CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE'S CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW DURING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES: ANALYSIS BASED ON THE CONSTCOVID DATABASE
1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3. Research. – 3.1. The Constitutional Framework of The Public Health Emergency: The Separation of Powers During the Pandemic. – 3.2. Restrictions on Fundamental Rights Throughout the Pandemic. – 4. Discussions. – 5. Conclusions.
conditions for restricting fundamental rights under extraordinary circumstances and the
impact of public health emergencies on the separation of powers, the literature has not yet been
able to fully rely on the systematization of the extensive recent constitutional court
jurisprudence—particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. In recent
years, constitutional courts (or supreme courts with constitutional review powers) have
addressed many aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. A thorough examination of this case law
can contribute both theoretically and practically to the legal framework governing public health
emergencies, the limitations of fundamental rights, the evolution of the separation of powers,
and the reinterpretation of the constitutional effects of the global pandemic. Nevertheless,
scholars have repeatedly noted the difficulty in accessing relevant materials, which has
hindered further research in this field.
Methods: The ConstCovid project aims to close this gap by offering systematic access to global
constitutional case law related to COVID-19, thereby expanding the potential for comparative
research. Several specific examples from the CEE region will be used to demonstrate the
regional usefulness of the ConstCovid database. Based on this case law, the regional tendencies
and shortcomings of constitutional practice during public health emergencies will be identified.
Utilising the ConstCovid database, this study contributes to the broader understanding of the
constitutional ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic and explores its potential implications
for managing future public health emergencies in CCE.
Results and conclusions: This contribution draws some conclusions from the analysed
constitutional case law stemming from ConstCovid, which may be valuable for preparing
potential unwanted future public health emergencies. First, it examines strands of case law that
applied general constitutional standards to the extraordinary circumstances. Second, it
illustrates that these ways of argumentation were combined inconsistently with the elaboration
of new frameworks of constitutional interpretation, resulting in meaningful uncertainty across
the region. Third, the analysis highlights the absence of constitutional remedies specifically
established to address public health challenges.
Abstract
conditions for restricting fundamental rights under extraordinary circumstances and the
impact of public health emergencies on the separation of powers, the literature has not yet been
able to fully rely on the systematization of the extensive recent constitutional court
jurisprudence—particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. In recent
years, constitutional courts (or supreme courts with constitutional review powers) have
addressed many aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. A thorough examination of this case law
can contribute both theoretically and practically to the legal framework governing public health
emergencies, the limitations of fundamental rights, the evolution of the separation of powers,
and the reinterpretation of the constitutional effects of the global pandemic. Nevertheless,
scholars have repeatedly noted the difficulty in accessing relevant materials, which has
hindered further research in this field.
Methods: The ConstCovid project aims to close this gap by offering systematic access to global
constitutional case law related to COVID-19, thereby expanding the potential for comparative
research. Several specific examples from the CEE region will be used to demonstrate the
regional usefulness of the ConstCovid database. Based on this case law, the regional tendencies
and shortcomings of constitutional practice during public health emergencies will be identified.
Utilising the ConstCovid database, this study contributes to the broader understanding of the
constitutional ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic and explores its potential implications
for managing future public health emergencies in CCE.
Results and conclusions: This contribution draws some conclusions from the analysed
constitutional case law stemming from ConstCovid, which may be valuable for preparing
potential unwanted future public health emergencies. First, it examines strands of case law that
applied general constitutional standards to the extraordinary circumstances. Second, it
illustrates that these ways of argumentation were combined inconsistently with the elaboration
of new frameworks of constitutional interpretation, resulting in meaningful uncertainty across
the region. Third, the analysis highlights the absence of constitutional remedies specifically
established to address public health challenges.
About Authors
Ph.D. (Law), Senior Research Fellow, Department of Constitutional Law, HUN-REN
Centre for Social Sciences, Institute for Legal Studies, Budapest, Hungary
totboldi@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5637-8991
Corresponding author, responsible for conceptualization, methodology, data curation,
resources, investigation, formal analysis, and writing – original draft.
Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Disclaimer: The author declares that his opinion and views expressed in this manuscript
are free of any impact from any organizations.
Copyright: © 2025 Boldizsár Szentgáli-Tóth. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
References
1. Agamben G, State of Exception (University of Chicago Press 2005).
2. Barroso LR, ‘Countermajoritarian, Representative, and Enlightened: The Roles of
Constitutional Courts in Democracies’ (2019) 67(1) American Journal of Comparative
Law 109, doi:10.1093/ajcl/avz009.
3. Bar-Siman-Tov I, ‘Covid-19 Meets Politics: The Novel Coronavirus as a Novel
Challenge for Legislatures’ (2020) 8(1-2) The Theory and Practice of Legislation 11,
doi:10.1080/20508840.2020.1800250.
4. Berchenko H, Maryniv A and Fedchyshyn S, ‘Some Issues of Constitutional Justice in
Ukraine’ (2021) 4(2) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 128, doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-
4.2-n000064.
5. 6. 7. Beretka K and Ősze Á, ‘Constitutional Court Attitudes and the Covid-19 Pandemic:
Case Studies of Hungary, Serbia, and Croatia’ (2025) 7 Frontiers in Political Science
doi:10.3389/fpos.2025.1540881.
Chen Q, Allot A and Lu Z, ‘LitCovid: An Open Database of Covid-19 Literature’ (2021)
49(D1) Nucleic Acids Research D1534, doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa952.
Chronowski N, Szentgáli-Tóth B and Bor B, ‘Resilience of the Judicial System in the
Post-Covid Period: The Constitutionality of Virtual Court Hearings in the Light of the
Covid-19 Pandemic’ (2024) 64(3) Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies 413,
doi:10.1556/2052.2023.00468.
8. Dannemann G, ‘Constitutional Complaints: The European Perspective’ (1994) 43(1)
The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 142.
9. Devins C and others, ‘The Law and Big Data’ (2017) 27(2) Cornell Journal of Law and
Public Policy 357.
10. Eichler J and Sonkar S, ‘Challenging Absolute Executive Powers in Times of Corona:
Re-Examining Constitutional Courts and the Collective Right to Public Contestation as
Instruments of Institutional Control’ (2021) 6(1) Review of Economics and Political
Science 3, doi:10.1108/REPS-08-2020-0132.
11. Florczak-Wątor M and others, ‘States of Emergency and Fundamental Rights in Books
and in Action: The Visegrad Countries and the Covid-19 Pandemic’ in Florczak-Wątor
M and others (eds), States of Emergency and Human Rights Protection: The Theory and
Practice of the Visegrad Countries (Routledge 2024) 1, doi:10.4324/9781032637815-1.
12. Florczak-Wator M, Szentgáli-Tóth B and Halász I, ‘Popular Sovereignty during the
Covid-19 Pandemic: Lessons from the Visegrád Countries. National and Local Elections
in the Shadow of the Coronavirus’ (2024) 32(5) Studia Iuridica Lublinensia 305,
doi:10.17951/sil.2023.32.5.305-332.
13. Ginsburg T and Versteeg M, ‘Why Do Countries Adopt Constitutional Review?’ (2014)
30(3) Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 587, doi:10.1093/jleo/ewt008.
14. Grogan J, ‘COVID-19, The Rule of Law and Democracy: Analysis of Legal Responses to
a Global Health Crisis’ (2022) 14(2-3) Hague Journal of Rule of Law 349,
doi:10.1007/s40803-022-00168-8.
15. Hasen RL, ‘Three Pathologies of American Voting Rights Illuminated by the COVID-19
Pandemic, and How to Treat and Cure Them’ (2020) 19(3) Election Law Journal: Rules,
Politics, and Policy 263, doi:10.1089/elj.2020.0646.
16. Heller H, Gesammelte Schriften, vol 2 (Sijthoff 1971).
17. Jakab A, Dyevre A and Itzcovich G, ‘Comparing Constitutional Reasoning with
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods’ in Jakab A, Dyevre A and Itzcovich G (eds),
Comparative Constitutional Reasoning (CUP 2017) 1, doi:10.1017/9781316084281.
18. Kecso G, Szentgali-Toth B and Bor B, ‘Emergency Regulations Entailing a Special Case
of Norm Collision: Revisiting the Constitutional Review of Special Legal Order in the
Wake of the Covid-19 Pandemic’ (2024) 14(1) Juridical Tribune 5, doi:10.62768/
TBJ/2024/14/1/01.
19. Kelsen H, Reine Rechtslehre (Mohr Siebeck, Verlag Österreich 2017).
20. Landman T and Splendore LDG, ‘Pandemic Democracy: Elections and Covid-19’
(2020) 23(7-8) Journal of Risk Research 1060, doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1765003.
21. Mavčič AM (ed), Constitutional Review Systems Around The World (Vandeplas
Publishing 2018).
22. Ondřejek P and Horák F, ‘Proportionality During Times of Crisis: Precautionary
Application of Proportionality Analysis in the Judicial Review of Emergency Measures’
(2024) 20(1) European Constitutional Law Review 7, doi:10.1017/S1574019624000051.
23. Peruginelli G, Conti S and Fioravanti C, ‘Covid-19 and Digital Library Services: An
Overview on Legal Information’ (2021) 37(1) Digital Library Perspectives 65,
doi:10.1108/DLP-07-2020-0064.
24. Prytyka Yu and others, ‘Legal Challenges for Ukraine under Martial Law: Protection of
Civil, Property and Labour Rights, Right to a Fair Trial, and Enforcement of Decisions’
(2022) 5(3) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 219, doi:10.33327/AJEE-18-5.2-n000329.
25. Smuk P, ‘Crisis and Constitutional Politics in Central Europe’ (2025) 7 Frontiers in
Political Science doi:10.3389/fpos.2025.1545816.
26. Spadaro A, ‘Covid-19: Testing the Limits of Human Rights’ (2020) 11 European Journal
of Risk Regulation 317, doi:10.1017/err.2020.27.
27. Szentgáli-Tóth B, ‘The Role of Constitutional Review to Determine the Emergency
Operation of Parliaments’ (2024) 4(2) International Journal of Parliamentary Studies
109, doi:10.1163/26668912-bja10090.
28. Szentgáli-Tóth B and others, ‘Freedom of Expression and Misinformation Laws During
the Covid-19 Pandemic and the European Court of Human Rights’ (2023) 21(1) Lex
Localis: Journal of Local Self-Government 213, doi:10.4335/21.1.213-236(2023).
29. Vedaschi A and Graziani C, ‘New Dynamics of the “Post-Covid-19 Era”: A Legal
Conundrum’ (2023) 24(9) German Law Journal 1612, doi:10.1017/glj.2023.116.
30. Visser MD, Constitutional Review in Europe: A Comparative Analysis (Bloomsbury
Publishing Plc 2015).
31. Vyhnánek L and others, ‘The Dynamics of Proportionality: Constitutional Courts and
the Review of Covid-19 Regulations’ (2024) 25(3) German Law Journal 386,
doi:10.1017/glj.2023.96.
32. Zwitter A and Gstrein OJ, ‘Big Data, Privacy and Covid-19: Learning from
Humanitarian Expertise in Data Protection’ (2020) 5(1) Journal of International
Humanitarian Action 4, doi:10.1186/s41018-020-00072-6.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
АНОТАЦІЯ УКРАЇНСЬКОЮ МОВОЮ
Дослідницька стаття
Болдіжар Сентґалі-Тот
АНОТАЦІЯ
Вступ. Незважаючи на значні наукові дослідження щодо умов обмеження основних прав та
впливу на поділ влади у сфері охорони здоров'я за надзвичайних ситуацій, у літературі ще не
можна повною мірою покладатися на систематизацію нещодавно поширеної практики
конституційних судів, особливо в регіоні Центральної та Східної Європи (ЦСЄ). Протягом
останніх років конституційні суди (або верховні суди з повноваженнями конституційного
контролю) розглядали багато аспектів пандемії COVID-19. Ретельне вивчення цього
прецедентного права допоможе зробити теоретичний і практичний внесок у правову базу,
що регулює надзвичайні ситуації у сфері охорони здоров'я, обмеження основних прав,
еволюцію поділу влади та переосмислення конституційних наслідків глобальної пандемії.
Проте науковці неодноразово відзначали труднощі у доступі до відповідних матеріалів, що
перешкоджає подальшим дослідженням у цій сфері.
Методи. Проєкт «ConstCovid» має на меті усунути цю прогалину, пропонуючи
систематичний доступ до глобальної конституційної судової практики, пов'язаної з
COVID-19, у такий спосіб розширюючи потенціал для порівняльних досліджень. Кілька
конкретних прикладів із регіону Центральної та Східної Європи будуть використані для
демонстрації регіональної корисності бази даних «ConstCovid». На основі цієї судової
практики будуть визначені регіональні тенденції та недоліки конституційної практики
під час надзвичайних ситуацій у сфері громадського здоров'я. Використання бази даних
«ConstCovid» у дослідженні сприяє ширшому розумінню конституційних наслідків пандемії
COVID-19 та допомагає з’ясувати її потенційні наслідки для управління майбутніми
надзвичайними ситуаціями у сфері громадського здоров'я в Центральній та Східній Європі.
Результати та висновки. У цьому матеріалі зроблено деякі висновки з
проаналізованого конституційного прецедентного права, що випливає з «ConstCovid»,
які можуть бути корисними для підготовки до потенційних небажаних майбутніх
надзвичайних ситуацій у сфері громадського здоров'я. По-перше, тут було розглянуто
напрямки судової практики, які застосовували у загальних конституційних
стандартах щодо надзвичайних ситуацій. По-друге, дослідження ілюструє, що ці
способи аргументації поєднувалися непослідовно з розробкою нових меж
конституційного тлумачення, що призвело до значної невизначеності в усьому регіоні.
По-третє, аналіз підкреслює відсутність конституційних засобів правового захисту,
спеціально створених для вирішення проблем громадського здоров'я.
Ключові слова: конституційний контроль, надзвичайна ситуація, Центральна та
Східна Європа, правова база даних, доступ до конституційних судів, «ConstCovid».
Publication history
- Date of submission: 30 May 2024
Date of acceptance: 23 Apr 2025
Date of publication: 14 May 2025
Whether the manuscript was fast tracked? - No
Number of reviewer report submitted in first round: 3 reports
Number of revision rounds: 2 rounds, 1st revised version submitted 08 Mar 2025,
2nd revised version submitted 20 Apr 2025
Managing Editor – Mag. Yuliia Hartman. E English Editor – Julie Bold.
Ukrainian Language Editor – Mag. Liliia Hartman.
How to cite it?
- Szentgáli-Tóth B, ‘Central and Eastern Europe's Constitutional Review During Public
Health Emergencies: Analysis Based on the ConstCovid Database’ (2025) 8(2) Access to
Justice in Eastern Europe 69-92
https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-8.2-a000112
