Dear Members of the European Parliament,

We (I) would like to bring your attention to the critical issues concerning the “digital green certificate” regulations proposed which are clearly challenging existing EU internal procedures, existent regulations and treaties:

1.      The procedural checks and balances have not been respected – there is no impact assessment, no cost-benefit analysis, no Committee of the Regions or Economic and Social Committee consultations (although not compulsory, the two would have been highly recommended on a subject of such impact on the European public), no compulsory public consultation offered to the European public to express views, no public debate, no possibility for the population to react. All these basic safeguards were waived under the presumption of urgency, which itself is not justified, as results from various Recitals of the proposal (e.g., Recital 17) which clearly confirm that there is no scientific evidence at this point to support the idea that a vaccinated person is no longer contagious. Hence, a person carrying such a certificate is no more of a ‘threat‘ to a country’s public health than a non-vaccinated, healthy person. This is sheer discrimination, without any solid scientific justification as to why such unprecedented limitations to our fundamental rights are taking place in the European society.

2.      The mere concept of a certificate which fulfils the function of a health passport (i.e., containing proof of vaccination, testing or recovery) is contrary to the guaranteed right to free movement within EU. There is no point in talking about a free-border Schengen area where we need to carry with us a certificate to prove that we can cross an internal border or even move within a country. This is the end of Schengen.

3.      Covid-19 is easily treatable disease through early treatment protocols based on easily available and inexpensive drugs that are in the use across the world for the last 40 years. Significant body of evidence shows 99,9% of recovery rate and no hospitalisations if early treatment protocol is applied withing 3 days of the manifestation of symptoms.

4.      The proposed legal act doesn’t provide any clarification on intended use for this certificate, with the exception of free movement. No a priori limitation is provided, which essentially amounts to a carte blanche to any potential usages. Clear examples exist – Israel but also European countries such as Denmark – where public authorities are publicizing materials showing the existing or potential use of these certificates varying from flight companies to school access, access to working place or even access to one’s own domicile. Clear limitations and guarantees must exist in law, ensuring that this certificate cannot be misused in the future to abuse or limit in any way person’s fundamental rights, and introduce discriminatory action by state and non-state actors.

5.      The certificate represents the legitimisation of an non- democratically sanctioned policy of generalised vaccination of the entire European population with a vaccine which is experimental (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf,  https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728), unnecessary (https://www.ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/C19dataCollection-C+FL-HistPerspec.pdf) and possibly with long term detrimental effect to the health of the population (link to EMA’s tracker on adverse effects: http://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html, and studies showing the possible long term detrimental effects and deaths of vaccinating the entire population: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516275/pdf/pbio.1002198.pdf, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03324-6.pdf, https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/covid-19-vaccine-researchers-mindful-of-immune-enhancement-67576, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32156-5/fulltext, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33330870/, https://khn.org/morning-breakout/rare-blood-disorder-could-be-linked-to-covid-vaccine/); and because it introduces in a deceptive manner, under the pretence of protection and prevention, a second class citizenship of the Union, the people that will not be able to travel freely, get an employment or be accepted in schools because they are not vaccinated.

6.      There is a concern that this is not a temporary measure – the question is if it is reasonable to spend 49M euro to develop this measure, if the real intention behind is to use it only during a pandemic? Either our governments believe pandemic will chain up in the following years, or the intention is not genuine. When the Commission states that agreements are currently sought with international organisations (e.g., IATA) and other countries in the world to make this internationally recognised and interoperable, this does not seem temporary.

We are expecting that you will attentively examine the argument and referred studies and act in line with your role as guardians of the pillars of the EU democracy and guaranteed freedoms of the EU citizens and therefore resist to any pressure coming from the European Commission to do otherwise. We are asking you to vote on this Thursday (March 25) against the option of a “fast-track” examination to allow for the thorough assessment of the proposed regulations and elaboration of the amendments that will ensure alignment with the EU values and fundamental rights of the citizens. Finally, we expect that you will reject altogether this proposal after the examination as it infringes all the fundamental values the EU was founded upon.