Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Spain, Basque Country High Court, 5 May 2022, Judgement 209/2022

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Spain
Case ID
Judgement 209/2022
Decision date
5 May 2022
ECLI
ECLI:ES:TSJPV:2022:722
Deciding body (English)
Basque Country High Court
Deciding body (Original)
Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Administrative Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
Appellate on fact and law
Area
Freedom to conduct a business
Further areas addressed
Industrial relations / Labor law
Outcome of the decision
Claim upheld
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available on poderjudicial.es

Case analisys

General Summary

The Basque Country High Court of Justice had to decide whether reopening restrictions imposed on bars and restaurants infringed upon the freedom to conduct a business and the right to work. They were annulled since the regional Government did not justify their adequacy, necessity, and proportionality.

Facts of the case

Decree 44/2020 of December 10 provided for, inter alia, restrictions on the reopening of bars and restaurants depending on the incidence rate of Covid-19 in different areas of the region (Art. 9.1 of the annex). Two hotel associations and one enterprise appealed the provision before the Basque Country High Court arguing that it infringed upon the freedom to conduct a business and the right to work.

Type of measure challenged
Local government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Annulment of section 9.1 of the annex of Decree 44/20 of December 10 and the third disposition of Decree 4/2021 of January 22
Individual / collective enforcement
Action brought by a specific group of claimants in their own interest for the purpose of injunctive measures or other remedies, including the annulment of administrative decisions, for the protection of a more general collective interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private collective
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

The Court considered that the measures adopted followed the criteria provided for in Plan Bizi Berri II (a contingency plan that established different scenarios regarding the Covid-19 incidence rate). Thus, the closure of bars and restaurants was justified in light of the health circumstances of that moment. In addition, the Court considered the adoption of restrictive measures to be perfectly justified concerning that specific sector (catering industry) and not others. Bars and restaurants were places in which most contagions took place and in which it was more difficult to track them. However, the Court highlighted that the opening restrictions on the catering industry in the Basque Country were neither justified nor proportional. The Government did not provide any concrete information about the adequacy of the restrictions imposed on that sector. There was only information about Covid outbreaks in homes which, nevertheless, did not have to be taken into account. It was subsequent to the decisions adopted by the regional Government. In addition, the information suggested that there was a high incidence rate of Covid-19 not only in bars and restaurants, but also in schools and work environments. Therefore there was no reason to impose restrictions only on the former.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court determined that the Basque Country Government did not make an analysis about the adequacy, necessity and proportionality of the opening restrictions imposed on bars and restaurants and declared those measures invalid as a result.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Freedom to conduct a business
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
  • Freedom to conduct a business, Art. 38, Spanish Constitution
  • Right to work, Art. 35, Spanish Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
  • Health v. economic freedoms
  • Health v. freedom to conduct a business
General principle applied
Proportionality
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The Court drew upon the proportionality principle. Since proportionality requirements were not met in the Government’s decision, the measures imposed were invalid.

Author of the case note
Professor Patricia Garcia Majado, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law, Oviedo University
Published by Marco Nicolò on 24 October 2022

More cases from Spain

  • Spain, Constitutional Court, 2 June 2022, Judgment 70/2022
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to an effective remedy
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Galicia High Court of Justice, 23 May 2022, Judgement 198/2022
    Area: Privacy and data protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of information; Right to data protection; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Asturias High Court, 18 April 2022, Judgement 356/2022
    Area: Education
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to education
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Lugo Administrative Court (No. 1), 11 February 2022, Judgement 24/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 19 May 2022, Judgment 462/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 22 February 2022, Judgement 168/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Spain

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Spain, Basque Country High Court, 5 May 2022, Judgement 209/2022
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies