英文摘要 |
In the mid-1990s, it was still controversial as to whether the notion of‘EU health law’existed or not. Very few people would nowadays dispute that‘EU health law’is a meaningful concept. Late studies turn the discussion to the scope of those entities. In this article, the author tries to identify the scope and framework of‘EU health law’. The article will review the historical emergence and development of the‘EU health law’as a distinctive body of law firstly. The following analyses how the EU’s health law and the tools have been utilized in response to the COVID-19 outbreak, mainly through encouraging cooperation between the member states in the sphere of public health based on the article 168 TFEU, civil protection mechanism, internal market competence and fiscal governance framework such as European Semester. It also describes the proposed changes to EU health policy for the coronavirus recovery phase. The following figures out the dark side of the‘EU health law’. One problem is that the indirect legislation, which means the EU has adopted many harmonizing measures in health law and policy based on the competence in other policy areas, principally internal market. Another issue is the accountability of European Agencies. European Agencies play an active and effective role in crisis management and public health governance in the EU. Many of them exercise a de facto decision-making power. This raises problems relating to legitimacy and accountability. This article demonstrates the structure of European Agencies and takes EMA as an example to clarify their problematic aspects. It then tries to present a more rational accountability framework for European Agencies in order to better balance accountability with independence and effectiveness. Finally, it outlines directions of future development of EU health law. It is commonly agreed that EU health law grows through crisis. Another transboundary public health crisis could prompt valuable steps. |