Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 39kWORD 10k
4 May 2020
Question for written answer E-002697/2020
to the Commission
Rule 138
Marc Angel
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Immunity passports

I believe that the EU must oppose the proposal to use ‘immunity passports’ or ‘risk-free certificates’ as proposed by Chile and some other third country governments. According to WHO (1) , there is currently no evidence that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second infection. Therefore, the use of such certificates may increase the risks of continued transmission. It is also possible that some will try to infect themselves so they can get their immunity passport, while others will try to obtain one on the black market.

Beside the public health concerns, this could also negatively affect the Union’s labour market. A ‘caste system’ within the Union’s labor market must be avoided at all costs – not just because it is unethical, but because it would be a huge step backwards.

1. Does the Commission support the idea of issuing ‘immunity passports’ as a measure in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic?

2. If so, how does the Commission intend to ensure that such certificates would not in future become a condition or advantage for employment, and that employers will not refer to employee health records when making hiring or firing decisions?

Last updated: 20 May 2020Legal notice - Privacy policy