Go back


2021/07/15 01:44 (GMT)

The vice-president had to decide the five-vote tie between the magistrates of the Constitutional Court in order to declare the first state of alarm decreed by the government in 2020 null and void. This decision underpins the opinion of all the jurists who pointed out that this was not the correct legal way to safeguard the health of all Spaniards. 

The ruling also points out that the restrictions that were imposed in this state of emergency could only be imposed under a state of emergency, a figure provided for in the constitution and a very different procedure.Attention must now be paid to the consequences of this decision of the Constitutional Court, since the fines that were imposed at that time to prevent mobility would be null and void.It also opens up a much more complicated horizon if we consider the possible claims against the Government, which may be brought by those who have been harmed by the closure of their businesses such as hotels, shops, hairdressing salons, etc.Many entrepreneurs and self-employed workers were forced by the central government to close their activities or carry them out with restrictions depending on the sector.

 The State could be held liable for this decision, which, according to the ruling of the Constitutional Court, did not comply with the law in the way it was decreed.Even more worrying is the possibility that this ruling may create a precedent with respect to the appeals filed against the second state of emergency, which are still pending and could lead to new convictions against the State.In our office we are analysing the Constitutional Court ruling in depth to determine the feasibility of claiming compensation from the State for the serious damages caused to thousands of people.