• Covid today Last minute live

  • 328 days in the ICU Sergio's blank year due to Covid

The Government of Pedro Sánchez has said it on several occasions in recent weeks: there is no need for a pandemic law.

The message has been heard loud and clear in the voice of the head of Health, Carolina Darias, and her counterpart in Justice, Pilar Llop.

"We do not make a pandemic law, because co-governance is effective," Llop said in an interview with this newspaper.

"We already have legislation in force, we do not need a pandemic law," said Darias in the Congress of Deputies recently.

Thus, the central government is not going to legislate in this direction and this work, which the judiciary considers unavoidable - as the president of the Contentious Chamber of the Supreme Court, César Tolosa told

Diario Médico

- is being carried out by the autonomous communities, the Supreme Court and the superior courts of justice of the autonomies.

César Cierco, professor of Administrative Law at the University of Lleida and specialist in Public Health, explains it like this: "In a certain way, the pandemic law is already being built in an indirect way at the moment, fundamentally,

through legislation that some autonomic legislators are approving ".

And it is not the first time that the autonomies go ahead of the national legislator in the regulation of matters

.

According to other jurists, before the approval of

the General Law of Public Health, in 2011,

many autonomies had already advanced in that direction. "And the same phenomenon also occurred with the Patient Autonomy Law, of 2002.

There are autonomous communities that have chosen to reform their regulatory framework, such as Galicia with its health law and

other communities, such as the Basque Country or Aragon, which have approved regulations with measures to manage the pandemic.

In the case of the Basque Country, for example, its Law 2/2021, of June 24, on measures for the management of the covid-19 pandemic is, for experts, a sample of what a pandemic law should be at the national level.

The Basque Country regulation first states that a declaration that there is a pandemic situation is necessary and then it includes a catalog of measures that can be adopted under that situation to control the virus: rules of distancing,

quarantine

, interpersonal distance, use of masks,

how to trace contacts ...

That is, a whole series of details that are not found in the organic law of public health, according to the lawyers consulted.

Another example that is also valid to know what a pandemic law is is Law 3/2020, of December 3, which establishes the legal health alert regime for the control of the covid-19 pandemic in Aragon, which also establishes a sanctioning regime for non-compliance.

Neither the norm of the Basque Country nor that of Aragon have been appealed to the Constitutional Court by the central government for invasion of competition, a risk that, according to experts, is very real in this type of regulation.

"There are matters that can only be regulated by organic law, that is,

by a rule approved by the national Parliament.

This is the case with all issues that limit fundamental rights, such as compulsory vaccination and therefore the reform of the health law of Galicia was taken to the Constitutional Court by the central government, due to an invasion of powers ".

Who put the bell to the cat?

This tug of war between powers in terms of limitation of rights during the pandemic has resulted in autonomic court orders saying yes or no to the requests of the autonomies to confine towns, islands or provinces and, more recently, to approve or not the use of the covid passport. Now the horizon on this issue has cleared thanks to the

Supreme Court rulings but, until then, there have been many legal doubts.

The pulse in this whole question - what can be done and what not - has been fought between autonomies, Supreme Court and Supreme Court.

The central government has seen the bulls from the sidelines

. However, this regional and judicial effort to provide us with pandemic regulation will not be enough in the eyes of experts such as

José Carlos López Martínez, a lawyer at the Supreme Court

, and

Josefa Cantero, professor of Administrative Law at the University of Castilla -La Mancha, former president of Sespas.

"Taking into account

the fundamental rights

that are at stake, a state organic regulation is more convenient than a unitary treatment of the problem and its responses. It does not make sense that if we speak of a pandemic -as a global problem- measures of such reduced application are adopted It makes no sense to tackle global problems with local regulation.

Furthermore, I wish there were European regulations to ensure that the same measures are taken

, "says López Martínez.

But, in addition, the magistrate highlights the inconsistencies and inequalities involved in adopting and approving different measures in neighboring territories.

Regarding the regional regulations of the pandemic, Cantero Martínez recalls that "the problem is in the limitation of fundamental rights, that now we only have one law, 86 of special measures in public health, with four articles. It is a very valid, but at this point we must provide ourselves with the necessary legal framework and that cannot be done by the autonomous communities. "

I think it would be more appropriate to reformulate the organic law of

states of alarm, exception and siege, in light of the two judgments of the Constitutional Court on the two states of alarm, and add there, as a specific assumption, the state of alarm to face pandemics and other health risks that may occur in the future

.

"

Legislative work that cannot be delegated

The professor of Administrative Law recalls that "if a pandemic scenario arises in the future, the state of alarm would not allow the Government to suspend fundamental rights nor would it give legal coverage to the Autonomous Communities so that they could adopt measures limiting these rights. ,

rethinking the model and the appropriate instrument for this is an organic law,

which has the necessary range to influence fundamental rights and modify the states of alarm and exception in the terms agreed by a majority in the Cortes Generales ", reflects Cantero .

And in this sense, it leaves no doubt that only the state legislator "can adopt such regulatory reforms through an organic law, as recently recommended by bodies such as

the Council of State (Opinion 213/2021, of March 22) and

the Supreme Court in its judgment 719/2021, of May 24 ".

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • Coronavirus

  • Covid 19

  • Science and Health

Coronavirus The omicron data: it is "extremely contagious"

Health "The Ministry has never wanted to get out of the use of the Covid passport for international flights. We have felt alone"

Salud Eleven autonomies will ask for the Covid passport to go to restaurants or discos despite opposition from Health

See links of interest

  • Last News

  • What

  • 2022 business calendar

  • Check Christmas Lottery

  • Covid passport

  • 2021 Christmas Lottery Prizes

  • Loteria del Niño 2022

  • Second Prize Lottery 2021

  • El Gordo de la Loteria

  • Check Child's Lottery

  • Newcastle United - Manchester United