Justifying Mobility Hindrance in the Name of Public Health and Its Tax Implication in the European Union

Abstract: This master thesis seeks to find an answer whether the restriction on freedom of movement of person can be justified on the ground of public health and also explaining what tax implication could happen for taxpayers in the context of pandemic relating to tax treaty interpretation. The right of freedom of movement of persons will be examined from the perspective of EU law. As for the derogation justified on the ground of public health, it will be analysed from the primary and secondary sources of law also from the judgement from The Court of Justice of European Union. The result suggests that restriction on the freedom of movement of person justified on ground of public health is allowed from the standpoint of EU law and it also gives discretion to member state, in the end it is in the hand of member state to justify whether the measure they took is proportional, by means of necessity and suitability. In this challenging situation, member states may appraise the level of suitability and necessary differently from one another. Furthermore, EU has recently proposed a Digital Green Certificate which appears to be a less restrictive measure compared to total ban of freedom of movement of person. With regards to tax implication for individual taxpayer and corporate taxpayer, in general many countries adopted special measure in the context of pandemic which would eliminate unwanted tax implication. Nevertheless, research need to be done regarding which countries providing a special COVID tax rules that is more lenient and which one is not in assessing actual tax implication on a case-by-case basis.