Abstract
Abstract The authors analyse the constitutionality of the Ordinance and the constitutionality of restrictions of constitutional rights and freedoms imposed by the Slovenian Government. They systematically and consistently present arguments on the unlawfulness and unconstitutionality of the Ordinance and the constitutional nature of restrictions of constitutional rights and freedoms by the Government (part 1). The decision of the Slovenian Constitutional Court on the legality and constitutionality of measures is critically commented. In the following one of the authors presents analysis and arguments regarding the new ordinances and measures taken by the Slovenian Government after the official end of the pandemic (part 2).
Highlights
The authors analyse the constitutionality of the Ordinance and the constitutionality of restrictions of constitutional rights and freedoms imposed by the Slovenian Government
We expected the Constitutional Court to decide that the Government of the Republic of Slovenia pursued a legitimate aim in the public interest, but failed to substantiate the adequacy of measures, the proportionality of infringements on constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms, or the necessity of measures to achieve a legitimate aim
The Constitutional Court should first assess whether the current substance of the Communicable Diseases Act is constitutionally acceptable at all, and assess the constitutionality of an executive legal act, which the Government justified by referring to the provisions of the Communicable Diseases Act
Summary
“We absolutely should be sceptical of governments who declare states of emergency. Hungary is showing us this . In part two of the analysis, the author first critically comments on the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, No U-I-83/20 He goes on to highlight additional issues of legality and constitutionality concerning the Government action taken after the official end of the pandemic. The common denominator of all the issues listed above is a constitutional assessment and constitutional review of the Government activities and measures, which base their legitimacy and justification in the argument of “protection of the health of the general public” and in the function of preventing new epidemics and pandemics, or in the function of effectively dealing with new epidemics or pandemics if they occur in the future All these issues must be legally regulated in a constitutionally correct manner and above all, without undue interference with fundamental rights and freedoms. It does not include the actual arguments (factual content) with which the petitioner challenged the relevant Government Ordinance and the restrictive measures imposed by it, nor the arguments with which the Court ruled, that the Ordinance and the measures imposed were not unconstitutional
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
