The Main Trends in Constitutional Jurisprudence Developed by Constitutional Courts During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The article analyses the problems related to the constitutionality of the legislation adopted during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular, it examines how European constitutional courts were looking for new, or somewhat forgotten, ways of interpreting the constitution and searching for a proper balance between the interests of the individual vis-à-vis those of society, whether the executive authorities did not overstep their powers, whether the states properly chose the specific legal regulation to control the pandemic, whether the requirement that human rights restrictions to control the pandemic must be based on law remained unchanged during the pandemic, and whether the precautionary principle is not a substitute for the constitutional principle of proportionality. The article considers if constitutional courts faced the dilemma as to whether the justification for the differentiated implementation of human rights based on a specific criterion in time of the pandemic could be constitutional. The pandemic situation also highlighted the importance of scientific knowledge in addressing public and human health issues in constitutional jurisprudence. The article is based on several decisions adopted by constitutional courts of European countries during the pandemic, which seem to highlight some important trends in constitutional jurisprudence in this respect.