Abstract
The states of alarm declared in Spain to address the COVID-19 pandemic have restricted multiple fundamental rights. While such restrictive states of alarm are not new in our constitutional history since 1978, the scale of the restrictions and the nature of rights affected is unprecedented, as some of them, especially political rights, have never been the focus of the previous states of alarms declared in the country. This chapter explores how the state of alarm relates to the limitation of the right to political participation and to the Spanish judicial response in light of the challenge posed by the pandemic. It examines the legal basis for the restrictions on political rights under the state of alarm, the decisions taken by Spanish public authorities limiting those rights during the pandemic and the judicial response to the measures. Surprisingly, the customary deference of the courts during emergencies has vanished. The Spanish judiciary has actively protected political rights and deployed a model of judicial review that formally and substantially stresses the protection of political rights even in times of crisis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
Wiley (2020), pp. 179–183.
- 4.
In the case of Spain, before the states of alarm declared during the COVID-19 pandemic, a state of alarm was declared on 4 December 2010 during an air traffic controller strike (See Royal Decree 1673/2010, of 4 December).
- 5.
The first state of alarm during the COVID-19 pandemic that affected the entire national territory was declared by the Government on 14 March 2020 and ended on 21 June 2020 (see Royal Decree 436/2020, of 14 March, which the Congress of Deputies or lower house of Parliament successively renewed six times). The second state of alarm, which only applied to certain municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, was declared by the Government on 9 October 2020 and ended on 24 October 2020 (see Royal Decree 900/2020, of 9 October). Finally, the third state of alarm, again with national scope, was declared by the Government on 25 October 2020 and ended the 9 May 2021 (see Royal Decree 926/2020, of 25 October, renewed once by the Congress of Deputies, Resolution 29 October 2020, an extension declared unconstitutional by the Judgment of the SCC n° 183/2021, of 27 October, para. 8).
- 6.
I will refer to some of the demonstrations held and the response of the Spanish judiciary in the pages that follow. Regarding the elections, parliamentary elections in the Autonomous Communities of the Basque Country and Galicia were held on 12 July 2020, on 14 February 2021 in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia, and on 4 May 2021 in the Autonomous Community of Madrid (this one will not be analyzed because it did not entail any legal challenge from the point of view of the pandemic).
- 7.
Greene (2021), pp. 110–111.
- 8.
The right to peaceful unarmed assembly is recognized in Article 21 of the Spanish Constitution (“SC”), the right to hold free elections is recognized in Article 23 SC.
- 9.
Articles 116.2 and 3 SC.
- 10.
Ibid. In the case of the state of alarm, the initial declaration of the Government is only valid for 15 days and any subsequent extension requires the authorization of the Congress of Deputies. In the case of the state of emergency, the declaration lasts no more than 30 days, and the Congress of Deputies may only extend it for one additional 30-day period.
- 11.
Article 116.4 SC. In the case of a state of siege, the duration is decided by the Congress of Deputies without any constitutional limitation.
- 12.
Article 116.5 SC.
- 13.
Article 116.6 SC.
- 14.
See Article 116.1 SC. Currently, this is Organic Law 4/1981, of 1 June, on the states of alarm, emergency, and siege.
- 15.
Under Organic Law 4/1981, a state of alarm may be declared in cases of catastrophe, health crisis, paralysis of essential public services or shortage of primary goods (Article 4); the state of emergency corresponds to cases of severe threat to the public order (when fundamental rights, the normal operation of the democratic institutions or essential public services are in grave jeopardy) (Article 13); and the state of siege may be declared in case of insurrection or when force is used to attack against the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity or the constitutional order (Article 32).
- 16.
Article 55.1 SC.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
The initial 15-day period of the state of alarm provided by Royal Decree 1673/2010, of 4 December by the Government was extended by the Congress of Deputies until 15 January 2011 (Resolution of 16 December 2010).
- 19.
- 20.
See SCC Judgment n° 83/2016, of 28 April and SCC Decision n° 7/2012, of 13 January.
- 21.
The case against the royal decrees declaring the state of alarm was brought before the SCC by individuals affected by the measures—air controllers—through an individual constitutional complaint (recurso de amparo).
- 22.
The first state of alarm (March-June 2020) had national scope and was in place for 98 days. It contained the most severe restrictions (particularly the stay-at-home order, Article 7.1 Royal Decree 463/2020). The second state of alarm (October 2020) was in place for 15 days and only applied to some of the municipalities in the Autonomous Community of Madrid (a municipal lockdown was established in the concerned cities by Article 5.1 Royal Decree 900/2020, of 9 October). The third state of alarm (October 2020-May 2020), again of national scope, was in place for 166 days and imposed restrictive measures such as prohibiting travel between Autonomous Communities and a curfew, but not a general stay-at-home order (see Articles 5 and 6 Royal Decree 926/2020, of 25 October).
