CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC02E897A { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sEC28DD31 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sD7287D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:9pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA43C3626 { width:28.35pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sED1A9C4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:14pt; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .sDF6F9B39 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8083E06 { width:11.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s6D38C583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; color:#202122 } .s2D4532D { width:8pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD7258D79 { margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sB0C17269 { width:6pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4C870CD6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7A133A51 { margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:outside } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F2A556 { width:6.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF89D8075 { width:7.34pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7416F55 { margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF4A91944 { width:7.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F60F455 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s63658818 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDFF896DC { margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:normal } .s16800832 { width:5.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sC8EB2DB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .sDBE9DBF2 { width:5.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s79CF76EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:60.45pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic; list-style-position:inside } .s3940066D { width:2.52pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s36A46F9F { width:0.3pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCDF78A49 { width:0.92pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAC5F6142 { width:8.01pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC617E28F { width:20.21pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sF0E62F66 { width:130.43pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s1E019DFF { width:46.56pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sA49AD2E4 { width:177.11pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s36C15EE9 { width:315.2pt; font-family:Arial; display:inline-block } .sBBEDD775 { margin-left:47.21pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .fixListIndent { list-style-position: inside }   FIFTH SECTION CASE OF CENTRAL UNITARIA DE TRABALLADORES/AS v.   SPAIN (Application no. 49363/20)   JUDGMENT   Art 11 • Freedom of assembly • Ban on demonstration organised by the applicant trade union for 1   May 2020, during the early stages of the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic • Interference neither a blanket ban nor content-based • Interference “prescribed by law” and pursued legitimate aims of protecting health and rights and freedoms of others • COVID-19 pandemic qualified as exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances • Interference imposed in context of pressing social need of protecting individual and public health • In particular case-circumstances decisions based on acceptable assessment of the facts and on relevant and sufficient reasons • Fair balance struck between competing interests at stake • Wide margin of appreciation not overstepped • Interference “necessary in a democratic society”   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.   STRASBOURG 17 October 2024 FINAL   17/01/2025   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as v. Spain, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar , President ,   Lado Chanturia,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   María Elósegui,   Kateřina Šimáčková,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Artūrs Kučs , judges , and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the application (no.   49363/20) against the Kingdom of Spain lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by Central Unitaria de Traballadores/as (C.U.T., “the applicant trade union”), on 30 October 2020; the decision to give notice to the Spanish Government (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 10 and 11 of the Convention concerning the prohibition of a demonstration planned by the applicant trade union and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The application concerns the authorities’ decision to ban a demonstration organised by the applicant trade union for 1 May 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The applicant trade union relied on Articles   10 and   11 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant trade union is registered under Spanish law, was set up in 1998 and has its headquarters in Vigo. Its statutory aim is to defend the rights and interests of workers in Galicia. It was represented by Mr   B.   González Pérez, a lawyer practising in Pontevedra. 3.     The Government were represented by Mr L.E. Vacas Chalfoun, co ‑ Agent of Spain to the European Court of Human Rights. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.         Background information 5.     The global context pertaining to the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) and the response to its spread in 2020 is summarised in the case of Communauté genevoise d’action syndicale (CGAS) v.   Switzerland [GC] (no.   21881/20, §§   64-74, 27 November 2023). On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organisation (WHO) declared   COVID ‑ 19 a pandemic. 6.     On 31 January 2020 COVID-19 was detected for the first time on Spanish territory. The number of confirmed cases grew quickly in February and March 2020. According to the Government (referring to WHO data as cited by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)), by mid-March 2020 Spain had become the worst-affected European country after Italy. 7.     By Royal Decree no.   463/2020 of 14 March 2020 (see paragraph   38 below) the Spanish Government declared a “state of alarm” in the face the COVID ‑ 19 pandemic; the state of alarm was to last for an initial period of fifteen days and applied to the whole of Spain. The Royal Decree introduced, among other measures, limitations on freedom of movement (see paragraph   39 below). The duration of the state of alarm was subsequently extended on six occasions, with each extension being approved by the Congress of Deputies (as required by Article   116 of the Constitution, see paragraph   33 below). 8.     The numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases and deaths in Spain continued to grow, so on 29 March 2020 Royal Decree-Law ( Real Decreto ‑ ley ) no.   10/2020 (dealing with recoverable paid leave for employees not providing essential services) was issued. The Government introduced tougher restrictions, including a suspension of all non-essential activities until 9   April 2020, in order to reduce the population’s mobility. As of 14   April 2020, the restrictions were eased, allowing some non-essential workers (such as, for instance, those in the construction and manufacturing industries) to return to work, subject to compliance with strict safety guidelines. 9 .     According to the Government, on 2 April 2020 the authorities recorded 950 deaths caused by COVID-19 in one day. 10 .     Data published by the Coordination Centre for Alerts and Health Emergencies of the Ministry of Health ( Gobierno de España, Centro de Coordinación de Alertas y Emergencias Sanitarias (2020), Actualización nº86 ) showed that by 25 April 2020 about 206,000 cases had been confirmed in Spain (meaning that Spain had the highest number of confirmed cases in Europe at the material time), and about 22,900   COVID ‑ 19-related deaths had been registered in the country. By the same date 9,116 cases had been confirmed in Galicia, and 388 deaths registered. 11 .     As of 26 April 2020 children under the age of fourteen were allowed to go out on short walks with adult members of their household . On 28   April 2020 the Government announced a gradual four-phase “de ‑ escalation” plan. The initial phase, which was to start on 2 May 2020, included, among other things, allowing individuals to leave their places of residence for short walks and to engage in individual sports. According to the Government, that plan had been officially introduced on 8 May 2020 by Royal Decree no.   514/2020 and was implemented gradually, with progress depending on the evolution of epidemiological, health, social, economic and mobility indicators in the specific regions. 12.     In May 2020 several COVID-19-related restrictions were gradually lifted or eased across the country. On 17 May 2020 the daily death toll fell below 100 for the first time since the beginning of the pandemic. 13.     The state of alarm remained in force until 21 June 2020.      The applicant trade union’s notification of a demonstration and the authorities’ reply 14 .     On 20 April 2020 the Secretary General of the applicant trade union, acting on its behalf, submitted a notification to the Government Sub ‑ Delegation in Pontevedra declaring its intention to hold a convoy ‑ demonstration in Vigo, a city whose population at the relevant time was approximately 200,000, on 1 May 2020, International Workers’ Day. Participants in the demonstration were to take part in their own cars. It was to begin at 11   a.m. in Plaza de España, one of the central squares of Vigo, would follow specific streets in the city centre, and end up one and a half hours later in front of an administrative building (the Xunta ) on Concepción Arenal Street. The applicant trade union noted that the right to freedom of assembly had not been suspended by Royal Decree no.   463/2020 declaring the state of alarm in Spain and stressed the fundamental role of trade unions during the health crisis “from the labour perspective”. Acknowledging the seriousness of the epidemiological situation, the applicant trade union stated that the demonstrators would participate in individual cars, would take appropriate protective measures and would be identified by the trade union. The applicant trade union further expressed its readiness to take any other measures that might be suggested by the authorities. 15 .     On 21 April 2020 the Government Sub-Delegation in Pontevedra (“the Sub-Delegation”) informed the applicant trade union that, given the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the authority was “unable to provide a criterion for holding [the demonstration]” (“ no puede trasladarle un criterio sobre su celebración” ), let alone evaluate the impact the demonstration could have on public order, or the potential disruptions of public order or other kinds of disruptions affecting the safety of people or property. The authority noted in addition that Royal Decree no.   463/2020, as in force at the relevant time, did not list movement “for the purpose set out in the notification lodged by the [applicant trade union]” among the activities exempted from the general limitation on movement (“ limitación general para circular ”). Nevertheless, it finished by stating that “the regulations in force on the date the event [was] scheduled to take place were to be observed”.    Court proceedings     Proceedings before the High Court of Justice of Galicia 16 .     On 22 April 2020 the applicant trade union lodged an appeal (supplemented on 27 and 28   April 2020) against the above prohibition with the High Court of Justice of Galicia ( Tribunal Superior de Xustiza de Galicia ) following a special procedure relating to the right of assembly (set out in section 122 of Law no. 29/1998, see paragraph   36 below). It emphasised that, as had been set out in the notification, each participant was to take part in the demonstration in an individual car without leaving it at any time; that the participants would take appropriate measures to prevent the transmission of the infection, including by using masks and gloves; and that only persons identified in advance by the trade union would participate in the demonstration. It requested that the Sub-Delegation’s decision be declared null and void, or annulled, and that the demonstration be allowed to take place. Claiming a violation of the right to demonstrate (Article   21 of the Spanish Constitution) and stating, without further details, that the disputed prohibition had had an adverse (collateral) effect on its right to freedom of association (Article   28 of the Constitution), the applicant trade union argued as follows: (i)   The prohibition of the demonstration lacked a legal basis as the right to freedom of assembly had not been suspended during the state of alarm. (ii)   The decision lacked the reasoning expressly required by section   10 of the Right of Assembly Act, such as well-founded reasons to fear that public order would be disturbed (the trade union cited, in particular, the Constitutional Court’s case-law summarised in paragraph   44 below). The Sub-Delegation’s reply hadn’t even mentioned the right to demonstrate, let alone contained any analysis of the proposed demonstration or an explanation of why it had been impossible to adopt any alternative measures. (iii)   The ban was disproportionate and unnecessary. There had been no technical or health-related reason for the interference. The applicant trade union had undertaken to ensure the respect of safety measures by the participants and had been open to any further suggestions of the authorities. Some of the measures proposed by the organisers were stricter than those required by various protocols in force (for instance, the wearing of a mask and gloves was not required for travel using cars). However, the Sub ‑ Delegation had imposed a ban on the demonstration without considering other options such as proposing a change to its date, place, duration or route. Travelling to work was authorised at the material time. The authorities themselves had organised symbolic convoys of ambulance vehicles in recognition of the work of essential workers. They had also tolerated a concentration of ambulance vehicles, held on 28 March 2020 in Corunna, to express gratitude to a famous businessman, A.O., for donations made by his foundation to the domestic health system. Furthermore, on 25   April 2020 a demonstration by a convoy of trucks had been authorised in the town of Ourense in the same region. Thus, the disputed decision was discriminatory and inconsistent with other decisions of the authorities. 17 .     In reply, the Sub-Delegation acknowledged the brevity of the reasons provided and argued that, whilst the right to freedom of assembly had indeed not been suspended, the protection of public health could justify the restriction of the right to demonstrate. 18.     On 25 April 2020 a public prosecutor submitted that the appeal should be granted as there would be no effect on public health, given the proposed form of demonstration. 19 .     On 28 April 2020 the High Court of Justice of Galicia dismissed the applicant trade union’s appeal. The first-instance court noted that the Sub ‑ Delegation’s reply was to be interpreted as a prohibition of the demonstration. It further considered that, although its confusing and defective wording could indeed create uncertainty, it had set out the relevant core reasons for the prohibition. According to the court, the Sub-Delegation had clearly referred to the state of alarm and the public health emergency underlying it, as well as to the general ban on circulation (that is, in essence, Article   7 § 2 of Royal Decree no. 463/2020); the court further considered that, given the health emergency, the demonstration could have given rise to a disproportionate disturbance to other rights and values protected by the Constitution – specifically public health. It concluded that, while a more explicit reply along with a deeper reflection on and a more careful weighing up of the legal interests at stake would have been desirable, the decision did not lack motivation. It further concluded that the procedure set out in section   10 of the Right of Assembly Act had been respected. The Sub ‑ Delegation did not have to conduct further administrative proceedings, although it could have requested a report from the local health protection authority to support its decision. 20 .     The court further noted that Royal Decree no.   463/2020 had the status of law ( rango de ley ) and that, in the absence of a ruling by the Constitutional Court declaring it incompatible with the Constitution, the prohibition of the demonstration could be based on that decree. The court further found, in so far as relevant, as follows: “[The court] does not see any reason to request a preliminary ruling by the Constitutional Court ( cuestión de inconstitucionalidad ), nor does it observe any irregularity in the [disputed] application of Royal Decree no. 463/2020. Even though the state of alarm is ... [the least intense of the three regimes] set out in Article   116 of the Constitution and in [Organic Law no. 4/1981, see paragraph 37 below], the present [situation], [falling under] section 4(b) of that Law ..., is the most serious imaginable, given the public health emergency caused by an international pandemic [declared by the WHO] on 11   March 2020. [The pandemic] has caused [thousands of] deaths, [and numerous victims have been] hospitalised with serious illness or [have otherwise been] affected. [Those are] facts of absolute public knowledge that do not require proof within the meaning of section   281(4) of the Civil Procedure Act ... When balancing the legal values at stake, the [court] cannot remain oblivious to the enormous magnitude of the effects caused by the pandemic ... [The court] cannot ignore the tragedies shown every day in the media. [It] acknowledges the monumental blow that COVID-19 has [already] dealt to Spanish public health, [quite apart from] the effects ... which will [manifest themselves] in future. The risk to public health, demonstrated by the ... loss of the lives of thousands of citizens and the hospitalisation of many more for [periods of] more than a month, and which has not yet been contained, led to the declaration of the state of alarm. [It] justifies the restriction of the movement of people, including in vehicles, as set out in Article   7 §   2 of Royal Decree [no.]   463/2020, in order to prevent the spread of the virus. [The Constitutional Court has previously] ruled that the state of alarm could entail limitations and restrictions of the exercise of fundamental rights. [The administrative decision in this case] is [in accordance with that position], as it does not suspend the fundamental right to assembly but rather, [in compliance with Article   7 §   2 of the Royal Decree ... and Organic Law no. 4/1981, see paragraph   37 below,] limits the circulation of vehicles to certain purposes, [which do not include the holding of the proposed demonstration], as an ideal and necessary [way] to protect public health. Therefore, the application ... of the state of alarm and the ... protection of public health – for which the public authorities are responsible under Article 43 §   2 of the Constitution – are incompatible with [the holding of the proposed demonstration]. ... [According to the Constitutional Court’s established case-law], the right enshrined in Article   21 of the Constitution is not absolute or unlimited and can be subject ... to certain restrictions on the grounds expressly provided for in paragraph   2 of that provision, and where it is necessary to prevent a collision between the unlimited exercise of the right and other constitutional values. In the present case, both the protection of public health (Article 43 § 2 of the Constitution) [and the public authorities’ corresponding obligation] to take measures to prevent of the spread of the virus, and the right to life and physical integrity of other citizens (Article   15 of the Constitution) must take precedence over the right of assembly and demonstration (Article 21 of the Constitution) ... [The] balancing [of those rights] entails a limitation of the latter [to ensure an] orderly coexistence of citizens, in which the health of either the demonstrators themselves or of other citizens is not endangered. [The precautionary measures proposed by the applicant trade union were not sufficient] to allow the demonstration to take place. ... ... Article 11   §   2 of the [Convention], which [is] a guideline for interpretation of the rules relating to the fundamental rights recognised in the Spanish Constitution, ... also provides that the exercise of the right to assembly can be restricted ... to protect public health. In [ the case of Cisse v. France , no.   51346/99, ECHR 2002-III, the Court] considered an order to evacuate a church to be proportionate in the case of a peaceful assembly which did not in itself directly disturb public order and the right to worship, but in where, nevertheless, the state of health of the participants had deteriorated and the sanitary circumstances were [wholly inadequate]. The World Health Organisation, in its latest document updating the COVID ‑ 19 strategy issued on 14 April [2020 (see paragraph   46 below), which is] clearly applicable to Spain, also advised the implementation of physical distancing and restrictions on the movement of the population – [which were exactly the measures] that justify [the disputed prohibition]. Therefore, since the restriction of the ordinary application of the rules governing the right to demonstrate is justified, the [applicant trade union’s argument that the disputed restriction could only apply in a state of emergency] cannot be accepted. [Apart] from the fact that ... [the decision is compatible with] the state of alarm, the extraordinary conditions [of] the international pandemic demonstrate the rationality of the contested decision. ... [The] enormous scale of the human tragedy resulting from [the pandemic] justifies the reinforced application of the temporary measures. In sum, the protection of public health (Article 43 §   2 of the Constitution), which [was an underlying reason for] the state of alarm, provides sufficient legal basis for the restriction [imposed by] the contested decision.” 21 .     The court assessed the potential effects of the demonstration as follows: “[Both Article   21 § 2 of the Constitution and section 10 of the Right of Assembly Act] provide that demonstrations on public highways may be prohibited if there are well ‑ founded reasons [to believe that] public order will be disturbed, endangering people and property. ... If the demonstration took place under the proposed conditions, the [virus could be transmitted] ... before [participants] enter[ed their cars] or after exiting the[m], [as] it is not unimaginable that contacts could occur between the protesters themselves, or with members of civil protection or police forces, or even with other citizens before [the participants return to their places of residence]. ... Moreover, if the demonstration takes place, [that would] logically entail a massive [influx and] outflow of citizens to highways before or after entering the[ir] vehicles, [not to mention] the possible [interaction] and contact with members of the civil protection and security forces who would have to supervise it. [Thus, given] the current state of scientific ignorance as to the origin and incidence of COVID-19, the fact that the [proposed demonstration would take] place in [cars] does not ... guarantee that the danger to persons will disappear. ...” 22 .     Regarding the alleged lack of proportionality of the restriction and the alleged misuse of power, the first-instance court referred to the principle that everything which is not forbidden, limited or suspended is tolerated ( tolerado ), but noted that circulation in cars with the purpose of holding a demonstration was not among the activities listed in Article 7 § 2 of the Royal Decree. Concerning the permission to travel to work, the court reiterated that the right to work was also a fundamental right protected by Article   35 of the Constitution. The court considered that it was not its task to conduct a judicial review of the Royal Decree or to compare the types of travel expressly allowed by the Decree that were pointed to by the applicant trade union. 23 .     As regards the applicant trade union’s reference to an alleged breach of its trade union rights (Article   28 of the Constitution), the court found that the complainant had failed to give reasons or details for that allegation. Furthermore, the contested decision concerned only the right to assembly, and the applicant trade union had made use of the special procedure concerning protection of that right set out in section   122 of Law no. 29/1998 (see paragraph   36 below), but not the procedure for the protection of other fundamental rights set out in other provisions of that law. The court found that fundamental rights other than that referred to in section   122 could not be invoked by the complainant within the relevant procedure.     Proceedings before the Constitutional Court 24 .     On 29 April 2020 the applicant trade union lodged an amparo appeal against the first instance court’s decision of 28 April 2020, arguing that there had been a violation of the right to freedom of assembly (Article   21 of the Constitution) and trade union freedom (Article 28 of the Constitution) on essentially the same grounds as summarised in paragraph   16 above. It also argued that the first-instance court had substituted its own assessment for the deficient reasoning contained in the Sub-Delegation’s decision. In that assessment, the lower court had incorrectly “legally associated”, or blended, the freedom of movement and the freedom of assembly, even though the latter had not been suspended (the trade union cited, in particular, the preamble to the Royal Decree; see paragraph   38 below). Therefore, contrary to the lower court’s findings, the ban could not be based on the Royal Decree itself but had resulted from an incorrect interpretation of the exceptional mechanism of the state of alarm by the Sub-Delegation and by the first-instance court. The applicant trade union argued accordingly that the exercise of the right to demonstrate could only be subjected to the ordinary limitations as set out in the domestic law. Nevertheless, the first ‑ instance court had assessed the potential impediments to the demonstration in a general and abstract manner, confining its analysis to a broad reference to the public health crisis – even though the applicant trade union had proposed several measures to prevent the spread of the virus, and had been ready to implement any other protective measures the authorities could have considered relevant in respect of the specific demonstration proposed by it. Furthermore, the applicant trade union pointed out that the previously introduced restrictions were being eased at the time of the complaint (see, notably, paragraph   11 above). Turning to the risks identified by the lower court, the applicant trade union argued, by way of comparison, that an authorisation to travel to work had been extended to workers of non ‑ essential services as of 13 April 2020. That meant that millions of trips to work had been taking place daily, even when employees worked together in large workplaces. It was disproportionate to prohibit a demonstration conducted in cars, as that would imply a tougher restriction on the exercise of the right to freedom of assembly than on ordinary work-related circulation. It further argued that various similar events, such as convoys of ambulances and civil protection vehicles had de facto taken place across the country, even though those events had not been related to the provision of essential services; moreover, such convoys had been organised by the authorities or at least had been tolerated by them. The applicant trade union argued that the restriction amounted to a tacit prohibition of the exercise of a fundamental right. 25 .     On 30 April 2020 the Constitutional Court declared the amparo appeal inadmissible in a decision ( auto ). The court disallowed the freedom of association complaint (Article 28 of the Constitution) owing to a failure to exhaust available remedies in the lower courts in a due procedure. Specifically, the court pointed out that the procedure chosen by the trade union was confined to the right to demonstrate, whereas it had not duly raised in its administrative complaints any specific arguments to sustain a violation of the right to freedom of association. 26 .     Addressing the issue of the general constitutional significance of the case, the Constitutional Court reiterated that it had already had an opportunity to address several relevant legal issues, such as: limitations on the exercise of certain fundamental rights in the context of the state of alarm (as opposed to their suspension), and the non-absolute nature of the right to assembly and its possible limitations for well-founded reasons. However, the issue in question in the present case was the application of those principles in the “specific and unusual situation” of the pandemic, which involved risks to the life and health of the population, and at the time when the confinement measures introduced by the Royal Decree were in force. The demonstration was supposed to take place during the pandemic “which [had] put [to the test] the [country’s] democratic institutions, society itself and [Spanish] citizens, making them essential elements of the fight against the health and economic crisis which had affected the entire country”. Although Spain had already suffered, for example, the 1918 pandemic, the Covid-19 pandemic was the first time the current Spanish democracy had had to face a challenge of such magnitude and impact, and to implement mechanisms to confront it. The Constitutional Court therefore regarded the case as an opportunity to examine the scope of the Royal Decree from the constitutional perspective in so far as the exercise of fundamental rights was concerned and to provide guidance for the application and interpretation of the relevant norms. 27 .     Having reiterated the requirement to give well-founded reasons for the interference, the Constitutional Court found as follows: “Although the reasoning of the decision of the [Sub-Delegation], which is [manifestly] ambiguous and does not even make the prohibition entirely clear, could be questioned, it cannot be denied that there is sufficient reasoning in the judgment of [first instance court of 28 April 2020]. Therefore, any shortcomings in the reasoning of the administrative decision [were] remedied by the extensive reasoning of the judicial body ... [Its] sufficiency is not open to doubt.” 28 .     The Constitutional Court agreed with the applicant trade union that, unlike a state of emergency and a state of siege, a state of alarm did not allow the suspension of any fundamental rights. However, measures could be adopted to limit or restrict the exercise of such rights. It further considered it impossible to decide within the proceedings at hand, even for dialectical purposes, “whether or not the [D]ecree declaring the state of alarm [entailed] an excessive limitation or even a suspension of the right to demonstrate [in itself and/or as a consequence] of the limitation of freedom of movement [set out in] Article   19 of the Constitution”. The court therefore endorsed the applicant trade union’s position that the prohibition in question “did not derive from the declaration of the state of alarm but from the interpretation of the scope of that exceptional mechanism” by the Sub ‑ Delegation and subsequently by the first-instance court. Thus, the Constitutional Court found that its task was – “leaving aside the content of the Royal Decree” – to establish whether the limitation on the right to demonstrate in the specific case at hand had been compatible with the relevant constitutional requirements. 29 .     The Constitutional Court further found as follows: “In the present case, the limitation of the exercise of the right [to demonstrate] has a purpose that not only has to be considered legitimate, but which is also [enshrined] in Articles   15 (guarantee of the physical integrity of persons) and 43 (protection of health) of the Constitution, which are closely connected that it is difficult to imagine them separately, especially in the current circumstances. [That is where the purpose of the restriction on the exercise of the right to demonstrate] converges with the justification for the declaration of the state of alarm. The reasons behind both are identical ‑ [namely] to limit the impact that the spread of COVID-19 could have on people’s health, physical integrity, and right to life. [Given] the current state of scientific research, which progresses [daily or even hourly], it is impossible to have any certainty as to the forms of transmission or the real impact of the spread of the virus. [Furthermore, there] is no scientific certainty as to the medium-term and long-term consequences [of the virus on] the health of [those affected by it]. Given this uncertainty, which [can hardly be measured] using the legal parameters ... usually based on the [principle of] legal certainty enshrined in ... the Constitution, the measures of social distancing, home confinement and a strict limitation of contacts and group activities are the only ones that have proved to successfully limit the effects of the pandemic, the dimensions of which have been unknown to date. [Those effects were] unknown and, of course, unforeseeable when [Law no. 4/1981 of 1 June 1981 was adopted]. In any event, it appears obvious that the prohibition of the demonstration ... [was aimed at] preventing the spread of a serious disease, [which] could lead to a collapse of the public healthcare services [if not contained].   ... The declaration of the state of alarm was not based on the protection of public order, but on the guarantee of the right to physical integrity and health of people. This is why we find ourselves in a scenario where limits to the exercise of rights ... are imposed by the need to prevent an excessive exercise of a right from coming into collision with other constitutional values, [namely those] of life, health, and the protection of the healthcare system whose limited resources must be adequately secured.” 30 .     Turning to the proportionality of the disputed measure, the Constitutional Court ruled as follows: “[The trade union submitted that it had] suggested a series of measures (participation in private cars, one participant per vehicle [remaining in the car throughout], the wearing of masks and gloves, participation reserved to persons listed by the trade union) [that are much stricter] than those currently provided for in our legislation. [It argued, in particular, that the regulations in force concerning private means of transportation provide] that no more than one person can occupy a row of seats in a vehicle ... and [contain] no obligation to wear a mask or gloves [in a car] ... [The proposed] measures [are intrinsically linked with] the very nature of the proposed demonstration ... [T]he organisers [have not] foresee[n] specific measures to control the transmission of the virus or to compensate for the foreseeable concentration of cars which could occur if there were to be a massive response to the call. ... ... [The] itinerary chosen by the organisers [would] impl[y] occupying the main ... road in Vigo for several hours, dividing the city in two and possibly limiting access to the hospitals located in the upper part of the city for people living in the area closest to the coast. [According to the Constitutional Court’s case-law (see paragraph   44 below)], for [a demonstration] to be prohibited there must be a total obstruction of ... routes that, owing to the volume of traffic ... and the characteristics of the area – normally the nerve centres of large cities – causes a collapse in traffic flow [leading to] vehicles being immobilised for a prolonged period of time, and access to certain areas or neighbourhoods of the city [being] obstructed because of the authorities’ inability to put in place alternative circulation routes. In these cases ... public order may be affected with danger to people or property if, for example, it is impossible to provide essential services that affect the safety of people or property, such as ambulance, fire, police or medical emergency services. ... [In] the analysis of the [measure’s] proportionality, it cannot be overlooked that the form of demonstration chosen by the applicants – which they consider sufficient to avert the health risk, despite the findings to the contrary by the health authorities who advise against crowded gatherings, whether on foot or by car (as the content of the [state of alarm decree] cannot be understood in any other way) – generates other problems liable to have an impact on the safety of persons, which the applicants have not considered. The free movement of ambulance or emergency medical vehicles and free access to hospitals during a [public] health alert is an element that has to be considered. [Given the above], the restrictive measure can be considered proportionate. The impact of the COVID-19 on the city of Vigo is not [a] negligible [factor for the proportionality analysis either]. According to the official data for 29   April 2020 ... there [were] 3,526 active COVID-19 cases in Galicia, of which ... 808 [were] in Vigo ... Therefore, Vigo is the second-ranked city in Galicia in terms of the number of identified active cases. This information is also extremely important for the assessment of the risk to people’s health that could result from the authorisation of the demonstration. [Adequate m]easures [were not proposed] to prevent transmission of the virus, to limit the number of people attending, to guarantee the free movement of medical vehicles, or to stagger the participants’ [dispersal once the demonstration was over]. [It is therefore] not impossible to imagine a concentration of people prior to the [event] and [during their subsequent] return to their places of [residence]. [That could] contribute to a possible exponential growth in [the number of infections], which cannot be avoided but by limiting the exercise of the right [of demonstration] in the [form] requested by the organisers.” 31.     On 4 May 2020 the applicant trade union lodged an appeal ( suplicación ) against the decision of 30   April 2020. On 19 May 2020 the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal.   Other information submitted by the parties 32 .     On 30 April 2020 in unrelated proceedings a domestic first-instance court authorised a convoy-demonstration (with the participants in cars) planned by the members of the Vox political party in Madrid for 23   May 2020. The demonstration took place on the scheduled date. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK         Relevant domestic law and practice     The Constitution 33 .     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of Spain read as follows: Article 15 “Everyone has the right to life and to physical and moral integrity ...” Article 21 “1.     The right to peaceful unarmed assembly is recognised. The exercise of this right shall not require prior authorisation. 2.     In the event of gatherings on public highways ( en lugares de tránsito público ) and of demonstrations, prior notification shall be given to the authorities, who may ban them only when there are well founded grounds to expect a breach of public order involving danger to persons or property.” Article 43 “1.     The right to health protection is recognised. 2.     It is incumbent upon the public authorities to organise and safeguard public health by means of preventive measures and the necessary benefits and services. In that connection the law shall establish the rights and duties of all concerned. ...” Article 55 “1.     The rights recognised in ... [Article] 21 .... may be suspended when a state of emergency or siege [martial law] is declared under the terms provided in the Constitution. ...” Article 116 “1.     An organic law shall regulate states of alarm, emergency and siege (martial law) ( los estados de alarma, excepción y sitio ) and the corresponding competences and limitations. 2.     A state of alarm may be declared by the Government, by means of a decree decided upon by the Council of Ministers, for a maximum period of fifteen days. The Congress of Deputies shall be informed and must meet immediately for this purpose. Without its authorisation the said period may not be extended. The decree shall specify the territorial area to which the effects of the proclamation shall apply. ...”     Right of Assembly Act 34 .     In accordance with the Right of Assembly Act (Organic Law no.   9/1983 of 15 July 1983), as in force at the material time, no gatherings should be subject to prior authorisation (section   3(1)) of the Act). The holding of gatherings on public highways and of demonstrations must be notified by the organisers in writing to a governmental authority (section   8 of the Act). 35 .     If the authorities consider that there are well-founded reasons to believe that public order may be disturbed such that there is a danger to persons or property, they may prohibit the gathering or demonstration or, where appropriate, propose a change in the date, place, duration or route of the gathering or demonstration. The decision must be adopted in a reasoned manner (section 10 of the Act). If the organisers do not accept the prohibition or other proposed modifications, they may lodge a contentious ‑ administrative appeal with a competent court within forty-eight hours (section 11 of the Act).     Law   no. 29/1998 regulating judicial proceedings in administrative matters 36 .     Under section   22 of Law no. 29/1998 of 13 July 1998 regulating judicial proceedings in administrative matters ( Ley reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-administrativa ), when the organisers of a demonstration object to its being prohibited or to any modifications to it that have been proposed (as provided for in the Right of Assembly Act), they may lodge an appeal with a competent court within forty-eight hours following the notification of the prohibition or modifications. The court may only maintain or revoke the proposed prohibition or modifications.     Organic Law no. 4/1981 of 1   June 1981 37 .     Organic Law no. 4/1981 of 1 June 1981 on States of Alarm, Emergency and Siege (Martial Law) provides that the government, in the exercise of the powers granted to it by Article 116 § 2 of the Constitution, may declare a state of alarm, in the whole national territory or its part, when serious alterations to normality ( alteraciones graves de la normalidad ) occur, such as, among other things, health crises, including epidemics and severe contamination situations (crisis sanitarias, tales como epidemias y situaciones de contaminación graves) (section   4(b) of the Law).      Royal Decree no. 463/2020 38 .     On 14 March 2020 the Spanish Government approved Royal Decree no.   463/2020 declaring a state of alarm for the management of the health emergency caused by COVID-19. The state of alarm, as