9 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... In a minute there is time For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. T. S. Eliot Abstr Act t he article comparatively analyses constitutional assessment of c OVID-19 measures and their legal bases. t o begin with, substantial attention is devoted to summarising and juxtaposing the relevant emergency legislation in France, Germany, Austria, and slovenia. subsequently, the text evaluates the constitutional jurisprudence of the aforementioned countries that is, pertaining to specificities of national legal systems, then applied to perusal of constitutional reviews of the slovenian constitutional court. t hereafter, I indi- cate key discrepancies between the foreign and domestic jurispru- dence that give rise to well-founded doubts of compliance of the latter with the established maxims of constitutional scrutiny. Keywords: constitutional review, comparative legal analy- sis, emergency legislation, cOVID-19, encroachment on human rights. Izgubljeni raj - primerjalnopravna študija ustavnosodne presoje COVID ukrepov POVzetek Prispevek primerjalnopravno analizira ustavnosodno preso- jo cOVID ukrepov in njihovih zakonskih podlag. Uvodoma je Paradise lost - c omparative perusal of slovenian constitutional jurisprudence on covid-19 measures Matevž Jurič* * I wish to impress my sincere gratitude upon Anže Perne, profesor angleščine, and Justice Jan z obec. 10 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law izdatna pozornost namenjena povzetku in primerjavi sprejete upoštevne interventne zakonodaje v Franciji, Nemčiji, Avstriji ter sloveniji. V nadaljevanju se članek opira na prakse ustavnega sodstva navedenih držav, ki jih, seveda ob upoštevanju specifik, nanašajočih se na posamezne državnopravne ureditve, besedi- lo aplicira na jurisprudenco slovenskega Ustavnega sodišča ter prikaže ključne diskrepance, ki budijo utemeljene pomisleke o skladnosti odločitev slovenske večine z ustaljenimi ustavnosod- nimi maksimami. Ključne besede: Ustavna presoja, primerjalnopravna analiza, interventna zakonodaja, c OVID-19, omejitev človekovih pravic. 1. Anacrusis 1.1. soliloquy A disjunction from politics is both a privilege and com- mandment assigned to every legal practitioner. Whether one as- sents to such a premise may ultimately be subject to their own resolution, yet it is necessary to remark that its rejection transpi- res not merely in a gradual decline of professional credibility, but moreover a patent discomfort of those of us who posit legal order above the habitually disfigured exclusive observance of ideologi- cal principles. t his abstraction encourages a judicious examination of the slovenian c onstitutional c ourt’s case-law on c OVID-19 protective measures, particularly so as it recurrently abides by legally unte- nable arguments. t he germane jurisprudence suffers from a vast array of calamities generated in pursuit of ulterior motives, their impropriety confronted in conclusion. It is precisely the disputation of such palpable deficiencies that comprises the gist of legal vocation. I believe its prime end should inhibit trivialisation of the law, originating from com- mitment not to maxims and axioms upon which the legal order is founded, but ideological predilection, partial interests, and animosity towards a particular political option. Unfortunately, my view seems rather fanciful once set against the slovenian judicial reality outlined by all those traits, their passionate inten- sity not extraordinary as the judiciary endured the transition to democracy virtually unscathed. 11 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... No other judicial authority, however, asks for a harsher rebuke than the c onstitutional c ourt (Ustavno Sodišče Republike Sloveni- je, Us rs ) which is, by definition and virtue of its function, obliged to conduct legal matters in far more holistic modus than its coun- terparts of ordinary character. such purpose requires preference for circumspection over juridical paroxysms, as well as express consideration of the consequences its rulings can impress not only on a single individual, but the overall state composition. t heir recent judgments suggest the contemporary majority of the constitutional court Justices dismissed such precept, substi- tuting it for one of more insidious intent. Let us go and make our visit. 1.2. t erra firma t he emergence of the cOVID-19 pandemic confronted the Western democracies with the direst encumbrance yet. c onstruc- ted upon the primacy of human dignity and fundamental free- doms (Preamble to the european c onvention on Human r ights , 1950), their intricate legal systems had ever since conception not faced a situation that would have so gravely accentuated the frequently overlooked, yet inevitable aspect of rights – that of responsibilities (c onstitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 15(3)). 1 european states attempted to conduct the perplexing set of conditions by a variety of means. t he initial emergency compel- led national governments to impose exceptionally restrictive me- asures with an extraordinary obstructive capacity, its unpreceden- ted magnitude diminishing or even completely abolishing the ri- ghts that seemed incontrovertible and essentially inalienable less than a month earlier (Venice c ommission, 2020; bošnjak, 2020). Faced with the yet undetermined nature of the viral threat and the absence of an established treatment protocol, the then ne- wly instated slovenian Government repeatedly and without re- servation communicated it had imitated the protective measures previously implemented in comparable countries, chiefly Austria and Italy (La. Da., M. z., 2020, e-source; Ukom, 2021, e-source). t he state of epidemic itself was declared by order on 12 March 1 t he article at issue is worded as follows: Human rights and fundamental freedoms shall be limited only by the rights of others and in such cases as are provided by this Constitution. 12 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law 2020 (Order on the declaration of the c OVID-19 epidemic, 2020) 2 pursuant to Article 7(4) of the communicable Diseases Act (Za- kon o nalezljivih boleznih, hereinafter referred to as zNb). In the following weeks, the executive issued a multitude of by-laws introducing various restrictive instruments. It merits to observe the state of epidemic as per the zNb ca- nnot be equated with the declaration of the state of emergen- cy defined in Articles 16 and 92 of the slovenian constitution (1991). 3 t his distinction bears particular significance in the con- text of subsequent controversies and opinions postulating that the aforementioned extensive interference with the rights of in- dividuals should not have been exercised in the absence of decla- ration of such a state. t hose views cannot be ascribed substance as both the slovenian and Austrian constitutions suffer from the equivalent defect, i.e. restriction of the declaration of the state of emergency to situations “whenever a great and general danger threatens the existence of the state” (c onstitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 92(1), 1991), 4 a prerequisite the slovenian Go- vernment considered the cOVID-19 disease did not constitute. Furthermore, observing sufficient risk requiring such ultima ratio action non-existent, the Government resolved against activating the derogation clause contained in Article 4(1) of the Internatio- nal c ovenant on c ivil and Political r ights. It is irrefutable that, when comparing the restrictive measures in slovenia with those employed in comparable states, the slove- nian cannot be graded amongst the most stringent (Porcher, 2020, e-source). evaluated against much more repressive constraints on freedom of movement, e.g. in Italy, where residents faced virtual ban on departing their dwellings, the slovenian Government refu- sed to pursue a line of equal rigour. Instead, it opted for constric- tion of the freedom of movement to individual municipalities (su- 2 t he order was issued the day before the inauguration of the new Government by the Minister of Health. Its full name is Order on the declaration of the cOVID-19 epidemic in the territory of the r epublic of slovenia (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 19/20 of 12 March 2020). 3 t he relevant Article 16(1) of the c onstitution reads: Human rights and fundamental freedoms pro- vided by this Constitution may exceptionally be temporarily suspended or restricted during a war and state of emergency. Human rights and fundamental freedoms may be suspended or restricted only for the duration of the war or state of emergency, but only to the extent required by such cir- cumstances and inasmuch as the measures adopted do not create inequality based solely on race, national origin, sex, language, religion, political, or other conviction, material standing, birth, educa- tion, social status, or any other personal circumstance. 4 cf. Article 18 (paras 3 – 5) of the Austrian Federal constitutional Law (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz, hereinafter b-VG), which provides a legal premise for delegated legislation (Notverordnungsrecht), in its sense identical to the decrees with force of law in Article 92(3) of the slovenian c onstitution. 13 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... bject, of course, to exemptions in instances of essential activities) (Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering, No. 52/20). 5 t he same applies to measures prohibiting association, which are reasonably analogous to those administered in other affected states, as are prohibition on entering the country, transi- tory closure of educational institutions, prohibition on exercising the right to manifest one’s religion in religious buildings, and a plethora of other instruments. 6 1.3. Dramatis personae All european states encountered identical hurdles throughout the course of the pandemic, which universally prompted frequent adoption of by-laws, ratification of new statutes, and amendment of the existing legislation. As the article is to dissect the judicial scrutiny of all of those categories, I consider it indispensable to provide a rudimentary outline of the legislative acts upon which the executive powers centred their efforts. t o determine the relevant states on which to ground the eva- luation, attention should be rendered to the reference set forth in the concurring opinion of Justice Šugman stubbs in case U-I- 79/20 (c oncurring opinion of Justice Šugman stubbs, 2020, p. 10, footnote 36). 1.3.1. France On 23 March 2020 - barely five days after the submission of its bill by the President 7 - the French Parliament passed an emer- gency statute (Loi n° 2020-290, 2020) 8 that partially amended the 5 t his interdiction was introduced by the Government in spring 2020. 6 In the wake of its constitution, the new Government issued a number of executive acts, including the Ordinance on temporary prohibiting gatherings of people in educational institutions and universi- ties and independent higher education institutions (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 25/20 of 15 March 2020), Ordinance on the restriction of public transport of passengers in the r epublic of slovenia (Of- ficial Gazette of the rs , No. 24/20 of 15 March 2020), and Ordinance on the restriction of air services performance in the r epublic of slovenia (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 26/20 of 16 March 2020). 7 such prompt pace of proceedings can in part be attributed to the distinctive governmental system (semi-presidential as opposed to parliamentary), but indubitably also to the political situation in the country. At that time, President emmanuel Macron’s party, La République En Marche, still enjoyed a comfortable majority (308 out of 577 seats in Parliament). t his circumstance permitted the French government an incomparably more effective legislative response to the unfolding health crisis than its slovenian counterpart of coalitional character. 8 t he specific statute adopted by the Parlement français bears the number 2020-290 and the full name Loi n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 d’urgence pour faire face à l’épidémie de COVID-19. For the most part, the emergency statute strode to alleviate the economic consequences of the pandemic, its sub- stance exhibiting analogy to the series of statutes and their amendments adopted by the slovenian 14 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law extant Public Health c ode (Code de la santé publique, hereinafter cs P). t he amendment introduced a streamlined, more centralised procedure for implementation of urgent epidemiological measu- res, an instrumentarium of permissible protective measures, and a novel definition of health emergency (cs P, Article L.3131-12). 9 A textual comparison of the amended cs P and the applicable zNb in force at the time indicates remarkable correspondence, which is entirely reasonable considering the z Nb’s modelling on its French equivalent. With the exception of certain facets of the administrative compositions in the countries concerned, 10 the two wordings appear uniform. It is worth noting that the parallels include what the sloveni- an constitutional court in its contemporary jurisprudence con- siders unlawful statutory power to pass applicable subordinate legislation. t he aforementioned revision introduced a significant expansion of the latter authority and explicitly empowered the French Government to issue decrees enforcing relevant prohibi- tory measures (Décret n° 2020-293, 2020), 11 whereby the French (cs P, Article 3131-15) and slovenian (zNb, 2020, Article 39(1)) substantive law exhibit virtual identity in characteristics of the warranted instruments. subsequent French emergency legislation focused almost sin- gularly on the proclamation of the state of public health emer- gency, the perpetuation of which the Article L. 3131-13 of the cs P stipulates to regulation in a special law provided its duration exceeds a period of one month. t o this end, the French Parli- ament passed Loi n°2020-546 on 9 May 2020 and two months posterior Loi n°2020-856 that, on the expiry of the abovementio- ned state, conferred specific enforcement powers on the French Government in the eventuality of resurgence of the disease, but otherwise merely appended the existing temporal limitations Parliament throughout the crisis. t he sequence of the latter was outlined by the Act Determining the Intervention Measures to c ontain the c OVID-19 epidemic and Mitigate its c onsequences for c itizens and the economy (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo, z IUze OP). 9 t he state of health emergency (l’état d’urgence sanitaire) sanctioned in Article L.3131-12 of the cs P, inserted by Loi n° 2020-290, is comparable to the declaration of an epidemic per slovenian z Nb. It is therefore not to be equated with the state of emergency regulated in Articles 16 and 36 of the French c onstitution, which the French Government did not enforce. 10 For instance the special status of New c aledonia, a French territory in the Pacific Ocean that is al- lotted a high degree of autonomy. see Article 74(1) of the French c onstitution in conjunction with Article 3131-12 of the cs P. 11 t he specific decree (décret réglementaire) n° 2020-293 was adopted and issued by the French Prime Minister, Édouard Philippe, on 23 March 2020. t he revised cs P entered into force simultaneously. 15 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... introduced with Loi n°2020-546. In autumn, the state of health emergency was re-imposed and extended until 16 February 2021 with Loi n° 2020-1379, succeeded by Loi n o 2020-160 that further protracted the status until 1 June. 12 1.3.2. Germany Due to the customary proximity of its constitutional conven- tion to the slovenian, the next highlighted course is that of the Federal r epublic of Germany. t here, too, the legislative agility ca- nnot be questioned as the bundestag ratified the first emergency omnibus statute (or Artikelgesetz), loosely translated as the statute for the Protection of the Population in an epidemic situation of National significance 13 (henceforth cOVIfsGAnpG), barely four days after its French counterpart. t he act regulated the subject matter in a manner virtually consonant with that of the Loi n° 2020-290, likewise modifying the principal statute specifying re- sponse to the epidemic events, i.e. the Infection Protection Act (2000) (Infektionsschutzgesetz, herein IfsG). t he initial revision particularly sought to consolidate the enforcement of emergency mechanisms (ettel & Vettel, 2020, e-source), 14 the implementation of which had been per the existing wording of IfsG conferred to individual German states (Länder). such arrangement inevitably provided a legal basis for substantial particularism of the federal units in their application of protective mechanisms that severely encumbered the unitary response the Federal Government ende- avoured to organise. As opposed to the French legislation, the c OVIfsGAnpG (2020) delivers a profoundly minute characterisation of restrictive mea- sures, which is particularly evident in relation to cross-border tra- vel 15 and mechanisms to ensure access to vital health services. 16 12 Loi n° 2020-1379 was passed by the French Parliament on 14 November 2020, followed by Loi n° 2020-160 on 15 February 2021. 13 Originally Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tra- gweite (cOVIfsGAnpG). t he latter had a limited duration that expired on 1 January 2021. It was consequently followed by three further statutes, the last of which (Viertes Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite), of t hursday 22 April 2021, is still in force as of the time of writing (bGbl Jahrgang 2021 t eil I Nr. 18). 14 Already in late February, the German media cautioned of the inadequacy of the epidemiological legislation, which was well adapted to threats of local scope but did not foresee mechanisms in the eventuality of a federal one. In this context, the designation of the emergency law is comprehensible – Law for the Protection of the Population in an epidemic situation of National significance. 15 Article 1(4) of the c OVIfsGAnpG in conjunction with subpara. 1 of Article 5(2) of the IfsG. 16 Ibid., Article 1(7) in conjunction with subpara. 8 of Article 5(2) of the IfsG. 16 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law It was not, however, until November 2020 that a comprehensive enumeration of restrictive measures acquired their incorporation into the IfsG with the third emergency statute (t hird statute for the Protection of the Population in an epidemic situation of Nati- onal significance, 2020). 17 t he implementation of measures is, as conditioned in the first sentence of Article 28a (1), restricted to the event and duration of the declared state of epidemic (IfsG, 2000, Article 5) and delega- ted to an executive regulation (Verordnung) (IfsG, 2000, Article 5a (5)) 18 characteristically analogous to the slovenian ordinance (odlok). t o attain its epidemiological objectives, the IfsG (2000, Articles 28(1), 32(1), and 28a (1)) recurrently sanctions interfe- rence with the constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty (GG, Article 2(2)), freedom of assembly (GG, Article 8), freedom of movement (GG, Article 11(1)), and inviolability of the dwelling (GG, Article 13(1)). 1.3.3. Austria t he third state the concurring opinion of Justice Šugman stu- bbs refers to is the r epublic of Austria, whose conduct during the epidemic likewise shares copious resemblances with that of slovenia. t his can hardly be considered unforeseen as the zNb itself, passed by the National Assembly in November 1995 during the second Drnovšek government, extensively grounds on the Austrian epidemics Act (Epidemiegesetz, epiG), ratified by the Nationalrat in autumn 1950 under the guidance of the second Figel cabinet. 19 t o confront the challenges posed by the pandemic, epiG un- derwent several amendments by means of an emergency statu- te (COVID-19-Maßnahmengesetz – c OVID-19-MG). 20 Prior to the 17 t he third emergency statute (Drittes Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite) inserted a novel Article 28a into the IfsG, which listed the restric- tive measures available to public authorities in an exemplificative (insbesondere) manner. t he fact Germany had only amended the IfsG in November (and not substantially earlier, as the concurring opinion of Justice Šugman stubbs implied) was pointed out by Justice Šorli in his own opinion. 18 t hough Verordnung translates into english as “regulation”, it can mean both an executive act (by- law) and a secondary eU legislative act. 19 bundesgesetzblatt für die r epublik Österreich, 48. stück, 14. 10. 1950. t he full name of the statute is Gesetz über die Verhütung und Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten. t he contemporary epiG is based on the 1913 statute of the same name and was amended five times before the adoption of the slovenian z Nb in 1995. 20 For the complete cascade of c OVID-19-MG amendments see r echtsinformationssystem des bundes (2023). t he bill of the original emergency statute (Initiativantrag), sent to the Parliament on 14 March 17 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... health crisis, no significant disparities between the epiG and the z Nb could be observed. 21 c OVID-19-MG initially focused on incorporation of relatively vague procedural provisions regarding the mandate to declare the state of epidemic, which thus passed from individual states to the Federal Government (Bundesregierung). 22 It was not until autumn 2020 that an exhaustive enumeration of restrictive mea- sures, virtually indistinguishable from those enforced in France, Germany, and slovenia, attained their inclusion into the epiG. 23 Additionally, the latter amendment complemented the act with statutory power explicitly authorising the Federal Minister of so- cial Affairs, Health, c are, and c onsumer Protection to introduce protective measures themselves through use of executive regu- lations (epiG, subpara. 1 of Article 43(1)). 24 An instance of the latter was the decree issued on 14 November 2021, which institu- ted exceptionally stringent measures at the commencement of a three-week comprehensive lockdown (Verordnung des bunde- sministers für soziales, II Nr. 465/2021). 25 1.3.4. slovenia t he overarching rationale of the article inevitably calls for the analysis of the c ommunicable Diseases Act (Zakon o nalezljivih boleznih, z Nb) 26 that provided legal basis for the implementation of protective measures in slovenia. Its initial draft was submitted to the legislative procedure on 13 January 1994, with the final rendition obtaining approval of the National Assembly twenty- 2020 and adopted the following day, is available online - refer to Parliament Österreich (2020a). 21 except for, as was the case with the correlation between the zNb and the French cs P, certain par- ticularities pertaining to the Austrian federal composition. 22 t he Federal r epublic of Austria was akin to Germany confronted with the particular problem at the outset of the outbreak, as the legislation only delegated the declaration of a health emergency to the Länder in situations of local significance, but not to the Federal Government in situations of national. t his discrepancy was remedied by the first c OVID-19-MG. 23 For the text of the proposed amendment of 25 september 2020 refer to Parliament Österreich (2020b). 24 It should be noted the state of epidemic itself is limited to declaration by decree of the Bundesr- egierung and not the Minister of Health. r efer to the first c OVID-19-MG. 25 I experienced the measures myself, having flown from Flughafen Wien-schwechat in early Decem- ber. As the restaurants were closed to guests but nevertheless still sold food, I was left with no other choice but to consume a quite scrumptious hamburger on the floor in transit. Yum. 26 t he referential version of the z Nb is the one published in Official Gazette of the rs , No. 33/06 of 30 March 2006, in addition to the amendments made by means of the z IUze OP (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 49/20 of 10 April 2020), the z IUOPDVe (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 142/20 of 14 October 2020 and 175/20 of 27 November 2020), and the zDUOP (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 14/21 of 4 February 2021). 18 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law -two months later. c omposition of the act emulated comparable statutes of – as previously remarked – Austria and France, but also Finland, sweden, the c zech r epublic, Hungary, the United k ing- dom, the United states, c anada, and Australia (National Assembly of the r epublic of slovenia, 1994). c onsequently, the substance of the z Nb exhibits no deviations from the conventional guidelines delineated in the extant legislation of the states with well-establis- hed democratic tradition. t he latter notwithstanding, it is unfeasi- ble to refute the obsolescence that tarnished the z Nb at the onset of the c OVID-19 pandemic. In its appraisal of the circumstances that substantiated con- stitution of a novel zNb, 27 the Ministry of Health identified two areas of particular insufficiency. r ating specific consideration was the deficient methodology for surveillance of contagious diseases and infections, which lacked adaption to contemporary infor- mation systems and accordingly rendered collection of relevant epidemiological data remarkably strenuous (compare M. z ., 2021, e-source). Furthermore, the zNb in effect at the time did not in- corporate the International Health r egulations (2005) 28 adopted by the World Health Organisation (WHO), on which the latter substantiated the issuance of guidelines to states Parties on how to proceed in their government of the pandemic. t he draft proposal for a rectified zNb that would have con- fronted these two defects alongside a set of others 29 was appro- ved by the Ministry of Health on 15 August 2020, but ultimately encountered no referral to parliamentary procedure. t he existent z Nb, however, sustained several prominent alterations that com- mand observation. In early April 2020, the zNb underwent a series of modifica- tions with the emergency statute labelled Act Determining the Intervention Measures to contain the cOVID-19 epidemic and Mitigate its consequences for citizens and the economy (2020) (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 27 t he like urge for a novel epiG was concurrently observed in Austria; compare stöger (2021, e- source). 28 t he WHO International Health r egulations had been adopted in 2005 and entered into force on 15 June 2007, ten years after the adoption of the z Nb and a year after its last amendment. 29 t he novel z Nb would austerely dissuade the parents from denying compulsory vaccination to their children, inter alia by excluding the latter from kindergartens, other educational institutions, and pub- licly funded holidays. Additionally, it was to introduce a revamped programme to ensure microbial resistance, regulate the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections, and modify the network of microbiological laboratory activities. For the complete bill, refer to Ministry of Health of the r epublic of slovenia (2020). 19 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo, hen- ceforth referred to as zIUze OP). t he act in question was, like the French Loi n° 2020-290, the German c OVIfsGAnpG, and the Austrian cOVID-19-MG, an omnibus statute amending not only provisions contained in the zNb, but also the Act Determining the Intervention Measure of Deferred Payment of borrowers’ Li- abilities and the Act Determining the Intervention Measures on salaries and c ontributions (z IUze OP, Article 1). Furthermore, the zIUze OP introduced an abundance of exceptions pertaining to numerous effective statutes 30 in addition to expedients to mitigate the imminent economic damage. t he revision of the zNb was confined to a single segment of the z IUze OP, i.e. its third chapter with fifteen articles altogether. seven of those covered sanctions, three nominal modifications, 31 and five the restrictive measures the Government was empowe- red to enforce by ordinances as per Article 39 of the z Nb. t he essential modification affected Article 19 of the zNb that hitherto restricted the edict of quarantine exclusively to incidents of plague or viral haemorrhagic fevers, thus constituting an insu- fficient legal foundation for the urgently required protective in- struments. t he z IUze OP resolved the obstruction by accordingly adjusting the first paragraph of the article in question, expanding the prospect of quarantine to other communicable diseases not encompassed within the aforementioned virological classificati- on. In doing so, the emergency statute established an adequate basis for isolation in the eventuality of infection (or the threat of it) with sArs -c oV-2. 32 Another transformation of particular note concerns Article 7 of the zIUze OP that delegates, should a communicable disease imperil the whole state, the proclamation of a nationwide state of epidemic to the Government (and no longer the Minister of Health as the zNb postulated erstwhile). such amendment was demonstrably modelled on those integrated into the previously specified foreign legislation. 30 Inter alia, the z IUze OP postulated exemptions relative to the z Dr -1 (Article 21(2)), z MVN-1 (Article 41(2)), z Vrt (Article 42), and z Vis (Article 49). 31 t he zIUze OP amended the zNb by substituting the syntax “sanitary inspector” with “health in- spectorate” (Article 10 of the zIUze OP in conjunction with Article 49 of the zNb) and “competent authority for internal affairs” with “Police” (Article 12 of the z IUze OP in conjunction with Article 52 of the z Nb). 32 Notably, this grave (yet, by then remedied) inadequacy of the act also ranked amongst those refer- enced in the discarded proposal for a novel z Nb. 20 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law Hence, the provision itself is not particularly noteworthy, but its context is rather peculiar as the then-Prime Minister explici- tly characterized the former rule as “unlawful” when confronted with parliamentary questions in the Assembly (D. J., 2020). t his assertion is particularly eccentric, considering the c onstitutional c ourt on no occasion assessed the constitutionality of the specific stipulation. 33 t he sole contextually sensible conjecture, attainable with a somewhat tentative application of argumentum a minore ad maius, is the legislator estimated the imposition of the natio- nwide epidemic, with regard to the gravity of its consequences, a measure of excessive severity for its ratification to be delegated to a single minister, the legal precondition of proportionality de- manding a broader consensus conformed to with the implemen- tation by the Government. Five subsequent amendments of the zNb focused on a range of modifications and exceptions to the application of its statutory provisions. 34 On 29 september 2020, the National Assembly pas- sed the proposed amending statute (the zNb-b) that revised the prophylaxis, 35 followed by the addendum of the third paragraph to Article 57 in November that regulated sanctions against orga- nisers of unlawful gatherings (zIUOPDVe, 2020, Article 54). t he latter punitive motive similarly pervaded the third alteration that in February 2021 incorporated an additional violation to those already enumerated in Article 54 of the statute (zDUOP, 2021, Article 17). t he most crucial adjustment was contained in the zNb-c , the amending statute passed on Friday, 14 May 2021. t he adaptati- on fundamentally restructured the quarantine, the definition of which had previously been confined to a rather rudimentary cha- racterisation, by substantially expanding the contents of existing Article 19 with the supplement of Articles 19a, 19b, 19c, and 19č. t heir substance patently reflects that outlined in the draft propo- 33 Additionally, the bill itself provided no allusion to the stated incompatibility in its explanation of the amendment of Article 5 of the zNb. In my estimation, this inadequacy is fathomable in view of the hectic circumstances under which the text was drafted. 34 Illustratively, Article 24 of the Act Determining Intervention Measures to Prepare for the second Wave of cOVID-19 (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za pripravo na drugi val COVID-19, zIUPDV) introduced an exemption from the zNb in processing of personal data pertinent to the record of issued quarantine decisions. 35 t he revised vaccine policy was included in the draft proposal for the novel z Nb in August 2020. A month and a half later, the virtually identical arrangement attained its incorporation into the amend- ment of the extant zNb. compare Article 51a of the zNb-b with Article 35 of the novel zNb and Article 22a of the z Nb-b with Article 31 of the novel z Nb. 21 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... sal for the novel zNb 36 as well as the Austrian, 37 German, 38 and Polish legislation. Particular attention was given to the issuance (z Nb, Article 19) and consequent record of quarantine decisions (z Nb, Article 19c), the implementation of home quarantine (z Nb, Article 19a), and the definition of the statement on acquaintance with referral to quarantine at home along with its obligatory com- ponents (z Nb, Article 19a (6)). *** summary assessment of the discussed statutes produces two inferences. Firstly, virtually all states encountered comparable le- gal impediments at the onset of the pandemic, i.e. the maladjust- ment of the extant corpus juris to the novel circumstances and the urgency of swift legislative action. secondly, the countries concer- ned enforced identical methods to impede the spread of highly virulent disease and without exception referred their implemen- tation to executive regulations that, contingent on the pertinent legal bases, to varying scope determined their substance. It is essential to conclude the preparatory section of the article by remarking none of the four countries discussed declared the state of emergency. Accordingly, the referral of legislative autho- rity to the executive at no point materialised. 2. Exsequiae 2.1. I miglior fabbri t heir legal arrangement of intervention measures notwithstan- ding, the singular occurrence universally confronted by all states was the irrational response by a segment of the population to concentrated encroachment on fundamental human rights. t he most extravagant manifestation of such affront were unquestio- nably the affrays mounted by the opponents of the restrictions, but it was the more refined ambience of the courtrooms that soon emerged as the epicentre of one of the fieriest social conflicts in recent history. 36 c ompare Articles 22 – 26 of the proposed novel z Nb and their justification. 37 In particular, the epiG exhaustively regulates the isolation of the infected individual (Articles 6, 7, and 7a). 38 t he draft amendment explicitly refers to Articles 28 and 28a(3) of the IfsG (the latter added by Article 17 of the third c OVIfsGAnpG in November 2020). 22 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law Mirroring the inspected set of foreign legislations, the compa- rative survey of the imperative constitutional adjudications is to focus on the applicable jurisprudence of the French, German, and Austrian apex courts. 2.1.1. France French constitutional review of legislative acts is performed either prospectively (ex ante) 39 or retrospectively (ex post) 40 by the Conseil Constitutionnel (constitutional council, henceforth c ouncil). Due to the specificities appurtenant to the locus standi, the relevant jurisprudence of the c ouncil totals a single decision, its subject being the Loi n°2020-546 the Parliament in early May 2020 passed to prolong the state of public health emergency. t he request for review of constitutionality 41 was adjudicated on in the ruling n° 2020-800 (Decision n° 2020-800 Dc), with the council affirming conformity of the statute with the constitutional order and proportionality between the protection of public health and restriction of individual liberties. 42 contrariwise, no decrees (décrets) employed to implement protective measures faced constitutional review as the distincti- ve substance of the legislation provides no basis for the c ouncil to inspect executive regulations. Discursively, it should be noted that, contrasted to the scope of powers delegated to the execu- tive branches of other discussed states, the French government enjoyed a relatively eminent degree of autonomy with regard to adoption of particular emergency by-laws. such sovereignty is to attribute to the provisions contained in the cs P that defer particularly comprehensive margin of discretion to the executi- ve, principally in determining the matter of the protective mea- sures. 43 39 A review of a legislative act, adopted by the Parliament, may be initiated before it enters into force at the request of the President of the r epublic, Parliament, the senate, the Prime Minister, sixty Members of Parliament, or sixty senators. r efer to Article 61(2) of the French c onstitution. 40 Once in force, the c ouncil can only review the statute’s compatibility with the constitutional order at the request of the judge presiding over a case in which uncertainty as to the constitutional congru- ence of a particular statutory provision appeared. 41 t he petition was lodged by the President of the French r epublic. 42 t he reasoning of the c ouncil did not differ from those of the Austrian and German courts, their substances considered infra. 43 t he scope of authority was extensively enhanced per additions introduced to the cs P by means of the first intervention statute, the Loi n° 2020-290. 23 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... t he reader may therefore succumb to enticement of errone- ously conjecturing the decrees not accountable to any judicial review, consequently conceding the Government virtually unre- strained autonomy and de facto arbitrariness in its ratification of executive regulations. such hypothesis sustains no magnitude, its fallacy derived from the verdict the Conseil d’Etat (c ouncil of state) 44 delivered as early as in 1960 amidst the appeals to resol- ve the ambiguity. Per adjudication, the above postulation would effectively deprive citizens of any sufficient safeguard against the executive action, inducing the council of state to rectify the legal gap through conferral of the authority to review exe- cutive regulations upon itself 45 by submitting Article 37 of the French c onstitution to liberal purposive interpretation (brown, 1966). t he council of state pronounced several prominent verdicts amidst the pandemic, all of them pursuing the identical course established on the principle of proportionality. For instance, it found the closure of cinemas, theatres, and spectacle halls (la fermeture des cinémas, théâtres et salles de spectacle), enacted by decree n° 2020-1310, 46 compliant with constitutional postulates (Decision n° 447698, para. 15) in its decision n° 447698. t he c o- uncil of state specifically stressed the enforced limitations com- posed a grave interference with freedom of expression, artistic freedom, freedom of access to works of art, and free enterprise, the intensity of which can fulfil the requisite for proportionality only in concurrent presence of a particularly adverse health con- text (Decision n° 447698, para. 13). Acknowledging the relapse of epidemiological circumstances at the time of deliberation, the council of state determined existence of such conditions and concluded the right to life, which the interdiction strove to pro- tect, preponderated other constitutional freedoms (Decision n° 447698, para. 14). exercising the same justification, the c ouncil of state resolved the prohibition of the operation of cable cars entailed no exces- 44 In the French constitutional order, the c ouncil of state assumes the role as the supreme supervisor of the executive branch of government (or, more specifically, the acts it issues). In this respect, it dif- fers from the c onstitutional c ouncil. 45 A parallel can be drawn with the approach taken by the United states supreme c ourt in Marbury v Madison. 46 Full title Décret n° 2020-1310 du 29 octobre 2020 prescrivant les mesures générales nécessaires pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 dans le cadre de l’état d’urgence sanitaire, adopted on t hursday, 29 October 2020. 24 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law sive interference with free enterprise (Decision n° 447208, para. 11) and compatibility of the closure of bars and restaurants with the objective of impeding the viral spread of infections (Decision n° 446715, para. 10). Perhaps the most compelling of the congregation of decisions is the n° 446930. In it, the c ouncil of state determined the inter- ference with the freedom of conscience disproportionate to the universal restriction on the number of worshippers in places of worship, the limit instituting thirty persons per shrine (Decision n° 446930). 47 Parallel to the German and Austrian constitutional courts, the verdicts of which are yet to receive further attention, their French equivalent raised no objection to partial restriction of access to religious buildings per se, but concluded the absen- ce of differentiation corresponding to their surface area con- stitutionally nonconforming (Decision n° 446930, para. 21). 48 t he c ouncil of state further observed no other form of indoor assembly subjected to comparable numerical threshold, which could notably not be substantiated on the basis of the specific characteristics material to religious observances (Decision n° 446930, para. 12). 2.1.2. Germany c ommanding meticulous inspection are the more ample juri- sprudences of German and Austrian constitutional courts. In Germany, constitutional evaluation is coordinated at two instances, the state and the Federal one, with both examining requests for review of the constitutionality and legality of indivi- dual acts. In spite of their quantity, the petitions appurtenant to c OVID-19 matters exceptionally seldom attained favourable out- come, the fact primarily attributable to the rigid definition of legal standing and consequent low quantity of cases the constitutional courts examined on meritorious grounds. t he preponderance of caseload was thereby allotted to the ordinary administrative courts (Verwaltungsgerichte), which in accordance with the Ger- man administrative legislation retain jurisdiction for adjudicating 47 see indent 6 of the petitioner’s arguments. 48 cf. paras 55-58 of the reasoning of the Austrian decision V 411/2020-17. For instance, both the minute cemetery church in Villers-lès-Guise and the cathedral in r ouen were subjected to the like numerical limit of worshippers. 25 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... on both general administrative matters and legality of executive regulations (Normenkontrollantrag). 49 An item rousing particular controversy among the legal experts at the onset of the pandemic was Article 28 of the IfsG. Prior to its amendment by the first intervention statute, the second para- graph of the article in question authorised the competent autho- rities to “restrict or prohibit events or other gatherings of a larger number of people” and, in addition, to “impose an obligation on individuals not to leave the place in which they are located or en- ter a certain area until necessary protective measures have been taken” (IfsG , Article 28(2)). 50 t he German authorities construed the diction an adequate le- gal premise for the prohibition on leaving the dwellings (Ausgan- gssperre). Numerous legal scholars estimated the interpretation contradictory to the provision’s purpose, i.e. the introduction of temporary restrictive measures, which, in their assessment, could not encompass such a proscription (t hielbörger & behlert, 2020, e-source). t he administrative courts, however, dismissed this stan- ce and sustained the clause a sufficient legal foundation for the imposition of the interdict in question (Decision OVG berlin- -brandenburg 11 s 12/20, 23 March 2020; Decision 4 k 1246/20). *** Noting its correspondence with the slovenian z Nb, the general clause contained in Article 28(1) of the IfsG permitting the autho- rities the enforcement of “necessary protective measures” (die notwendigen Schutzmaßnahmen) signifies an item of particular relevance. A perusal of the IfsG bill discloses that its submitter regarded the general clause a compulsory precondition for effec- tive response to unforeseen circumstances (bundestag-Drucksa- che Nr. 8/2468, 1979, p. 27). r emarkably, the legislator omitted any record of potential instruments from the final provision. t he privation of a precisely established array of permissible measures precipitated unease about the constitutionality of the 49 t he institution is analogous to the subsidiary administrative dispute in the slovenian administrative law. Also refer to k ramer and Hinrichsen (2015). 50 t he original text reads: Unter den Voraussetzungen von Satz 1 kann die zuständige Behörde Veranstaltungen oder sonstige Ansammlungen einer größeren Anzahl von Menschen beschränken oder verbieten und Badeanstalten oder in § 33 genannte Gemeinschaftseinrichtungen oder Teile davon schließen; sie kann auch Personen verpflichten, den Ort, an dem sie sich befinden, nicht zu verlassen oder von ihr bestimmte Orte nicht zu betreten, bis die notwendigen Schutzmaßnahmen durchgeführt worden sind. 26 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law diction. t he scepticism amongst legal experts principally con- centrated on the dilemma whether the loosely outlined general clause provided sufficient basis for the highly invasive measures enforced, among others the aforementioned prohibition to de- part one’s residence. t he negative answer may be founded on Articles 2(1) and 104 of the German constitution (Grundgesetz, henceforth GG), which in conjunction necessitate (1) a specific and definite statutory mandate a general clause, as klafki (2020, e-source) emphasises, cannot substitute, (2) the standard of legal certainty the statutory phraseology is obligated to comply with (Bestimmtheitsgrundsatz), (GG, Articles 20 and 28(1); edenhar- ter, 2020, e-source) and (3) the position it is for the legislature (rather than executive) to arrange fundamental questions of law (Wesentlichkeitstheorie). 51 t he bundestag addressed some of the concerns by including the list of specific protective measures from the second para- graph of the Article 28 into its first paragraph with the initial c O- VIfsGAnpG. However, the general clause itself was not omitted from the provision, a component of which it still remains. 52 An intriguing propensity in the judicial jurisprudence can be observed with regard to the proportionality of restrictive measu- res. t hroughout the inspected period, the constitutional case-law bifurcated, the two courses differing in terms of the rights pro- tected. During the first, most perilous stage of the pandemic in March 2020, the constitutional courts at both the state and federal instances assigned absolute primacy to the right to life and bodily integrity. bVerfG decision of 7 April 2020 (Decision 1 bvr 755/20) as- sessing the constitutionality of the Ausgangssperre 53 exhibits a par 51 t he doctrine was established by the Federal c onstitutional c ourt (bundesverfassungsgericht, bVer- fG). It is described in further detail in bumke & Voßkuhle (2019) and bundestag (2019). 52 Article 1(6) of the c OVIfsGAnpG amended the first sentence of Article 28(1) of the IfsG to read as follows: Werden Kranke, Krankheitsverdächtige, Ansteckungsverdächtige oder Ausscheider festgestellt oder ergibt sich, dass ein Verstorbener krank, krankheitsverdächtig oder Ausscheider war, so trifft die zuständige Behörde die notwendigen Schutzmaßnahmen, insbesondere die in den §§ 29 bis 31 genannten, soweit und solange es zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung übertragbarer Krankheiten erforderlich ist; sie kann insbesondere Personen verpflichten, den Ort, an dem sie sich befinden, nicht oder nur unter bestimmten Bedingungen zu verlassen oder von ihr bestimmte Orte oder öffentliche Orte nicht oder nur unter bestimmten Bedingungen zu betreten. t he parts carried over from para. 2 of the Article in question are underlined. Furthermore, it should be noted that the amendment with- drew from the statute the debated syntax “until necessary protective measures have been taken” (bis die notwendigen Schutzmaßnahmen durchgeführt worden sind). 53 t he review examined four executive regulations of the bavarian state Government – Bayerische Infektionsschutzmaßnahmenverordnung - BayIfSMV - vom 27. März 2020 2126-1-4-G, 2126-1-5-G (bayMbl 2020 Nr. 158), Bayerische Verordnung über eine vorläufige Ausgangsbeschränkung an- 27 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... excellence example of such practice. t here, the court weighed the right to freedom of movement against the right to life and unani- mously ruled in favour of the latter. t he administrative courts initially applied the same inferen- ce to the conflict between the right to life and the freedom of assembly (Decision 6 L 212/20; Decision 7 e 535/20), 54 but were soon compelled to reverse their conduct to comply with the pre- cedence set by the bVerfG in mid-April. In it, the court sustained the request for a temporary injunction contesting the applicants’ interdict on conducting several public meetings (Decision 1 bvr 828/20) 55 against which the complaint had previously been re- fused by the administrative courts of the c ity of Gießen and the state of Hessen. t he bVerfG substantiated its decision on Article 8 of the GG, which specifies the freedom of assembly and ex- plicitly contains the statutory reservation (Gesetzesvorbehalt) for instances of its encroachment. t he reservation is concretised by the Versammlungsgesetz des Bundes (VersG), which in Article 15 confers discretion to restrict assemblies on the competent autho- rities (zuständige Behörde). According to the bVerfG, the Gießen municipal administration erroneously construed the provision as carte blanche sanction for blanket prohibition of social gatherings. In doing so, it discounted the provision contained in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the article, which permits imposition of prohibition or condi- tions on the assembly only when such activity would jeopardise either public security or public order (VersG, Article 15(1)). 56 De- termination of this criterion inevitably entails a prior examination of tangible circumstances, on the basis of which the authorities are stipulated to ascertain the permissibility of the meeting. lässlich der Corona-Pandemie vom 24. März 2020, 2126-1-4-G (bayMbl 2020 Nr. 130), Allgemeinver- fügung des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Gesundheit und Pflege vom 20. März 2020 - Z6a- G8000 - 2020/122-98 and Allgemeinverfügung des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Gesundheit und Pflege und des Bayerischen Staatsministeriums für Familie, Arbeit und Soziales vom 16. März 2020 – 51-G8000 - 2020/122-67 (modified with Allgemeinverfügung vom 17. März 2020 - Z6a- G8000-2020/122-83). 54 c f. VG Dresden 6 L 212/20 (complaint against the ban on a rally at Postplatz in Dresden) and VG Weimar 7 e 535/20 (complaint against the ban on commemoration of liberation of the buchenwald concentration camp). 55 On 4 April 2020, the municipality of Gießen issued an administrative decision banning a rally under the slogan “Gesundheit stärken statt Grundrechte schwächen – Schutz vor Viren, nicht vor Menschen”. 56 Article 15(1) reads in full: Die zuständige Behörde kann die Versammlung oder den Aufzug ver- bieten oder von bestimmten Auflagen abhängig machen, wenn nach den zur Zeit des Erlasses der Verfügung erkennbaren Umständen die öffentliche Sicherheit oder Ordnung bei Durchführung der Versammlung oder des Aufzuges unmittelbar gefährdet ist. 28 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law t he decision thereby specified the authorities may prohibit or otherwise restrict the freedom of assembly on the statutory gro- unds, but only should they consider such action the sole method of safeguarding the public interest in the particular case (Decision 1 bvr 828/80, para. 15; sehl, 2020, e-source). 57 A comparable evolution of jurisprudence transpired vis-à-vis the freedom of conscience (GG, Article 4). t he administrative courts, in consonance with the freedom of assembly, initially con- ferred absolute priority to the right to life. 58 Already in late April, however, the bVerfG adopted a prominent decision abolishing the universal ban on the exercise of confessional activities in reli- gious buildings, imposed through the Lower saxony state Gover- nment regulation (Decision 1 bvQ 44/20). 59 t he bVerfG determined the executive regulation, which con- tained no exclusions to the prohibition on the exercise of religi- on in designated public spaces, noncompliant with Article 4 of the GG. It found the mere option to preclude such activities, if necessary to preserve the public interest, exhibited no constitu- tional contentiousness, but commanded a mechanism enabling exemptions, the sanction of which must consider the contextually relevant circumstances. 60 t he explication of the reflected decision propounds a remar- kable aspect, rendered even more so when contrasted against the slovenian praxis. by utilising the proportionality test, the bVer- fG effectively sustained the possibility of interdicting attendance of religious services by means of by-law, although such action constitutes an incursion into constitutionally warranted right, the 57 t his is evident from para. 15 of the decision, in which the bVerfG expressly permits the municipal- ity of Gießen to, within the scope of its discretion (nach pflichtgemäßem Ermessen) and consider- ing the specific circumstances, reconsider the case and, should it conclude the conditions fulfilled, prohibit or restrict the assembly. t he municipality subsequently allowed the meeting under strict conditions, temporally limited to one hour and numerically to fifteen participants. t he latter were required to wear protective masks and observe appropriate social distancing. 58 examples include bayVGH 20 Ne 20.704 of 9 April 2020 and OVG t hüringen 3 eN 238/20 of 9 April 2020. 59t he contested regulation was Niedersächsischen Verordnung zum Schutze vor Neuinfektionen mit dem Corona-Virus vom 17. April 2020. t he complainant challenged the prohibition on performing Friday prayers in a mosque during r amadan, founded in subpara. 3 of Article 1(5) of the act in ques- tion ([Verboten sind] Zusammenkünfte in Kirchen, Moscheen, Synagogen und die Zusammenkünfte anderer Glaubensgemeinschaften, einschließlich der Zusammenkünfte in Gemeindezentren). t he complaint was dismissed by the OVG, which nevertheless identified the interdiction a grave interfer- ence with the freedom of conscience (see para. 10 of the reasoning). 60 An analogous line of reasoning was pursued by the United states supreme court in south bay United Pentecostal church, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of california, et al., and Lord Justice braid’s legal opinion in the scottish case of r everend Dr William Philip and others. 29 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... regulation and limitation of which is in principle conferred exclu- sively to statutory arrangement. As Article 28a only entered the IfsG in November, 61 the referential statute provided no explicit legal foundation for restriction of religious activities at the time the bVerfG ruled on the substance at issue. In other words, the bVerfG estimated the regulatory provision unconstitutional due to its disproportionate interference with a right, not because it regulated a matter otherwise reserved to statutory management. 2.1.3. Austria Of matching allure is the jurisprudence of the Austrian con- stitutional court (Verfassungsgerichtshof, henceforth VfGH). In spite of the virtually identical legal bases assessed, Austrian and German decisions exhibit certain noteworthy distinctions. t he crucial milestone traversed by the VfGH in the opening stages of the pandemic, which heralded the further development of the relevant case-law, incontestably comprised the publicati- on of three essential judgments on Super Tuesday, 14 July 2020 (Decision V 363/2020-25; Decision V 411/2020-17; Decision G 202/2020-20). t wo of those are to be allotted particular attention. 2.1.3.1. Decision V 363/2020-25 V 363/2020-25 categorically constitutes one of the principal decisions adopted by the VfGH during the pandemic. Its substan- ce pertains to the general “ban on access to public places” (das Betreten öffentlicher Orte verboten), enforced by Federal Minister of Health through regulation (Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, II Nr. 98/2020, Article 1) 62 issued on the basis of Ar- ticle 2 of the first cOVID-19-MG. 63 t he universal capacity of the 61 t he IfsG now regulates restrictions on freedom of conscience in Articles 28a/I(10) and 28a/II(1), incorporated with the third c OVIfsGAnpG of 19 November 2020. 62 For simplicity’s sake, I shall hereafter refer to the regulation with the acronym “c OVID-19-MV-98”, mutatis mutandis imitating the practice established by the intervention statute and the VfGH in judg- ment V 202/2020-20 (see e.g. para. 3 of the reasoning). 63 t he unabridged Article 2 of the cOVID-19-MG, titled Betreten von bestimmten Orten (“access to specific places”), is phrased as follows: Beim Auftreten von COVID-19 kann durch Verordnung das Betreten von bestimmten Orten untersagt werden, soweit dies zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von COVID-19 erforderlich ist. Die Verordnung ist 1. vom Bundesminister für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz zu erlassen, wenn sich ihre Anwendung auf das gesamte Bundesgebiet erstreckt, 2. vom Landeshauptmann zu erlassen, wenn sich ihre Anwendung auf das gesamte Lan- desgebiet erstreckt, oder 3. von der Bezirksverwaltungsbehörde zu erlassen, wenn sich ihre Anwen- dung auf den politischen Bezirk oder Teile desselben erstreckt. Das Betretungsverbot kann sich auf bestimmte Zeiten beschränken. Darüber hinaus kann geregelt werden, unter welchen bestimmten 30 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law interdiction emerged contentious, the application of the linguistic interpretation alone indicating the executive had evidently excee- ded the scope conferred to its regulation by the statutory power. specifically, the intervention statute only sanctioned the suspen- sion of access to specific premises (das Betreten von bestimmten Orten untersagt werden) (cOVID-19-MG, Article 2(1)), 64 not the total prohibition imposed by the particular regulation (zur Ver- hinderung der Verbreitung von COVID-19 ist das Betreten öffen- tlicher Orte verboten) (cOVID-19-MV-98, Article 1). converse to the previously observed semantic ambiguity of Article 28 of the IfsG, the intention of the provision contained in the cOVID-19- -MG posed no equivocality and therefore could not have been interpreted so to permit the reviewed measure. t he VfGH consequently resolved the syntax a contraventi- on of the principle of legality (Legalitätsprinzip) (b-VG, Article 18(1,2); Adamovich & Funk, 1985, para. 94), declaring the spe- cific provision of cOVID-19-MV-98 unlawful (gesetzwidrig) and thus incompatible with the b-VG (Decision V 363/2020-25, para. 1). 65 Furthermore, the court implied a universal prohibition may demonstrate compliance with the established constitutional stan- dards if, abiding by the prerequisite of proportionality and the material context, prescribed by the legislator in a statutory act (Decision V 363/2020-25, para. 68). 66 Additionally, the VfGH unanimously determined Article 2 of cOVID-19-MG, upon which the executive substantiated the un- lawful provision of the c OVID-19-MV-98, compliant with elemen- tary constitutional maxims, explicitly the principles of legality and proportionality (Decision V 363/2020-25, para. 63). contemplating the prospective outline of the slovenian con- stitutional jurisprudence, it merits to apportion emphasis to the definition of “public places” the VfGH distilled in the observed Voraussetzungen oder Auflagen jene bestimmten Orte betreten werden dürfen. 64 First sentence of Article 2(1) of the first c OVID-19-MG. 65 As the unconstitutional provision expired on 30 April 2020, the VfGH exercised past tense (§ 1 der Verordnung […],§ 2 der Verordnung […] waren gesetzwidrig). 66 t he Federal Minister of Health observed the guidance and shortly proposed a statutory amendment to the Parliament. t he amendment, which corrected the deficiency and in part revised the statute, was adopted on 23 september 2020 and published two days later (bGbl. I 104/2020). t he relevant ban on access to public places now comprises a part of Article 1(1) and, expanded to general scope, reads as follows: Dieses Bundesgesetz ermächtigt zur Regelung des Betretens und des Befahrens von Betriebsstätten, Arbeitsorten, bestimmten Orten und öffentlichen Orten in ihrer Gesamtheit, zur Rege- lung des Benutzens von Verkehrsmitteln sowie zu Ausgangsregelungen als gesundheitspolizeiliche Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von COVID-19. 31 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... adjudication (Decision V 363/2020-25, paras 54 – 57). 67 t o that end, the court utilised a teleological interpretation of Article 1 of the c OVID-19-MV-98, the rationale of which was to prevent indivi- duals from vacating their residences (analogous to the aforemen- tioned Ausgangssperre). t hereby, “public places” encompass all areas a person must enter to leave his home. 68 2.1.3.2. Decision V 411/2020-17 In the second foremost judgment, communicated on 14 July 2020, the VfGH constated constitutionality of the prohibition of operation applicable to certain categories of shops of which the floor area exceeded 400 square metres. t he measure, enacted by virtue of the regulation issued on 9 April 2020 (Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, II Nr. 151/2020) substantively supplemented an existing by-law c OVID-19-MV-96 (Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, II Nr. 96/2020) 69 which, having been proclaimed approximately three weeks earlier, enforced a universal ban on entering the business premises of shops to con- duct purchases. 70 t he cOVID-19-MV-96 enumerated copious exemptions that, upon adherence to protective measures, permitted access to po- ints of sale so that the individuals could fulfil their basic needs (cOVID-19-MV-96, Article 2). t he provision generated various ambiguities that the Minister of Health strove to ameliorate with the second regulation that instituted several adjustments. t wo of those are germane to the inspected review. t he first enumerated two novel exceptions from the interdic- tion contained in Article 1, thus expanding the exemption to do- -it-yourself (or DIY) shops and garden centres. Accordingly, both 67 With regard to the particularly intense restriction on freedom of movement resulting from such an interpretation, the executive act itself subsequently allows for certain exceptions (Article 2). t hose, however, fail to reverse the ultra vires nature of the regulation and the subsequent nonconformity with the principle of legality. 68 t he VfGH interprets “home” in the broadest sense of Article 8 of the european convention on Human r ights. 69 Analogically to the aforestated acronym ‘c OVID-19-MV-98’, I opted to apply the same practice and abbreviate the title of the regulation to ‘c OVID-19-MV-96’. 70 Article 1 of the regulation goes as follows: Das Betreten des Kundenbereichs von Betriebsstätten des Handels und von Dienstleistungsunternehmen sowie von Freizeit- und Sportbetrieben zum Zweck des Erwerbs von Waren oder der Inanspruchnahme von Dienstleistungen oder der Benützung von Freizeit- und Sportbetrieben ist untersagt. t he exception contained in Article 2(3) of the cOVID- 19-MV-98 of 20 March 2020 (bGbl. II 98/2020), which introduced the (unlawful) general prohibition of access to public places, was also contextually linked to this specific provision. 32 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law categories were allowed to pursue their mercantile activities irre- spectively of their floor area, the privilege previously reserved so- lely to the systemically essential shops (c OVID-19-MV-96, Article 2, subpara. 22). t he second modification introduced a new, fourth paragraph to Article 2 of cOVID-19-MV-96 that permitted the operation of “other commercial establishments” (sonstige Betriebsstätten des Handels), comprising enterprises for sale, manufacture, repair and processing of goods. Unlike the exclusions catalogued in the first paragraph, those specified in the fourth could conduct ventures on condition their ground surface did not exceed 400 square metres. t he contention surrounding the differentiation between the categories referred to in the two paragraphs ultimately prompted a constitutional review of the regulation (Decision V 411/2020-17, para. 25), 71 which found the contested provisions unlawful (Deci- sion V 411/2020-17, para. 1). t he focal postulate upon which the VfGH based its conclu- sion was the arbitrary delimitation between categories of com- mercial establishments apropos the surface boundary (Decision U-I-131/04, paras 35, 36, 39). Particularly, it determined uncertain the basis on which the executive had grounded the demarcation and what factors, if any, had been considered in weighing public interest against the rights of the owners of the applicable enter- prises (Decision U-I-131/04, paras 55 – 58). In other words, the Minister provided no explication on why the “other commercial establishments”, denoted in Article 2(4) of the c OVID-19-MV-96, posed a greater threat to public health than the shops listed in the subparagraph 22 of the Article 2(1). 72 t he inevitable corollary of such an ambiguity was the unjusti- fied direct discrimination of other commercial institutions in rela- tion to DIY stores and garden centres, which the VfGH found an infringement (Decision V 411/2020-17, paras 89 – 92; Jasanoff et al., 2021) of the fundamental constitutional principle of equality (Gleichheitsgrundsatz) enshrined in Article 7 of the b-VG (Ada- movich & Funk, 1985). 71 t he VfGH received the petition for review of constitutionality and legality on t hursday, 29 April 2020. 72 t he VfGH acknowledged the prohibition of shops with a floor area above a certain limit itself an appropriate restrictive measure, since larger floor area ineludibly implied a greater quantity of con- tacts between a larger number of customers (see para. 64 of the reasoning). 33 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... 2.1.3.3. Maskenpflicht t wo decisions on the obligation to wear a protective mask (hereinafter also Maskenpflicht where appropriate) impeccably illustrate the function the constitutional court assumes vis-à-vis the executive. t he VfGH established particular conditions for issuance of su- bordinate legislation well before the pandemic, commanding the executive authorities expound both the necessity and substance of certain regulatory acts. 73 It was, however, the intensity of the widespread interferences with human rights, induced by protec- tive measures, that compelled the court to distinctly expand the rigidity of the requisite, hitherto limited in both stringency and scope. t he pertinent regulative saga opened on 31 March 2020 with a ministerial instruction enjoining Maskenpflicht in grocery shops and pharmacies (Gesley, 2020, e-source). On 30 April, an exe- cutive regulation supplemented the command by extending the obligation to all enclosed public places, the sole exception comprising schools (cOVID-19-LV, subpara. 1 of Article 11(1)) 74 that were subject to the third regulation issued on 13 May (c - -schVO). 75 t he subsequent, tremendously convoluted regulatory evolution of the measure, its variational quantity likely second to none other, bears no relevance to the ongoing inspection and is therefore omitted. t he VfGH deliberated Maskenpflicht on two separate occasi- ons. In the first decision, adjudicated on 1 October 2020, the court considered constitutionality and legality of the general obligation to wear a protective mask (or mechanische Schutzvorrichtung, “mechanical protective device”) (Decision G 271/2020-16). 76 In the second, dated 10 December 2020, it reviewed the same com- pulsion applicable to the premises of educational establishments (Decision V 436/2020-15). In the original decision, the VfGH determined the phrase “und eine den Mund- und Nasenbereich abdeckende mechanische Sc- hutzvorrichtung zu tragen,” 77 contained in Article 1(2) of the c O- 73 such travaux preparatoires are not publicly available, though the executive is obliged to disclose them upon request. 74 schools are excluded (gilt nicht) from the catalogue of institutions affected by the regulation. 75 t he publication also encloses two annexes (Anlagen), A and b. 76 t he regulation considered was the c OVID-19-LV. 77 t ranslated as “and wear mechanical protective device covering the oral and nasal area”. 34 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law VID-19-LV, unlawful (Decision G 271/2020-16, para. 1). Notably, the court based such conclusion not on any substantive objection to the measure itself, but the neglect of a formal requirement correlated to the adoption of the regulatory act. concordant to the reasoning, Minister Anschober displayed insufficient justifi- cation for the introduction of Maskenpflicht, instead establishing the provision on a “declaration of intent” to issue a regulation, its content ultimately assigned to only rudimentary outline. Hence, the executive failed to elucidate on what specific and verifiable circumstances it grounded the decision to retain the obligation (Decision G 271/2020-16, para. 64). 78 As the regulation postulated the wearing of a mask a precondition for access to various places (and conversely prohibited it in the eventuality of disobedience), the VfGH referred to Article 2(1) of the cOVID-19-MG in its ex- plication of the precedent. t he statutory provision in question re- stricted the bar to entry “to the extent necessary to avert the spre- ad of c OVID-19”, 79 the syntax the VfGH interpreted as compelling the executive to aver the context validating the implementation of the measure (Decision G 271/2020-16, para. 65). t he VfGH applied the identical reasoning to the second jud- gment, in which it concluded Maskenpflicht on the premises of educational institutions likewise unlawful (Decision V 436/2020- 15, para. 30). t he decision is not to be allotted particular con- sideration due to its lack of ingenuity, the sole focal difference separating the two entailing the legal basis appraised – as oppo- sed to c OVID-19-LV in its predecessor, the second evaluated the COVID-19-Schuleverordnung (c-schVO) (Decision V 436/2020- 15, para. 1). 80 2.2. Yom Hadin No extensive analysis is necessary to conclude the slovenian constitutional court has, in its consideration of the protective measures, exerted to resolve virtually identical legal dilemmas encountered by its observed counterparts. Nonetheless, the com- parative perusal of practices, instituted by the courts concerned, 78 t he VfGH makes reference to “retention of obligation” as the initiative refers to an act by which the obligation was not originally imposed, but merely extended and supplemented. 79 Originally soweit dies zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von COVID-19 erforderlich ist. 80 t he VfGH found Articles 7(3, 4, 6) and 5(1) of the c -schVO (in relation to Annex b, No. 4.2) unlaw- ful. 35 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... attests to several grave discrepancies between those of foreign and domestic derivation. 2.2.1. On locus standi Akin to its opposite numbers in France, Germany, and Austria, the slovenian c onstitutional c ourt (henceforth also c ourt) assu- med the function of the supreme overseer of both the executive and legislature, which universally shouldered the greatest bur- den of national crisis management. c onversely, it would be diffi- cult for an observer to argue that the c ourt provided noteworthy oversight of the judiciary during the relevant period. t his inertia is to be ascribed to the atypical doctrine of stan- ding, established with Decision U-I-83/20. In it, the c ourt accep- ted a petition for review of constitutionality and legality of a re- gulative provision interdicting passage between municipalities in spite of the petitioner having failed to exhibit any detriment to his own rights (Decision U-I-83/20, Order to accept the petition). t he petitioner, whilst not himself a resident of Ljubljana, com- muted there on a daily basis, whereas the challenged ordinance itself already included an exemption sanctioning traverse of mu- nicipal boundaries so as to commute (Ordinance on the tempo- rary prohibition of the gathering, No. 38/20, subpara. 1 of Article 3(1)). consideration of such context should, as dictated by the then-standing procedural principles, ensue in ineluctable dismis- sal of the petition and termination of the proceedings (Decision U-I-83/20, Order to accept the petition). 81 t he c ourt, however, declined to pursue such course and inste- ad opted to accept the petition citing the abstract nature of the prohibition, thereby implicating the mere fact a legal provision concerns an individual suffices for the attribution of standing. t he revision of the qualification gravely expanded the conception of locus standi and produced a practically irrepressible accumulati- on of cases, their multitude effectively incapacitating the institu- tion and transforming it into a “c OVID-court”. 82 r ather tactlessly, certain Justices invoked the resulting excessive caseload in de- 81 see partly dissenting opinion of Justice Jaklič, p. 2. 82 t his rather cynical syntax was coined by Justice Jaklič in his dissenting opinion in case U-I-84/21 (p. 3). t he separate opinion of Justice knez in case U-I-132/21 unequivocally indicates over nine hundred petitions related to cOVID measures had been referred to the c ourt throughout the pan- demic (p. 1). 36 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law fence of consequent lengthy deliberations, discounting it was the doctrine instituted by the court majority (henceforth Majority), themselves included, that generated such irregularities (concur- ring opinion of Justice Šugman stubbs in case U-I-79/20, pp. 9-10; separate opinion of Justice k nez in case U-I-132/21, p. 1). t he novel concept of the standing is, moreover, in stark con- trast to that observed in the discussed foreign jurisprudences. t heir doctrines universally required the individuals unequivocal- ly exposed to substantial prejudice to ensure eligibility for review, e.g. to prohibition of a rally (Decision 1 bvr 828/20) or loss of profits (Decision V 411/2020-17). t he second alarming ramification of the lax access to the c ourt was en masse adjudication on cases in which the ordinary com- plaints had not yet been exhausted. t he assent to such practice meant that the c ourt negated the provision of Article 157(2) of the c onstitution compounding the basis for subsidiary administrative dispute (or a dispute for the protection of constitutional rights) (c onstitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 157(2)). 83 In do- ing so, the Justices essentially inaugurated a privileged stratum of c OVID initiators with direct access to constitutional review and capacity to bypass the conventional system otherwise applicable to other, non-pandemic instances. t he inexorable consequence of such preference is the unwarranted distinction between the parties that contravenes the established axiom of legal equality, derived from the principle of equal protection of rights (c onstitu- tion of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 22; Jambrek, 2002). t he asserted inadequacy of the reformed conception of locus standi is additionally emphasised through consideration of pre- conditions for the subsidiary administrative dispute that entail (1) an ex iure imperii act or action by a state, local or public authority that (2) interferes with a human right or fundamental freedom (3) in absence of other effective legal remedies (k erševan & sitar, 2019; Decision Up-185/95, para. 10). As the compliance with the conditions necessitates assessment on an individual basis, it me- rits to refer to the illustrative case of the slovenian Administrative c ourt, which in April 2021 affirmed its jurisdiction to evaluate the right to undertake a cross-border holiday (Order I U 517/2021- 83 t he article discussed is phrased as follows: If other legal protection is not provided, the court having jurisdiction to review administrative acts also decides on the legality of individual actions and acts which intrude upon the constitutional rights of the individual. 37 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... 9). 84 In doing so, it further undermined the legally perforated course the c onstitutional c ourt pursued by erroneously refusing to grant its administrative counterpart a priori jurisdiction to rule on c OVID cases. t he deficiency is no less patent when contrasted against the doctrines established in the examined foreign states. Among those, Germany ascends a foremost example, with all petitions for constitutional review of regulations constituting complaints against decisions, beforehand issued by the administrative co- urts (Verwaltungsgerichte, VG) when determining the legality of the executive acts (Normenkontrollantrag) (Decision 1 bvQ 28/20, para. 2; Decision U-I-84/21, Order to accept the petition). 85 Furthermore, a considerable preponderance of the individuals lodged no petitions for constitutional review, the cases thus con- clusively resolved by the ordinary judiciary. conversely, a more straightforward access to the constitutio- nal court can be perceived in Austria, its VfGH having reviewed constitutionality and legality of executive regulations with re- lative frequency as opposed to its northern equal (Decision V 436/2020-15, paras 3 – 8). such accessibility, however, is not to be attributed to a benevolent conception of the legal standing, but rather the absence of an institute comparable to the German Normenkontrollantrag or the slovenian subsidiary administrati- ve dispute. Furthermore, the b-VG explicitly precludes ordinary courts from reviewing the legality of executive regulations (b- VG, Article 89(1)), instead entrusting them with the obligation of referral (Überweisung) of the acts to the VfGH, the singular insti- tution empowered to determine their accordance with the legal order (b-VG, Article 89(2)). 2.2.2. Decision U-I-79/20 t he uncritical positive discrimination of petitioners in cO- VID-19 cases has brought about an extensive constitutional juri- sprudence, the substance of which in many places elicits profo- und scepticism about its fairness. considering their multiplicity, 84 t he Administrative court subsequently sustained the request for temporary suspension of the Ordinance determining the conditions of entry into the r epublic of slovenia to contain and control the c OVID-19 infectious disease (published in the Official Gazette of the rs , No. 46/2021 of 28 March 2021). 85 see dissenting opinion of Justice Jaklič , p. 3. 38 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law it merits concentrating on two decisions that, when juxtaposed with their relevant foreign parallels, appear particular outliers. t he first is indubitably Decision U-I-79/20 on constitutiona- lity of Article 39 of the zNb, which the c ourt passed on 13 May 2021. Its systematic examination is demanded for a sequence of reasons that in consonance evidently exhibit the incomprehensi- bility of the conclusion settled on by the Majority. *** Article 39 of the z Nb accorded the Government the legal plat- form for its response to the precedent threat to public health. c hiefly, it established the premise upon which the executive, by means of decrees, “prohibited or restricted the movement of the population in infected or imminently exposed areas (second su- bparagraph of the first paragraph) and interdicted the assembly of individuals in schools, cinemas, public premises, and other public places for the duration of the threat” (third subparagraph of the first paragraph). t he court reviewed the constitutionality and legality of the provision, concluding the contained statutory powers and the sections of decrees issued on their grounds (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 6) 86 noncompliant (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 1) with Articles 32(2) and 42(3) of the constitution. (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 106) t he corollary of such conclusion is a perspicuous implication the Government ever since its onset failed to manage the pande- mic in accordance with the slovenian constitutional order. t he gravity of the observed allegation required the c ourt present an impeccably argued explication, particularly so considering the consequent damage the confidence in the public authorities was posed to endure. In other words, the decision should not have 86 t he c onstitutional c ourt found the following ordinances unconstitutional inasmuch as based on subparas 2 and 3 of Article 39(1): Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia (Of- ficial Gazette of the rs , No. 30/20), Ordinance on the temporary general prohibition of movement and public gathering in public places and areas in the r epublic of slovenia, and the prohibition of movement outside the municipality (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 38/20 and 51/20), Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the munici- palities (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 52/20 and 58/20), Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the municipalities (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 60/20), and Ordinance on the temporary restriction of the gathering of people in public spaces and areas in the r epublic of slovenia (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 69/20, 78/20, and 85/20). 39 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... left any doubt as to the patent unconstitutionality of the reviewed provisions. t he court, however, provided no such exposition, with the one expounded suffering from a plethora of symptoms as lethal to constitutional jurisprudence as the complicated course of c O- VID-19 pneumonia is to a diabetic patient. t he cardinal sin of the decision, in view of the perceived uncer- tainty of the provisions on which the Majority concluded their un- constitutionality (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 88), 87 is the manifestly absent application of any method of legal interpretation capable of filling the vague legal terms contained in the second and third subparagraphs of Article 39(1). concordant to the established jurisprudence (Decision U-I-296/95, para. 9; Decision U-I-58/95, para. 7; Decision U-I-225/96, para. 9; Avbelj & Šturm, 2019), the c ourt should have assessed such an alleged (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 66) transgression of the fundamental component of the rule of law (Decision U-I-302/98, para. 20; Šturm, 2002) with utmost caution, particularly in anticipation of profound consequences of potential unlawfulness. t hereby, it should have employed viable interpretative methods in the attempt to rectify the ambiguities and, if that eventually emerged unfeasible, concluded the provi- sions discordant with Article 2 of the c onstitution. t his argumentative stage, by itself a compulsory condition for the verdict on vagueness, remained neglected by the Majority, which instead promptly determined the provisions unconstituti- onally general. such conclusion was substantiated on perceived dearth of any references providing sufficient grounds for the fil- ling of unspecific legal terms (Decision U-I-79/20, subparas 88 – 89), particularly in view of the nonexistent statutory definitions of “area” (Decision U-I-79/20, para 88), “restrict the movement of population”, and “place”. (Decision U-I-79/20, para 89) such an effort to vindicate the excessive laxity that “confers upon the Government an unlimited discretion as to the spatial delimitation of the prohibition or restriction of movement” (Deci- sion U-I-79/20, para 88) generates further blemish, as the Majority seem to have entirely disregarded the characterisations already ascribed to the contentious terms in the existent constitutional 87 t his is of particular irony considering the enumeration of interpretative methods provided in para. 6 of Justice Pavčnik’s concurring opinion. His consensus to the Majority’s approach to adjudication thereby exhibited a rather maladroit “do as I say, not as I do”. 40 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law jurisprudence. For instance, the court demonstrated no antago- nism when confronted with the prominent syntax “public place” in Decision U-I-83/20, interpreting the vague term, as permeates the reasoning (Decision U-I-83/20, para. 54), analogous to the Austrian VfGH in the previously observed decision V 363/20-25. Alike pertains to the term “area”, which encountered no as- sertion of intolerable semantic openness in Decision U-I-83/20 – markedly not even in the context of the phrase “infected and imminently exposed areas,” on the premise of which the Majority established the legal basis for the prohibition of crossing of muni- cipal boundaries and ultimately concluded its concordance with the constitutional order (Decision U-I-83/20, para. 30). Incongruo- usly, however, the c ourt subsequently determined the very same syntax unlawfully vague in Decision U-I-79/20. t o restate, the Ma- jority mutilated legal concepts already adequately elucidated in its extant jurisprudence, the ambiguities not consequential to the legislator’s deficient activity, but the c ourt’s own approach. Observed rigorous adherence to formalities signifies no no- velty in the jurisprudence of the contemporary composition of the c ourt, the Majority having utilised it on numerous occasions, perhaps most notably in Decision U-I-110/16. 