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
Velasco Caballero (2020), pp. 80–82.
- 26.
Perea González (2020), p. 1.
- 27.
- 28.
This modification was introduced by the Final Provision 1.1 of the Royal Decree 514/2020, of 8 May.
- 29.
See Article 7.1.bis and Additional Provision n° 7 of Royal Decree 463/2020, of 14 March.
- 30.
See Additional Provision n° 1 of Royal Decree 926/2020, of 25 October.
- 31.
See Article 7.3 of Royal Decree 926/2020, of 25 October.
- 32.
See Decree n° 45/2020, of 18 March, of the Galician Government and Decree n° 7/2020, of 17 March, of the Basque Country Government, both postponing the elections.
- 33.
See Decree n° 1/2021, of 15 January, of the Catalan Government.
- 34.
Lamelas (2021), p. 1.
- 35.
Ituren Oliver and Esteve Segarra (2020), pp. 6–11.
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
The demonstrations planned for Women’s Day on 8 March 2021 provide an example of the confusion. Demonstrations were allowed everywhere in the country except in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, where the demonstrations were banned by the competent public authority because of the infection statistics in the region (Ugarte 2021).
- 38.
Up until now, the SCC has decided the constitutional challenge against the first state of alarm (Judgment of the SCC n° 148/2021, of 14 July) and the third state of alarm (Judgment n° 183/2021, of 27 October). In addition, still pending before the SCC is a question of unconstitutionality promoted by the High Court of Aragon regarding the power of ordinary courts of carrying out an ex-ante proportionality review of any public health restrictive measure decided by public authorities (see the decision of the SCC in case n° 6283-2020). This power was introduced by Law n° 3/2020, of 18 September, modifying the wording of Article 10.8 of Law n° 29/1998, of 13 July, of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction.
- 39.
Judgment of the SCC n° 148/2021, of 14 July, para. 5. The SCC concludes in the same line regarding the third state of alarm and the measures provided for the limitation of permanent groups up to six persons in the public space (see Judgment of the SCC n° 183/2021, of 27 October, para. 6).
- 40.
Judgment of the SCC n° 183/2021, of 27 October, para. 8.
- 41.
Ibid. at para. 10.
- 42.
Judgment of the SCC n° 148/2021, of 14 July, para. 6.
- 43.
Ibid.
- 44.
See SCC Decision n° 40/2020 of 30 April, and the case before the SCC n° 1293-2021, which is still pending.
- 45.
In the case of Galicia, the High Court validated the decision of the public authorities to prohibit a demonstration on 1 May 2020 to mark International Workers’ Day (see the Judgment of the High Court of Galicia n° 136/2020, of 28 April). In the case of Madrid, the High Court validated the prohibition of demonstrations on 8 March 2021 to celebrate International Women’s Day (see the Judgment of the High Court of Madrid n° 184/2021, of 7 March).
- 46.
Decision of the SCC n° 40/2020, of 30 April, para. 4.
- 47.
Ibid.
- 48.
Fernández de Gatta Sánchez (2020), p. 1.
- 49.
Indeed, ordinary courts of different jurisdictions have intervened, as have courts with different territorial scopes. Particularly, the High Courts of each Autonomous Communities have been called on to review the different restrictive measures adopted by the regional Governments in application of Article 10.8 of Law 29/1998.
- 50.
By the end of the third and the last state of alarm, Article 15 of Royal Decree Law n° 8/2021, of 4 May, introduced a new cassational appeal before the Supreme Court which may be used against the Autonomous Communities High Courts’ judgments decided in application of Article 10.8 of Law 29/1998 (ex-ante proportionality review of public health restrictive measures implemented by public authorities). The utility and practicality of this new appeal for the post-state alarm era remain to be tested. Until July 2021, only three times the Supreme Court has decided under this new appeal (see SSC Judgement n° 719/2021, of 24 May, SSC Judgment n° 788/2021, of 3 June, and SSC Decision n° 6719/2021, of 20 May).
- 51.
See, inter alia, the following decisions in which the judiciary have validated the limitations and prohibitions on demonstrations: Judgment of the High Court of Navarra n° 70/2020, of 30 April; Judgment of the High Court of Castilla and Leon n° 90/2020, of 30 April; Judgment of the High Court of Madrid n° 195/2020, of 30 April. For examples of judgments annulling the prohibitions on demonstrations, see: Judgment of the High Court of Navarra n° 69/2020, of 30 April; Judgment of the High Court of Aragon n° 151/2020, of 30 April; Judgment of the High Court of Castilla and Leon n° 462/2020, of 21 May; Judgment of the High Court of Madrid n° 214/2020, of 21 May; Judgment of the High Court of Catalonia n° 1391/2020, of 22 May.
- 52.
Judgment of the High Court of Navarra n° 69/2020, of 30 April, para. 6.
- 53.
