The sentences of constitutional Court that canceled the alarm states have consequences, and one of them involves a change in the position of the Prosecutor’s office against the claims that are presented in the courts against the restrictions by Covid-19.
Thus, the Office of the Supreme Prosecutor has requested that the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the high court partial estimate of one of the appeals filed against the restrictions approved in January by the Valencian Community, regarding the limitation of groups of people in public spaces and that of the mobility at night.
The opinion, to which you have had access THE PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA, alludes to the resolutions of the constitutional court that censored the state of alarm as a legal instrument in the face of the pandemic to indicate that the general provisions issued in application of a legal norm declared unconstitutional “must be considered, correlatively, also null” and consequently devoid of legal consequences.
The letter from the Prosecutor’s Office, signed by the prosecutor Ricardo Gonzalez, adds that the resolutions issued by the court of guarantees against states of alarm must have “a special bonding for the courts of justice“According to the provisions of article 5 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ), so it must affect the decrees signed by the president Ximo Puig that were challenged before the high court by the lawyer Curro Nicolau.
In this sense, the Prosecutor’s Office understands that it is appropriate to declare the nullity of Decree 2/2021 in relation to the limitation of permanence of groups of people in public and private spaces and “concerning the limitations of mobility at night.” This is so because the power to agree on these measures was contained in the Royal Decree of October 2020, which gave freedom to the communities to agree on their own measures to fight the pandemic, a power of ‘cogobernanza’ which was declared unconstitutional by the TC.
The estimate requested by the Prosecutor’s Office is partial, since it leaves out other aspects of the decree such as those related to perimeter closures that were imposed in the Valencian Community for months. At this point, the prosecutor opposes the request of the Valencian lawyer, considering that the restrictions were validated with sufficient power of the Generalitat Valenciana.
The ruling of the Constitutional Court (TC) whose ruling was made public at the end of last October and which declares unconstitutional several provisions of the second state of alarm imposed by the Government in the face of the Covid-19 pandemic, including co-governance with the autonomous communities, begins to have consequences in various judicial bodies.
At the moment, two recent resolutions of the Supreme Court of Cantabria find fault in the limitations in hospitality and nightlife imposed during the summer of 2020, in the period of relative ‘normality’ between the two states of alarm decreed by the Government of Pedro Sánchez.
The judgments, of November 25 and December 9, respectively, respond to separate appeals promoted by Ecija Lawyers representing hoteliers of the Cantabrian night and the Association of Hospitality Businessmen of Cantabria against the limitations imposed by the regional government in August of the year of the declaration of the covid-19 pandemic.
In them, as advanced THE PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA, the judges also allude to the sections of the Constitutional Court (TC) resolutions that contemplate the limitations that affect the freedom of business, which, once established in the Royal Decree of the Government, could not “be expanded or modified but by the Council of Ministers itself, by means of a new decree that was immediately reported to the Congress of Deputies.
Regarding the Supreme Court, several appeals are still pending resolution that seek that the restrictions imposed under the umbrella of the provisions of the Pedro Sánchez Government are also declared null and void. Is about rules that are no longer in force, such as entry and exit limitations to certain territories that were in force for months.
Regarding the appointment of delegated competent authorities, the Constitutional Court ruling considers that, among other reasons, the provisions of the organic law are contravened to which article 116.1 of the Constitution reserves the regulation of states of crisis. and the corresponding powers and limitations.
Eddie is an Australian news reporter with over 9 years in the industry and has published on Forbes and tech crunch.