failed to fulfil their obligations under European Union law. 

Those Member States can rely neither on their responsibilities concerning the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security, nor on the alleged malfunctioning of the relocation mechanism to avoid implementing that mechanism.  

In the judgment in Commission v Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic (Temporary mechanism for the relocation of applicants for international protection) (C-715/17, C-718/17 and C-719/17), delivered on 2 April 2020, the Court upheld the actions for failure to fulfil obligations brought by the Commission against those three Member States seeking a declaration that, by failing to indicate at regular intervals, and at least every three months, an appropriate number of applicants for international protection who could be relocated swiftly to their respective territories and by consequently failing to implement their subsequent relocation obligations, those Member States had failed to fulfil their obligations under European Union law. First, the Court concluded that there had been an infringement, by the three Member States concerned, of a decision adopted by the Council with a view to the relocation, on a mandatory basis, from Greece and Italy of 120 000 applicants for international protection to the other Member States of the European Union.1 Secondly, the Court found that Poland and the Czech Republic had also failed to fulfil their obligations under an earlier decision that the Council had adopted with a view to the relocation, on a voluntary basis, from Greece and Italy of 40 000 applicants for international protection to the other Member States of the European Union.2 Hungary, for its part, was not bound by the relocation measures provided for under the latter decision. 
 

As one of the preventive measures against the spread of coronavirus, especially because of those who frequently violate the self-isolation measure, the Government has proposed amendments to the Electronic Communications Act to monitor citizens’ movements. It would allow location data to be collected, which may restrict citizens’ rights to freedom of movement and privacy.

According to the Constitution, rights and freedoms can be restricted only by law, in order to protect the freedoms and rights of others, as well as the legal order, public morality and health, but any such restriction must be proportionate to the nature of the need for restriction in each individual case.

In the proposal, the Government stated that the restriction refers to narrow, clearly and precisely defined situations, only when the health and lives of citizens could not be effectively protected otherwise. It also states that it fulfils the criterion of proportionality, since the processing of data is considered to be proportionate to the need to protect health and life, and exclusively in situations where that need has reached such a level of threat that the minister responsible for health has declared an epidemic of an infectious disease, or a danger of an epidemic of an infectious disease. However, exactly in order to ensure proportionality, it is of utmost importance to secure protective mechanisms designed to avoid arbitrariness in their implementation.

Ombudswoman Lora Vidović therefore submitted amendments  to the Committee on the Constitution, Standing Orders and Political System, as well as the Committee on Human and National Minority Rights of the Croatian Parliament, stating that clear criteria should be explicitly defined in the law, which will ensure that the measure is implemented only over precisely defined categories of citizens, for example, those who have been officially determined to self-isolation by the competent bodies.

It is also necessary to inform the citizens over whom the data collection measure is being implemented, in writing. Such written information should contain the beginning and the duration of the implemented measure, with an explicit prohibition on retroactivity.

The Constitution also guarantees both the security and secrecy of personal data, as well as the supervision over the functioning of information systems in the country, so it is of utmost importance to closely specify the control system over the collected data. It is also necessary to define the time limits within which the collected data is stored, for example, in a fixed period of 30 days, with the possibility to extend it, or the longest for the duration of a natural disaster, disaster, epidemic or epidemic risk.

It is important that the proposals to the  Electronic Communications Act include all of the above, so that the restriction of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens is proportional to the nature of the need for restriction, which in this case is the protection of the health and life of citizens, in the context of an epidemic caused by a coronavirus.

Vitoria-Gasteiz

Una persona ha planteado al Ararteko las dificultades que está teniendo para poder disponer de suministro de agua en su domicilio durante el periodo de confinamiento derivado de la crisis de la COVID-19. La reclamante señala que, recientemente, ha resultado adjudicataria de una vivienda de protección pública en régimen de arrendamiento y que, tras varios días en la vivienda, no ha podido contratar el servicio de agua por una deuda pendiente con la empresa suministradora derivado de un anterior contrato en otra vivienda.

Es preciso señalar que el Real Decreto-Ley 8/2020, de 17 de marzo, de medidas urgentes extraordinarias para hacer frente al impacto económico y social del COVID-19, ha ampliado la cobertura de colectivos vulnerables en el ámbito del suministro de servicios públicos esenciales. Esa norma señala que el servicio de suministro domiciliario de agua potable para consumo humano es un servicio esencial que debe quedar garantizado, especialmente, en las actuales circunstancias de confinamiento domiciliario derivada de la declaración del estado de alarma. Entre las medidas acordadas se incluye la garantía del suministro de agua durante el mes siguiente a la entrada en vigor de la norma. Por tanto, los suministradores de agua no podrán suspender el suministro a aquellos consumidores en los que concurra la condición de consumidor vulnerable.

A juicio del Ararteko, el suministro de servicios esenciales como el agua, la electricidad o el gas debería garantizarse durante este periodo también para los nuevos usuarios que hayan cambiado de domicilio, incluso en aquellos casos en los que existan deudas pendientes. Todo ello, sin perjuicio de la obligación del pago de las cantidades pendientes, para lo cual la Administración dispone de mecanismos de recaudación ejecutiva u otras vías, como pueden ser admitir el fraccionamiento de la deuda o su garantía a través de los servicios sociales, mediante las ayudas que pudiera percibir la persona afectada.

En esos términos, el Ararteko ha indicado a la reclamante que debe dirigirse a la entidad municipal responsable del suministro de aguas, para solicitar la conexión y pedir un aplazamiento de la deuda.

Después de esa nueva solicitud, atendiendo a la situación excepcional de confinamiento existente, la entidad responsable del suministro de aguas ha posibilitado a la reclamante el alta en el servicio de suministro de agua domiciliario, acordando el pago fraccionado de la deuda pendiente.

A la vista de esa respuesta positiva el Ararteko concluye su intervención y recuerda que las entidades suministradoras de servicios públicos esenciales, como son el agua, el gas o la electricidad, tienen la obligación de garantizar el suministro a los colectivos vulnerables durante el periodo de confinamiento derivado de la crisis de la COVID-19.