Particularly, the demonstration was to respect the total limit of 60 participants, each in an enclosed vehicle with only one person per vehicle. See Judgment of the Superior Court of Aragon n° 151/2020, of 30 April, para. 6.
- 54.
See Judgment of the High Court of Catalonia n° 121/2021, of 1 February.
- 55.
Judgment of the High Court of Catalonia n° 121/2021, of 1 February, para. 6.
- 56.
Ibid. at para. 8.
- 57.
Bossacoma Busquets (2021), p. 1.
References
Aba Catoira A (2011) El estado de alarma en España. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 28:305–334
Álvarez García FJ (2020) Estado de alarma o de excepción. Estudios Penales y Criminológicos 40:1–20
Bossacoma Busquets P (2021) Un poder perillós? Reflexions sobre l’activisme judicial contra l’ajornament electoral. Blog Revista catalana de dret públic, 10 February [online]. Available at: https://eapc-rcdp.blog.gencat.cat/2021/02/10/un-poder-perillos-reflexions-sobre-lactivisme-judicial-contra-lajornament-electoral-pau-bossacoma-busquets/ (Accessed 25 May 2022)
Cole D (2003) Judging the next emergency: judicial review and individual rights in times of crisis. Mich Law Rev 101:2565–2595
Fabbrini F (2010) The role of the judiciaries in times of emergency: Judicial review of counter-terrorism measures in the US Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. Yearb Eur Law 28(1):664–697
Fabbrini F (2014) The Euro-Crisis and the courts: judicial review and the political process in comparative perspective. Berkeley J Int Law 32(1):64–123
Fernández de Gatta Sánchez D (2020) El Estado de Alarma y las medidas contra el coronavirus ante jueces y tribunales. Diario La Ley 9655, 3 June [online]. Available at: https://diariolaley.laleynext.es/dll/2020/06/17/el-estado-de-alarma-y-las-medidas-contra-el-coronavirus-ante-jueces-y-tribunales (Accessed 25 May 2022)
Garrido López C (2020) La naturaleza bifronte del estado de alarma y el dilema limitación-suspensión de derechos. Teoría y Realidad Constitucional 46:371–402
Greene J (2021) How rights went wrong: why our obsession with rights is tearing America apart. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston
Ituren Oliver A, Esteve Segarra A (2020) El ejercicio del derecho de manifestación (sindical o no) durante la pandemia por el Covid-19. Trabajo y Derecho 12:1–22
Lamelas M (2021) Inseguridad jurídíca en Cataluña: aluvión de recursos contra la anulación del 14-F. El Confidencial, 19 January [online]. Available at: https://www.elconfidencial.com/espana/cataluna/2021-01-19/inseguridad-juridica-cataluna-aluvion-recursos_2912488/(Accessed 25 May 2022)
Mayoral JA, Torres Pérez A (2018) On judicial mobilization: entrepreneuring for policy change at times of crisis. J Eur Integr 40(6):719–736
Nogueira López A (2020) Confinar el coronavirus. Entre el viejo Derecho sectorial y el Derecho de excepción. El Cronista del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho 86–87:22–31
Perea González A (2020) Apología de la forma: Covid-19 y seguridad jurídica. Diario La Ley 9657, 9 June [online]. Available at: https://diariolaley.laleynext.es/Content/Documento.aspx?params=H4sIAAAAAAAEAMtMSbF1CTEAAmNDQxNDI7Wy1KLizPw827DM9NS8klQA9HwZeSAAAAA=WKE (Accessed 25 May 2022)
Siera Mucientes S (2020) Estado de alarma. Eunomía. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad 19:275–305
Ugarte I (2021) La Delegación del Gobierno en Madrid prohíbe todas las manifestaciones del 8-M. El País, 4 March [online]. Available at: https://elpais.com/espana/madrid/2021-03-04/la-delegacion-del-gobierno-prohibe-todas-las-manifestaciones-del-8-m-que-le-han-sido-comunicadas.html (Accessed 25 May 2022)
Velasco Caballero F (2020) Estado de alarma y distribución territorial del poder. El Cronista del Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho 86–87:78–87
Vidal Prado C, Delgado Ramos D (2011) Algunas consideraciones sobre la declaración del estado de alarma y su prórroga. Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional 92:243–265
Villar Crespo G (2020) Repensando el derecho de excepción: la crisis del coronavirus y los tres aprendizajes sobre el derecho de necesidad en el ordenamiento jurídico español. Revista General de Derecho Administrativo 54:1–52
Wiley L (2020) Coronavirus, civil liberties, and the courts: the case against ‘suspending’ judicial review. Harv Law Rev Forum 133(9):179–198
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Solanes Mullor, J. (2022). Protecting Political Rights During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Emergence of Strict Scrutiny in Spain. In: Chrysogonos, K., Tsiftsoglou, A. (eds) Democracy after Covid. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13901-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13901-7_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-13900-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-13901-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)