• Direct Coronavirus crisis

  • The sentence "A norm that supposes the suspension of the right, proscribed in the state of alarm"

  • Justice Conde-Pumpido withdraws from his vote the harshest expressions after the protests of six magistrates

The Constitutional Court communicated on Friday the last private vote against the sentence that annulled the confinement of the first state of alarm.

It was the one drawn up by the magistrate

Antonio Xiol

, who has been delayed in its preparation and was not ready last Tuesday, when the sentence and the other four dissenting votes were released.

In his writing, the progressive magistrate sets out his thesis that there was no suspension of fundamental rights as such and that the appropriate instrument to impose confinement was not the state of exception, as the sentence held, but that of alarm.

"What determines the declaration of one state or another is not the severity of the crisis, but the type of crisis, that is, whether the emergency situation has its origin in a serious alteration of public security [exception] or in another kind of circumstances [alarm] And he adds that the 6-5 that tipped the vote in favor of the state of emergency could be reversed if in the future the matter was re-examined with a different composition of the court.

"I believe that an evolution of the jurisprudence in this matter cannot be ruled out in the future, in the event that this issue was submitted again to the Court," affirms the magistrate after presenting one of the arguments that, by itself, should have led to the court to endorse the state of alarm.


In 2022

"The suitability of the state of exception to oppose health catastrophes, proclaimed a priori, in the abstract and by a minimal majority in the sentence, is not combined, among other things, with the 60-day period that the Constitution peremptorily imposes on This state. The majority opinion on which the judgment is based does not contain any explanation about this point, which is of great importance from an argumentative perspective, since it seems sufficient to disallow the state of exception for the purpose for which the Court believes it. skilled". Following these words is when the former president of the Supreme Civil Chamber anticipates a possible future change in the Constitutional thesis.


At the moment the renewal of the TC is blocked in the absence of an agreement from the PP and the PSOE. However, within a year the mandate of the magistrates who access by appointment of the Government and the CGPJ expires, two in each case. The Government trusts that from then on the clear current conservative majority will disappear and it will have a court more sensitive to its positions.

That a renewed Constitutional will have the opportunity to return to the border of states of alarm and exception remains to be seen.

The magistrates have on the table a Vox appeal against the second state of alarm, but the matter is already advanced and is expected to be resolved in September by the same magistrates that there are currently.

Everything indicates that once again the TC will consider the appeal and consider unconstitutional the government's maneuver to evade parliamentary control over the state of alarm for months.

According to the criteria of The Trust Project

Know more

  • constitutional Court

  • PP

  • PSOE

  • General Council of the Judiciary

  • Vox

  • Justice

  • Coronavirus

  • Covid 19

PoliticsVox will undertake it now with the state of alarm of six months

JusticeThe magistrates of the TC believe that the confinement of the Government required more control of the Parliament

JusticeA divided Constitutional Court annuls the house confinement imposed in the first state of alarm

See links of interest

  • Last News

  • Work calendar

  • Home THE WORLD TODAY

  • Master investigative journalism