Spanish Constitutional Court Revises Fundamental Rights Doctrine Amid Health Crisis Controversy
The Spanish Constitutional Court (TC) has made a significant shift in its legal doctrine regarding the restriction of fundamental rights during health emergencies. This change comes in light of a legal challenge from Vox against the Galician health law 8/2021, which provides for various preventive measures in health crisis situations, including isolation, hospitalization, and mandatory vaccination.
Previously, in its ruling 148/2021 concerning the state's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the TC established that the degree of interference in fundamental rights was not a key factor in distinguishing between the suspension and restriction of these rights. At that time, it was ruled that a state of alarm would suffice to impose restrictions on fundamental rights as long as they aligned with the constitutional principles of necessity and proportionality.
However, the court's recent ruling clarifies that the suspension of fundamental rights is only permissible under specific conditions, namely during a declared state of exception or siege. The TC, represented by progressive judge and former minister Juan Carlos Campo in this instance, dismissed the notion that the Galician law constituted grounds for such a suspension. The judges emphasized that the possibility of restricting fundamental rights rests not solely on the intensity of the measures implemented but rather on the legal framework established during an emergency.
This new doctrine delineates that the state of exception applies primarily in scenarios of severe public disturbances, while the state of alarm can address issues related to health crises and natural disasters. According to sources familiar with the TC's decision, this revision of the 2021 ruling enables a more flexible approach to imposing restrictions in the face of health emergencies without the prior need for a state of exception declaration. This fundamentally alters the legal landscape surrounding public health responses in Spain, allowing for a more robust and immediate governmental reaction in the face of health crises.
Critically, this change is seen as necessary for improving the state’s ability to manage health emergencies effectively. The prior requirement for a state of exception was viewed as overly restrictive, potentially hampering timely responses to public health threats. The TC's updated interpretation emphasizes that, as long as restrictions are enacted with proportionality, the state of alarm is a sufficient legal basis for the imposition of necessary public health measures.
As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose challenges globally, Spain's Constitutional Court has taken a significant step in adapting its legal framework to better align with public health needs, thereby facilitating a more nuanced balancing act between safeguarding public health and protecting individual rights.
Related Sources: