Μη κατηγοριοποιημένο Archives

Undeniably, the right to life is a vital universal right that underpins the moral and legal foundations of societies globally. From the moment of birth to the final days of existence, the right to life serves as a shield of protection for individuals from arbitrary interference with their autonomy. As upheld by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it servesas a fundamental gift to all individuals that cannot be taken away. Nevertheless, while this right is universally upheld, its interpretation, application, and limitations continue being sources of intense debate in legal, ethical, and political areas.

To begin with, at its core, the right to life is the principle that every human being is entitled to live and not be subject to any unjustified threat or interference. The recognition of its universality is foundational to the dignity of individuals and the notion that all individuals, regardless of their circumstances, are entitled to protection. This right also emphasizes that every individual has the right to lead a life free from threats like violence, neglect, and unjust legal actions. This is much evident in various international efforts, with an example being enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), securing that“everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.”This isfurther solidified in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees that every individual shall have the inherent right to life and mandates that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their life whereas the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) echoes the same sentiment by committing member States to safeguard the right to life of their citizens.

While the right to life is the foundation of human dignity and freedom, it does not exist in a vacuum. Alongside this right lies the quality of life, which is deeply intertwined and refers not just to the existence of life but also whether individuals are living in conditions with respect to dignity and security. Truly, the right to life is not just about preventing violent acts against individuals, such as genocides, forced disappearances, and other human rights violations but also about ensuring that people have access to the conditions that allow their lives to flourish. This includes access to healthcare, clean water, food, and the opportunity to live without fear of violence or discrimination. For instance, the right to life would be hollow if a person were merely alive but living in extreme poverty, facing oppression, constant wars or being left without access to healthcare. In these cases, the state’s responsibility expands beyond simply protecting life to ensuring the conditions for a decent quality of life. What is notable is the actions adopted by Cyprus through recent amendments (19^th amendment) to the Constitution of Article 7 with the addition of Article 7A, with the right to environment being enshrined.This signifies a crucial step as more and more European countries finally started recognizing the vitality of the quality of life within the right to life.

Nevertheless, loopholes that can be exploited are inherent in the amount of use of force to justify interference under certain conditions or exceptions. Therefore, the question to be raised is: When is the use of force allowed and under what conditions is it permissible? Accordingly, under international human rights law, individuals may use force in self-defense to protect life from imminent threats, but only when non-violent means are insufficient such as using force to repel an attacker or protect against violence. When force is used, it must be limited, necessary, and in respect to human dignity. Such force must be strictly proportionate to the threat and used as a last resort. However, the amount of force becomes even more complex in the context of armed conflict. Particularly, international law allows combatants to target military objectives but strictly prohibits intentional harm to civilians. But if this is truly strictly followed by countries is still questionable. Further, in peacetime, countries may use force to protect citizens from violence or large-scale rights violations, such as the U.S.-led intervention in the 1991 Gulf War, which was justified through U.N. Resolutions for restoring peace, protecting civilians, and upholding Kuwait’s sovereignty through authorizing the use of force, by airstrikes and ground combat. Whether in self-defense, law enforcement, or humanitarian intervention, the use of force must always balance the preservation of life with respect for individual rights, but it remains uncertain whether the conditions are always followed or whether used as excuses to justify unjustified actions.

One of the most contentious debates in human rights discussion surrounding the right to life centers on abortion. At the heart of this issue lies the tension between a woman’s right to control her body and the fetus’s right to life. The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) had a profound impact on reshaping the legal landscape surrounding the right to life and use of force in relation to reproductive rights, asserting the woman’s right to make decisions about her own body. However, Dobbs overturned this decision, ruling that the right to abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Dobbs ruling has complicated the intersection between the right to lifeand the use of force. The right to life now includes a strong argument for protecting the fetus, while conversely, the decision has also raised concerns about the infringement on women’s rights, particularly the right to bodily autonomy. Thisis concerning when pregnancy may pose significant health risks to a woman, especially in cases of ectopic pregnanciesor severe preeclampsia. Denying an abortion in such cases could be considered as a state-sanctioned force that endangers the life of the woman. Thus, it remains a debate whether the state’s use of force to prevent abortions by upholding the right to life undermines democratic foundations, such as personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

In conclusion, the right to life is not a static concept but is rather dynamic that requires constant reflection, adaption and action at global levels. As societies advance and new challenges emerge, the protection of life must remain central to human rights discourse. Ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live free from fear, violence, and injustice is not only a moral imperative but also a necessary step towards building a just and equitable world. Ultimately, it is not just about survival but rather brightening the pathway for individuals to thrive and live with dignity and security.

By virtue of the Law 105(I)/2023 amending the Law on Administrative Cooperation in the field of Taxation (Law 205(I)/2012), the provisions of the Council Directive (EU) 2021/514 of 22 March 2021 amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (the “DAC 7”), relating to the reporting obligations of the so-called ‘platform operators’, have been incorporated into the national legislation of the Republic of Cyprus. In particular, according to DAC 7, each and every ‘Reporting Platform Operator’ is under a series of obligations, the main of which are the following:

Obligation for registration with the relevant registry kept by the competent authority of the Republic of Cyprus, being the Tax Department.
Obligations relating to the procedure for due diligence.
Obligation to submit a report with regards to each reporting period, namely calendar year (the “Reporting Period”) by the 31st of January of the year following the respective Reporting Period.

At first instance, however, it is important to identify whether a platform operator falls within the scope of DAC 7 and, thus, the relevant national legislation; the elements which must be satisfied for the purpose of having a platform operator considered an obliged ‘Reporting Platform Operator’ are the following:

“Platform”: Any software, including a website or a part thereof and applications, including mobile applications, accessible by users and allowing Sellers to be connected to other users for the purpose of carrying out a Relevant Activity, directly or indirectly, to such users. It also includes any arrangement for the collection and payment of a Consideration in respect of Relevant Activity.

“Platform Operator”: An Entity that contracts with Sellers to make available all or part of a Platform to such Sellers.

“Relevant Activity”: An activity carried out for Consideration and being any of the following:
the rental of immovable property, including both residential and commercial property, as well as any other immovable property and parking spaces;
“Personal Service”, defined as a service involving time- or task-based work performed by one or more individuals, acting either independently or on behalf of an Entity, and which is carried out at the request of a user, either online or physically offline after having been facilitated via a Platform;
the sale of goods; or
the rental of any mode of transport.
“Reporting Platform Operator”: Any Platform Operator, other than an Excluded Platform Operator, who is in any of the following situations:
it is resident for tax purposes in a EU member state or, where such Platform Operator does not have a residence for tax purposes in EU member state, it fulfils any of the following conditions: (i) it is incorporated under the laws of a Member State; (ii) it has its place of management (including effective management) in an EU member state; (iii) it has a permanent establishment in an EU member state and is not a Qualified Non-Union Platform Operator.
it is neither resident for tax purposes, nor incorporated or managed in an EU member state, nor has a permanent establishment in an EU member state, but facilitates the carrying out of a Relevant Activity by Reportable Sellers or a Relevant Activity involving the rental of immovable property located in an EU member state and is not a Qualified Non-Union Platform Operator.

On the other side, in order for an obliged ‘Reporting Platform Operator’ to assess which of the sellers trading on its Platform must included in the report to be submitted, the following elements must be checked:

“Seller”: A Platform user, either an individual or an Entity, that is registered at any moment during the Reportable Period on the Platform and carries out a Relevant Activity

“Active Seller”: Any Seller that either provides a Relevant Activity during the Reportable Period or is paid or credited consideration in connection with a Relevant Activity during the Reportable Period.

“Reportable Seller”: Any Active Seller (not specifically excluded from the scope of DAC7) that is resident in a Member State or that rented out immovable property located in a Member State.

In light of the above, a ‘Reporting Platform Operator’ shall collect the following information with regards to each Seller (not specifically excluded under DAC7) so as to be in a position to -among others- assess whether such Seller is a ‘Reportable Seller’:

the first and last name for individuals or the legal name for entities;
the primary address;
any Tax Identification Number (TIN) issued to that Seller, including each EU member state of issuance, and in the absence of a TIN, the place of birth of that Seller for individuals or the jurisdiction of incorporation for entities;
the VAT identification number of that Seller, where available;
the date of birth of that Seller for individuals or date of incorporation for entities; and
in case of entities, the existence of any permanent establishment through which Relevant Activities are carried out in the EU, where available.

According to DAC7 a ‘Reporting Platform Operator’ must, then, submit to the Tax Department, being the competent authority in the Republic of Cyprus the following information with regards to each ‘Reportable Seller’:

the first and last name for individuals or the legal name for entities;
the primary address;
any Tax Identification Number (TIN) issued to that Seller, including each EU member state of issuance, and in the absence of a TIN, the place of birth of that Seller for individuals or the jurisdiction of incorporation for entities;
the VAT identification number of that Seller, where available;
the date of birth of that Seller for individuals or date of incorporation for entities;
in case of entities, the existence of any permanent establishment through which Relevant Activities are carried out in the EU, where available;
the financial Account identifier, being unique identification reference number of the bank account or other similar payment services account to which the consideration (with regards to the provision of Relevant Activities) was / is paid or credited;
the name of the holder of the financial account to which the consideration was / is paid or credited, if different from that of the holder of the financial account identifier;
each Member State in which the Reportable Seller is resident;
the total consideration paid or credited during each quarter of the Reporting Period and the number of Relevant Activities in respect of which the said consideration was paid or credited; and
any fees, commissions or taxes withheld or charged by the Reporting Platform Operator during each quarter of the Reporting Period.

The overall purpose of DAC7 is to establish a common mechanism for securing the cooperation between the competent tax authorities of the EU member states as well as for facilitating the exchange of information between the EU member states for tax purposes. That said, compliance with the obligations imposed by DAC7 to obliged ‘Reporting Platform Operators’ is imperative in order, on the one side to ensure the implementation of DAC7 mechanism and, on the other side, avoid the consequences, penalties and/or other measures to be imposed by the competent authority in the Republic of Cyprus in case of failure of the Reporting Platform Operator to abide with its obligations.