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.
Background: Although significant scholarly assessments have been made regarding the
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.