Technology

these are the communities that have mobility restrictions

Publication: Wednesday, May 12, 2021 6:03 AM

It has been three days since the state of alert in Spain faded and little by little the situation in the communities which demanded from justice the possibility of applying certain measures and restrictions – until now covered only by the exceptional mechanism put in place by the Government – to control the pandemic. While that doesn’t mean the storyline is any less chaotic and confusing after the court rulings that have come to light in recent days.

Because if only five autonomies (Comunitat Valenciana, Baleares, Euskadi, Canarias and Navarra) have asked the corresponding superior courts to be able to maintain restrictions on night mobility, the Supreme Court has approved that they remain in force in only two autonomous communities (Baleares and C. Valenciana). In the rest of the petitions, the courts understand that these are disproportionate standards to control the evolution of the epidemiological situation in the territories.

Communities that maintain a curfew

Balearic Islands: The Balearic Islands government obtained the approval of the Superior Court of Justice of the Balearic Islands (TSJIB) with three votes for and two against, so it was able to extend the curfew until May 23, 11 p.m. 6 hours. 00:00, but also controls of domestic passengers in ports and airports of the islands, limit by six the number of people in social and family gatherings in private homes and restrict capacity in places of worship.

Valencian Community: The Superior Court of Justice of the Community (TSJCV) has also approved the requests made by the Valencian autonomy to limit night mobility between midnight and six in the morning, and that social gatherings be a maximum of ten people. In this case, the judges limited the validity of these restrictions until May 24 with the possibility of extension depending on the evolution of the pandemic.

Communities where the curfew is decreasing

Canary Islands: The Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands (TSJC) rejected the maintenance of the curfew in the islands after the end of the state of alarm, as well as the limitation of the entry and exit of people in the islands which are in alert levels 3 and 4. Magistrates are only allowed to limit the maximum number of people who do not live together in family and social gatherings in public and private spaces. Although at first the administration said it would appeal this decision to the Supreme Court, the island government is now considering not going to the High Court before the “categorical no” it will receive, I believe.

Navarre: The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Navarre (TSJN) also rejected the night curfew demanded by the Regional Government of the Community as a security measure against the advance of the virus on the territory, considering that this does not go beyond the canon of “necessity and proportionality”. The agency also did not endorse the closure of hotel terraces at 10 p.m. as it is a measure linked to the limitation of nighttime mobility, although it has supported limiting meetings to a maximum. of six people in public and private spaces.

Euskadi: as in the case of the Canary Islands and Navarre, the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country (TSJPV) has not approved the maintenance of the night curfew between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., nor the closures of perimeter of Euskadi and the municipalities. Not even the limitation of the number of people who can meet when it is understood that the current legal system “does not allow the Communities to agree, out of the state of alert, on measures restricting fundamental rights of a general non-individualized nature” .

It should be noted that Aragon, Andalusia, Asturias, Cantabria, Castile-La Mancha, Castile and León, Catalonia, the Community of Madrid, Extremadura, Galicia, La Rioja, Murcia, Ceuta and Melilla have not requested the application of any exceptional measures that affect the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Therefore, they confined themselves to implementing the restrictions agreed in the Interterritorial Council, although some of the territories, especially those ruled by the People’s Party, were very critical of the government’s decision not to not prolong the state of alert.

The executive, for its part, insisted on defending its plan to fight the health crisis without the need to prolong the state of alarm any longer despite the legal and political earthquake that brought about the end of this constitutional mechanism. In this sense, the President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, insisted on the fact that the communities had< vastes instruments >> to tackle the problems arising from the pandemic and has decided, as have other members of the central command, that the state of alarm is the past and vaccination is “the future”.

semidedicated hosting
Back to top button