The High Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands authorizes the restrictive measures that the Government urgently approved yesterday, which remain the same as in recent months, but will be renewed once the state of alarm is lifted next Sunday.
Although the legal arguments that support the court’s decision are not known, the Chamber has advanced this morning the result of this decision and has communicated the decision to the parties involved in the proceedings, including the Government and the Prosecutor of the Balearic Islands, which opposed the maintenance of these restrictions, believing that they violated fundamental rights.
The limitations that have judicial support were agreed on last Wednesday afternoon. The Consell de Govern agreed to maintain the curfew from eleven at night until six in the morning, and also decided to limit family and social gatherings to a maximum of six people. In the same agreement it was also decided to maintain the control of passengers travelling to the Balearic Islands and to request a PCR test, along with limiting the capacity to 50% in places of worship.
Again, the decision of the court that has resolved these legal doubts has not been unanimous. Once again, the majority of three magistrates has been imposed against their two colleagues, who have defended that the Executive cannot impose these limitations without the protection represented by the state of alarm, because these limitations can violate the fundamental rights of citizens.
The TSJB’s decision was immediate. It was adopted the day after the Executive raised a second lawsuit, since the first was not even accepted for processing as the court believed it could not assess the legality of restrictions that had not yet been agreed or approved. The reaction of the Executive to the magistrates’ decision was immediate. In the afternoon the Consell de Govern met and approved these restrictions, justifying that they were necessary measures to control the spread of the coronavirus and to end the health pandemic. The Executive decided to extend the same limitations that were already in force during the state of alarm and went to the High Court to clarify whether there were legal tools to maintain the same restrictions.
The court has limited itself to advancing its decision, but has not yet drafted the legal grounds that support this agreement of the five judges. Just as two of the five judges of the Chamber showed their disagreement with the agreed majority decision, and drafted separate opinions explaining their decision, they are also expected to do so once the Chamber has entered into the merits of the issue at hand. These two judges were in favour of departing from formal issues, accepting the first claim and resolving the substance of the legal issue raised by the Executive.