The Digital Green Certificate (DGC) proposed by the European Commission on the basis of facilitating the free movement rights of European Union (EU) citizens will be capable of effectively serving as a COVID-19 passport. In this contribution, we cast doubt on whether the DGC is fit for purpose, highlighting in particular the potential for the DGC to in fact facilitate greater free movement restrictions for a large number of EU citizens, in particular those who have received non- European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved vaccines such as Sputnik V in compliance with EU law. Under the proposal as amended by the European Parliament, any destination Member State that accepts proof of vaccination “in order to waive restrictions to free movement” must apply the same waiver to any DGC-holder that has received an EMA-approved vaccine and has the option of doing so for vaccines added to the World Health Organization (WHO) Emergency Use Listing; however, such equal treatment is not available for DGC-holders who have received non-EMA/WHO vaccines. While this measure was alleged to be taken on grounds of public health, a convincing public health case has not been put forward. Instead, the DGC proposal as it stands disregards the promise of the internal market and sets the stage for its fragmentation through geopolitics and bilateralism.

中文翻译：

---

反对内部市场和欧盟公民权利委员会：试图用“数字绿色证书”击落人造卫星？

欧盟委员会在促进欧盟 (EU) 公民自由流动权利的基础上提出的数字绿色证书 (DGC) 将能够有效地充当 COVID-19 护照。在这篇文章中，我们对 DGC 是否符合目的提出了质疑，特别强调了 DGC 实际上有可能促进对大量欧盟公民，特别是那些接受过非欧洲药品的公民实施更大的自由流动限制符合欧盟法律的经机构 (EMA) 批准的疫苗，例如 Sputnik V。根据欧洲议会修订的提案，任何接受疫苗接种证明“以放弃对自由流动的限制”的目的地成员国必须对任何已接受 EMA 批准的疫苗并可以选择为添加到世界的疫苗的 DGC 持有人申请相同的豁免卫生组织 (WHO) 紧急使用清单；但是，对于接种了非 EMA/WHO 疫苗的 DGC 持有者来说，这种平等的待遇是无法获得的。尽管据称这项措施是出于公共卫生的原因，但尚未提出令人信服的公共卫生案例。相反，DGC 提案目前无视内部市场的承诺，并通过地缘政治和双边主义为其分裂奠定了基础。接受非 EMA/WHO 疫苗的 DGC 持有者无法获得这种平等待遇。尽管据称这项措施是出于公共卫生的原因，但尚未提出令人信服的公共卫生案例。相反，DGC 提案目前无视内部市场的承诺，并通过地缘政治和双边主义为其分裂奠定了基础。接受非 EMA/WHO 疫苗的 DGC 持有者无法获得这种平等待遇。尽管据称这项措施是出于公共卫生的原因，但尚未提出令人信服的公共卫生案例。相反，DGC 提案目前无视内部市场的承诺，并通过地缘政治和双边主义为其分裂奠定了基础。