Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorŠāberte, Laura-
dc.contributor.otherRīgas Stradiņa universitāte, Juridiskā fakultāte, Latvijalv_LV
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-09T14:42:50Z-
dc.date.available2021-09-09T14:42:50Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationŠāberte, L. (2021). Pacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībai (Eng. Patient’s Right to Cross-border Healthcare when Effective Hospital Treatment Is Available in Patient’s Member State but Method of Treatment Used Is Against Patient’s Religious Beliefs: Abstract). Socrates. 2(20). 160–187. https://doi.org/10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187lv_LV
dc.identifier.issn2256-0548-
dc.identifier.other160–187-
dc.identifier.urihttps://dspace.rsu.lv/jspui/handle/123456789/6282-
dc.description.abstractIn October 29th, 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment in case A. vs Ministry of Health, No C-243/19. The Court in the judgment analysed significant legal issues relevant to Latvia. Therefore, the aim of the article is to analyse the main proceedings about the patient’s right to cross-border healthcare when effective hospital treatment is available in the patient’s Member State but the method of treatment used is against the patient’s religious beliefs. The article also aims to analyse whether the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts in accordance with Administrative Procedure Law have been obeyed. In the article, European Union and national legal framework and scientific literature in the field of patient’s right to receive cross-border healthcare have been analysed. Facts of main proceedings in national court cases and request to Court of Justice of the European Union for preliminary ruling from the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia have been studied as well. Next, the Advocate General Gerard Hogan’s opinion and judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union has been analysed. Further, the judgement of the Senate of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Latvia has been investigated. Upon concluding the article, the author draws attention to certain issues of national court’s legal analysis, which could be incompatible with the principle of objective investigation and prohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courts.en
dc.formatElectronic-
dc.language.isolv_LV-
dc.publisherRīga Stradiņš Universityen
dc.publisherRīgas Stradiņa universitātelv_LV
dc.relation.ispartofseriesSocrates 2021, 2 (20)-
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess-
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/*
dc.subjectSocrates 2021, 2 (20)-
dc.subjectcross-border healthcareen
dc.subjectfreedom of religionen
dc.subjectJehovah’s Witnessesen
dc.subjectpatienten
dc.subjectprinciple of objective investigationen
dc.subjectprohibition of legal obstruction by institutions and courtsen
dc.titlePacienta tiesības saņemt pārrobežu veselības aprūpes pakalpojumu, ja pacienta piederības dalībvalstī ir pieejama efektīva stacionārā ārstēšana, taču izmantotā ārstēšanas metode neatbilst pacienta reliģiskajai pārliecībailv_LV
dc.title.alternativePatient’s Right to Cross-border Healthcare when Effective Hospital Treatment Is Available in Patient’s Member State but Method of Treatment Used Is Against Patient’s Religious Beliefs (Abstract)en
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article-
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.25143/socr.20.2021.2.160-187-
Appears in Collections:Socrates. 2021, 2 (20)

Files in This Item:
File SizeFormat 
Socrates-20-2_13-Shaaberte_160-187.pdf368.19 kBAdobe PDFView/Openopen_acces_unlocked


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons