The master's thesis examines the limitations of freedom of movement during the COVID-19 pandemic through judicial review by the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia. After presenting the circumstances in Slovenia at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and the measures taken by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, the thesis briefly describes the Constitutional Court Decision No. U-I-83/20, dated 27 August 2020. The central part of the master's thesis then presents a critique of Decision No. U-I-83/20 and the theoretical role of the Constitutional Court. In the concluding section, the question is answered whether the Constitutional Court fulfilled its role with its decision in case No. U-I-83/20 and what impact the pandemic had on it.
With the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, society faced a challenge. To control the pandemic as effectively as possible and out of fear of a high number of casualties and the collapse of the healthcare system, the Government began issuing ordinances, including Ordinances 38 and 52, which contained measures prohibiting movement outside the municipality of one’s residence. These measures were challenged before the Constitutional Court in case No. U-I-83/20, where the petitioner claimed, among other things, a violation of Article 32 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of movement. On August 27, 2020, Decision No. U-I-83/20 was issued, which received criticism from the public and legal professionals. Through an analysis of the decision and an exploration of the role of the Constitutional Court in modern democracy, I have concluded that the Constitutional Court failed to demonstrate a sufficient degree of impartiality and objectivity, did not provide adequate self-monitoring, and did not maintain public confidence. Consequently, it did not fulfil of protecting the Constitution and democracy. The entire process of judicial review of restrictions on freedom of movement during the pandemic concludes with Decision No. U-I-79/20.
|
