The Government of Latvia adopted the decision on emergency situation due to COVID-19 on 12 March to apply until 14 April. For the time being, this period has been extended once to 12 May. This post considers the applicable legal framework, concrete limitations adopted by the Saeima (Parliament) and the Government are described, followed by an assessment from the point of view of European Union values.
Argentina’s government has been adopting numerous and significant decisions in the face of the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. But: Almost all the relevant decisions adopted by the Executive Branch were decisions that belonged to the Legislative Branch: Congress is the only authority legally authorized to adopt them. In other words, the Executive Power is not authorized to do what it has been doing so far.
Were we ready for the crisis? I do not mean whether Switzerland had enough hospital beds and ventilators, but whether its Federal Constitution was ready. Arguably, the former are vital, and as regards the latter, Switzerland is under no suspicion of losing its quality as a democracy and a Rechtsstaat. Still, the constitutional questions raised by the Corona crisis are troubling. The federal government is applying emergency powers unheard of since WW2, and which were previously unimaginable for most. Legal scholars are only starting to grapple the full implications of the crisis.
Once the first case of COVID-19 was reported on 9 March 2020, the Republic of Cyprus introduced emergency measures to contain the spread of the virus, as per the powers granted under the Constitution in the event of emergency. Following scientific advice, the Cypriot Government responded quickly by limiting temporarily personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, disrupting once again the constitutional legal order.
In times of neoliberalism, it is healthy hearing the Prime Minister Xavier Bettel of Luxembourg say that “the protection of health and life takes precedence over economic interests”. But this declaration came in the context of the recourse to extraordinary emergency powers, on the day before the Government declared the “state of crisis” to face the Coronavirus situation. In Luxembourg, this tool to regulate emergencies has progressively found its path into the Constitution while elsewhere in Europe philosophers or public law professors argued that a constitutional state of emergency entails the paradox of “constitutionalising the absence of constitution”. It is therefore important to reflect on the effects of the conjugation of these two discourses into the sanitary crisis and their effect on democracy and human rights protection.
Due to its violent past of a 36 year-long internal armed conflict and the scourge of corruption, the COVID-19 pandemic presents to Guatemala great challenges that goes beyond ensuring healthcare to its population. The excessive use of imprisonment in the enforcement of sanitary measures, the protection of detained persons, ensuring the effective implementation of financial assistance programs, achieving accountability of public servants during the crisis, and the reactivation of the judiciary are some of the issues that demands a proper answer from the Guatemalan state. This post analyzes the “emergency state” implemented in Guatemala and presents some of the measures and effects related to the current crisis.
As the number of infected persons is declining and the overall situation gradually improving, it becomes clear that the measures have proved to be effective from a public health perspective. However, in light of the general retreat of the virus the upholding of many measures also becomes contestable now regarding their proportionality. With the improvement of the public health issues, the challenge for the rule of law has begun. Will the government be able to restrain itself and find a way back to constitutional normality?
Botswana, a country with a population slightly over two million, has recently joined countries that took stringent measures necessary to contain the spread of COVID-19. On the 31 March 2020 President Dr. Mokgweetsi E. K. Masisi declared a state of public emergency. This was the second time a state of public emergency was declared since Botswana attained independence in 1966.
All legal measures limiting human rights in response to COVID-19 adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine are made pursuant with respective clauses of two specific legal acts: the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine (art. 16) and Law “On the protection of the population from infectious diseases” (art. 3). The said legislation empowers the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as a key body in the protection of the population against infectious diseases with a broad margin of appreciation. However, more importantly, is that the Ukrainian Constitution envisages a restriction on certain rights and freedoms if these restrictions are prescribed by law in the interests of protecting the health of the population. Ukrainian think tanks and NGOs express deep concern on unconstitutionality of limitations of human rights caused by the Government’s measures to fight COVID-19.
Since the Slovenian declaration of an epidemic on 12 March 2020, a number of measures have been proposed, adopted and rejected in order to stop the spreading of the disease. Importantly, a state of emergency has not been declared. Nevertheless, in the past 6 weeks, interpretations and amendments of the existing statutory framework have also caused concerns from the constitutional point of view.
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters