Limitations to the freedom of assembly due to the Covid virus

• Caflisch, Lucius ^[1]
  1. [1] Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

     Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies

     Genève, Suiza

     
• Localización: Anuario español de derecho internacional, ISSN-e 2173-3775, ISSN 0212-0747, Nº 42, 2026, págs. 571-589
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.15581/010.42.571-589
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen
  • español

    En este caso se analiza las limitaciones a la libertad de reunión en España durante la pandemia de Covid- 19. Un sindicato intentó organizar una manifestación el 1 de mayo de 2020 en Vigo. Las autoridades prohibieron el acto alegando la protección de la salud pública durante el estado de alarma. Los tribunales españoles consideraron que la medida era legal y proporcionada pese a no suspenderse el derecho de reunión. El caso llegó al Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. Este tribunal reconoció la interferencia, pero la consideró justificada por una necesidad social urgente. Finalmente, concluyó que no hubo violación del artículo 11 del Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos.

  • English

    This case analyzes the limitations on freedom of assembly in Spain during the Covid-19 pandemic. It focuses on the case of a trade union that attempted to organize a demonstration on May 1, 2020, in Vigo. The authorities banned the event on the grounds of protecting public health during the state of emergency. The Spanish courts considered the measure to be legal and proportionate despite not suspending the right of assembly. The case reached the European Court of Human Rights. This court recognized the interference but considered it justified by an urgent social need. Finally, it concluded that there was no violation of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Barraco v. France, nº 31684/05, 5 March 2009.
  • Bayatyan v. Armenia, GC, nº 23459/03, 12 December 2006, ECHR 2011.
  • Caflisch, L., «Droits de l'homme et mesures étatiques prises contre le virus Covid- 19: L'interdiction des réunions publiques et privées»,...
  • CGAS, GC, nº 21881/20, 27 November 2023.
  • Chapman v. United Kingdom GC, nº 27238/95, ECHR 2001-I.
  • Christian Democratic People's Party v. Moldova, nº 28793/02, dec., 22 March 2002, ECHR 2006-II.
  • Evans v. United Kingdom, GC, nº 6339/05, 10 April 2007, ECHR 2007-I Fenech v. Malta, dec., nº 19090/20, 23 March 2021.
  • Hristozov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos 47039/11 and 358/12, 21 February 2002, ECHR 2012.
  • Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania, GC, nº 37553/05, ECHR 2015.
  • Lashmankin and Ohers v. Russia, nos 57818/09 and 14 others, 7 February 2017
  • Law nº 29/1998 Regulating Judicial Proceedings on Administrative Matters (Ley 29/1998, de 13 de julio, reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa)
  • Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, GC, nº 44774/98, ECHR 2005-XI. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1932.02730490051023
  • Maurice v. France, GC, nº 11810/03, 6 October 2005, para. 117, ECHR 2005-IX.
  • Navalny v. Russia, GC., nos 2958/12 and four others, 15 November 2018
  • Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, GC, nº 25358/12, 24 January 2017
  • Pleshkov and Others v. Russia, nos 29356/19 and 31119/19, 21 November 2023
  • S.A.S. v. France, GC, nº 43835/11, 1 July 2014, ECHR
  • Terheş v. Romania, dec., nº 49933/20, 13 April 2021.
  • United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey, GC, nº 19392/92, 30 January 1998.
  • Vavřička and Others v. Czech Republic, GC, nos 47621 and five others, 8 April 2021.