No Es Legal El Confinamiento

The debate over when restrictions should be eased to slow the spread of COVID-19, which has killed more than 40,000 Americans, has become more politically explosive in recent days as President Donald Trump has voiced support for protests calling for an end to the lockdown. Spain imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in the world from March 2020. No one was allowed to leave the house except for essential tasks such as food, medicine or going to work. Outdoor exercise was prohibited. The Spanish Constitutional Court ruled on Wednesday (July 14th) that the detention imposed by the government in spring 2020 to stem the spread of the coronavirus was illegal. The vice-president appointed by the PSOE joined the votes of González-Trevijano herself and those of Antonio Narváez, Santiago Martínez-Vares, Ricardo Enríquez and Alfredo Montoya, all proposed by the PP. The three judges proposed by the PSOE, María Luisa Balaguer, Juan Antonio Xiol and former Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido, ruled in favour of the detention order. alongside the conservatives Juan José González Rivas (President of the Court) and Andrés Ollero. The problem arose from certain decisions taken at its own level, such as the general imprisonment of the population in what some authors have called “real house arrest”. The landmark decision opens the door to lifting much of the 1.2 million penalties imposed over the 98 days the settlement lasted (those that are not yet fixed, of course), but it remains to be seen whether it would also allow for a cascade of lawsuits filed with the state for economic damages caused by the total limitation to businesses and individuals. The new decision, which is still being drafted and could change, aims to exempt the administration from civil liability, as citizens have a “legal obligation” to suffer damages in an emergency situation such as a pandemic of this magnitude.

The vice-president of the Constitutional Court, Encarnación Roca, declared illegal the crucial vote on the declaration of the first state of alert imposed during the first wave of the pandemic in March 2020. But here, digital newspaper (La Voz de Asturias), that we are in a corner of thought opinion, not simple hobby or abandonment of simple amateurs, we must argue, and contribute to the fact that “ordinary people” also understand the incomprehensible. When asked why and why there is so much noise or friction, that if the legal issue had been the state of emergency instead of the state of alarm, there are in question, as I said, theoretically so basic, several explanations, including a number of them, but now we are left with two: A and B, which is enough to think slowly. The state of alert under house arrest ordered by Pedro Sánchez`s government between March 14 and June 21, 2020 to stop the first wave of the coronavirus was illegal. A constitutional court was divided almost into two rulings that the detention stipulated in Article 7 of the Alert Decree did not enjoy the protection of the Magna Carta. This is because it was a suspension of fundamental rights and not a mere limitation of them, as the central executive asserted in the legal justification of the decree abolishing the Court of guarantees that violate the Constitution. The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the limitation of the first state of alert by six votes to five. On Monday evening, the parties (Vox and State Advocacy) were informed of the verdict and four of the five individual votes were announced.

The arguments of the six judges, who form the majority and the minority, fundamentally disagree on one point: the mobility restrictions agreed by Pedro Sánchez to fight the pandemic were a restriction or suspension, and whether it depends whether they can be reconciled with a state of alert or whether it should be a state of emergency. In any event, if he decided it was unconstitutional, there would be no room for future claims for damages in prison, but that would only have implications for the future. The decision was taken by a narrow majority, with 6 votes in favour of the declaration of illegality of the Royal Decree, against 5 against. The first consequence of this will be the abolition of all fines for mobility restrictions imposed during this period, which are null and void. In addition, legal sources indicate that the way is open for litigation in the disputed administration and that the administration is seeking damages for issues such as the closure of a company. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) want temporary regulations that exempt employers who have adhered to official health and safety guidelines from their legal responsibilities. By a majority of 6 judges to 5, the court declared the placement unconstitutional, as well as the Health Ministry`s power to modify and extend lockdown measures in commercial activities. The full court decision will be released in the coming days, but it issued a brief statement saying parts of the lockdown were unconstitutional. There are different points of view among the judges. According to legal sources consulted by laSexta, three judges of the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the presentation of Judge Pedro González, who pledged to declare this first state of alert illegal and to give the reason to Vox. This line considers that a state of emergency was necessary to restrict freedom of movement.

Spain is also grappling with increasing litigation as a fifth wave of coronavirus hits its younger, unvaccinated population. Two articles of the Royal Decree, illegal for the TC The so-called “ordinary people”, also called “the man / woman of the street”, who in English are called exactly the ordinary people, do not understand that there is so much discussion, so much gossip or Guirigay with contradictory and confused opinions, whether it is the declaration of the state of alert by the Spanish government, Royal Decree 465/2020 of 17. The march to deal with the health crisis caused by COVID-19 was totally or partially legal or illegal. Constitutional Court ruling no. 148/2021 of 14 July did not dispel doubts or put an end to the debates declaring unconstitutional the house arrest “imposed” by Pedro Sánchez. The verdict of the eleven judges of the constitutional court did not bring peace and added fuel to the fire, which has already been declared by some and others. The decision has so far divided the court, which had already decided last June to postpone the case to this week`s appeal, in which judges analyzed the presentation that questions the constitutionality of some mobility restriction measures – such as home accommodation – applied by Pedro Sánchez`s executive at the beginning of the pandemic. The majority of the plenary assembly of the Constitutional Court is of the opinion that the domestic imprisonment of the first state of alert, ordered by the government in March 2020, exceeded the limits of this state of emergency contained in the Constitution and was therefore neither legal nor constitutional.

In this sense, the judicial authority considers that a state of emergency should have been declared to order such detention. That is to say, a measure that necessarily requires the agreement of the Chamber of Deputies. A.- Power, written in capital letters, is a ghost, but it is also a reality, sometimes horrible and terrifying, which, like vipers who feel harassed, can kill. To defeat them, politicians must make promises of charity, exemplarity and preaching of pious things, the pulpit, the truth, the common good and other generalities. Once power is conquered to preserve it, those who govern have the same events, realistic and dangerous, as the Florentines Machiavelli; sometimes act like crazy or neurotic; sometimes Nerones and sometimes Caligulas. And if a court has the idea to say that the government is committing illegalities, then its spokesmen, lawyers, press and even “judges” will announce the opposite. We will leave for a next and second part the unconstitutionality (punishment and special votes) of the house arrest, which was ordered by the government in the first state of alert.