88 t he objection to the proclivity for formalism is even more pronounced when con- trasted with the relevant comparative practices, the foreign co- urts likewise having been appointed to specify vague legal terms contained in the contested provisions, yet accomplishing the as- signment in a manner most dissimilar to their slovenian counter- part. Of particular contextual prominence is the aforementioned series of cases in which the German administrative courts con- cluded the general clause, contained in Article 28(2) of the IfsG, a sufficiently definite legal premise for the interdiction of leaving the residence (Ausgangssperre), in spite of it being indisputably indefinite in substance and even superficially contradictory to the instruments adopted on its basis (Decision OVG 11 s 12/20, 88 In Us rs U-I-110/16 of 12 March 2020, the c onstitutional c ourt curtailed the scope of the constitu- tionally guaranteed right to free compulsory primary education (Article 57(2) of the c onstitution) to its statutory hyponym characterised in Article 14 of the basic school Act (Zakon o osnovni šoli, z Osn). t he particular specification of the substance of the hierarchically supreme legal act by that of subor- dinate status evidently contravened the hierarchy of legal provisions (Article 153 of the c onstitution). Additionally, the restrictive interpretation in question essentially contradicted the extant, established in Us rs U-I-269/12 of 4 December 2014, i.e. the basis for Us rs U-I-110/16. 41 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... paras 10 – 12). t he crux of the contention centred on the deno- tation of the ambiguous time frame in which the restrictive me- ans could only be issued for “as long as the necessary protective measures have not been enforced” (bis die notwendigen Schutz- maßnahmen durchgeführt worden sind). t he OVG berlin-bran- denburg established the topical wording referred not to temporal brevity, but rather proportionality, thus sanctioning the enforce- ment of the restrictive measures until they could be substituted with less invasive equivalents. In espousal of such explication, the German courts, utilising teleological interpretation, ascribed sub- stance to a considerably vaguer concept than those the slovenian c ourt confronted in the examined review of Article 39(1). even more frappant is therefore the lenience that the bVerfG exhibited towards the regulation by means of which the Lower saxony state Government, without any express legal premise, restricted the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of conscien- ce (Decision 1 bvQ 44/20). 89 such stance, requiring an inventi- ve interpretation of the (already remarked upon) general clause contained in Article 28(1) of the IfsG, bears virtually inconceiva- ble quality when evaluated against the ossified case-law of the slovenian c ourt, which failed to present even the most essential diligence to adhere by the concepts already defined it in its own decisions. bumke and Voßkuhle (2019) reflect that the bVerfG generally defines the principle of legality with utmost rigidity (De- cision 2 bvL 8/77), thereby practically discounting the prospect of the observed conferral. Furthermore, the GG explicitly urges the legislator, when imposing a statutory incursion into the constitu- tionally guaranteed right, append the encroaching provision with the numerical indication of the constitutional article enshrining the affected entitlement. 90 Article 28 of the IfsG evidently failed to comply with the latter prerequisite at the time the reviewed regu- lation was issued, 91 the freedom of conscience not being incorpo- rated into the array of rights and freedoms that could be restricted pursuant to the provision (IfsG, Article 28(4)). 92 In spite of these 89 t he freedom of conscience is enshrined in Article 4 of the GG. 90 t his particular obligation, termed Zitiergebot (“requirement of citation”), is specified in Article 19(1) of the GG. 91 t he regulation was issued by the Lower saxony state Government on 17 April 2020. 92 At that time, the Article 28(4) enumerated only encroachment upon personal liberty (Article 2(2) of the GG), freedom of assembly (Article 8 of the GG), freedom of movement (Article 11(1) of the GG), and inviolability of the home (Article 13(1) of the GG). 42 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law manifest normative deficiencies, however, the bVerfG opted not to pursue strict linguistic argumentation, instead sustaining the interdiction through application of benevolent purposive inter- pretation. *** t he dissected orifice in ratiocination is inextricably intertwi- ned with another void, rationally even more detrimental to faith in the Majority’s analytic aptitude. t he reasoning conveys an il- logical position, concordant to which the legislator’s established normative method, reliant on employment of vague legal con- cepts and general clauses, cannot be attributed compliance with the c onstitution due to its excessive ambiguity, which controverts the requirement of clarity and definiteness of provisions. t hus, the Majority inflicts upon the legislator standards that effectively transfigure legislative activity, in its substance inherently general and abstract, into concrete prescription (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 83; Pavčnik, 2016). slovenian constitutional jurisprudence unequivocally purports direct proportion between the magnitude of the intrusion into human rights and the anticipated diligence the legislator is to observe in its prescription of statutory guidelines for issuance of restrictive regulations (Decision U-I-92/07, para. 150). t herefore, the more acute the imposition by means of executive act, the more stringently defined the substance of the provision confer- ring statutory power for its issue. Application of such paradigm cannot, however, precipitate the verdict asserted by the Majority in Decision U-I-79/20, their argu- mentative voyage relocating legislative efforts into sphere not in- tended for their regulation and essentially depriving the legislator of the prospect of abstract legal management. t he intrinsic ratio- nale of the latter, after all, entails operation within the framework that allows for sufficiently abstract normative activity to regulate prospective, indeterminate situations (Decision U-I-282/94, para. 5; Decision U-I-302/98, para. 20). t o that end, the legislator is, ina- smuch as not abetted by scientific findings (Decision U-I-79/20), 93 induced to enact a certain statutory margin of manoeuvre throu- gh application of vague terms or general clauses that, in the face 93 see the partly dissenting opinion of Justice Jadek Pensa, pp. 6-7. In observed instance, the bill con- sidered the findings of health experts. 43 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... of inevitable uncertainty, deliver an adequate extent of flexibility (Šturm, 2002). Article 39 of the zNb exercised both of those methods, to the statutory inclusion of which the established constitutional juri- sprudence irrefutably accredits legality (Decision U-I-71/98, para. 17). In the observed decision, however, the court significantly curtailed the conventional sanction through appendix of a su- pplementary condition imposing the statute, when conferring the executive the statutory power to issue regulations, to “with suffi- cient precision” define “the permissible methods or types, scope, and conditions for restriction of the freedom of movement and the right of assembly and association” (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 83). t he introduced imperative exhibits two grave defects. essen- tially, it requires the legislator abide by a commitment presuppo- sing prior knowledge of as yet entirely undetermined circum- stances, effectively conditioning legality of executive acts with practices observed by Madame sosostris. Further, it renders the issuance of by-laws futile, the full administration of relevant fac- tual bases already extended to statutory substance. t he latter infe- rence is further accentuated by the aforestated vague syntax “with sufficient precision” that, itself palpably imprecise, encompasses conduct of enormous capacity (Decision U-I-79/20). 94 conversely, comparative legal orders display no aversion to exercise of semantically flexible terms and general clauses. Per- haps the most flexibly formulated are those contained in the French cs P, which, as established, formulates its array of pro- tective measures on considerably less specific provisions 95 than those found in the equivalent German (IfsG) and Austrian (c O- VID-19-MG) statutes. In spite of its significantly more exact re- gulation, however, even the IfsG incorporates a general clause permitting the executive to enact additional instruments should the existing repertoire prove insufficient (IfsG, Article 28(4); bun- destag-Drucksache Nr. 8/2468, p. 27). t he Austrian c OVID-19-MG likewise confers a fairly wide margin of discretion to the execu- tive, its range most evident in correlation with the Maskenpflicht (Decision G 271/2020-16, para. 52). 94 Partly dissenting opinion of Justice Jadek Pensa, p. 8. 95 t he cs P exemplificatively lists the permissible measures in Articles 3131-15, but ultimately delegates their specification to a decree issued by the Prime Minister (cf. décret réglementaire n° 2020-293). 44 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law t hus, one is confronted with two diametrically disparate con- cepts of executive administration. t he first, Germanic, dictates meticulous statutory classification of the permissible instruments, predominantly constraining the mandate of the executive to re- gulation of their procedural aspects. Its inverse, French (or rather r omance), allays the legislator of such scrupulous statutory obli- gation, instead restricting proscription to general outline of mea- sures, their substance subject to further characterisation by means of executive acts. Ours is to reason, therefore, whether the slove- nian legislator, in its emulation of the French conception and con- sequent statutory omission of exact definitions of the measures, advocated by the Germanic, abnegated the constitutional dictates. t he pursuit of verdict merits consideration of two factors. Fir- stly, the z Nb is a par excellence example of administrative statute (Decision I U 979/2012), and secondly, principles of slovenian administrative law substantiate their basis on its French equiva- lent (droit administratif) (karčić, 2020, e-source; krbek, 1929). 96 Another aspect of significant relevance is both slovenia and Fran- ce declared the state of epidemic, such status by itself conferring upon neither of the governments the authority to issue delegated legislation. 97 t he argument passed the slovenian c ourt entirely unnoticed. Instead, the Majority merely addressed explicit admonition to the contemporary legislator for his incapacity to applicably amend the statute, as Germany and Austria had, in the interval elapsed between the onset of the pandemic and the adoption of the deci- sion (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 99). 98 Further undermining confidence in the quality of the verdict are the internal contradictions vitiating the reasoning. t he most flagrant, particularly as the antithetical statements repose in two successive paragraphs, pertains to the competence of the autho- rities to prescribe measures restricting the constitutional rights. Originally, the c ourt affirmed the solitary type of legal act, by means of which the authorities may directly (!) restrict constitutio- 96 t he sequence of slovenian legal propinquity to French administrative law originates from the latter’s reception by the k ingdom of Yugoslavia in the 1920s. t he post-war communist regime main- tained this convention, cf. Milenković (2012). 97 c f. the powers conferred on the executive in the event of the declaration of a state of epidemic by Article 7 of the z Nb and Article L.3131-12 of the cs P. In the slovenian legal order, delegated legislation is to be discussed in relation to Articles 92 and 108 of the c onstitution. 98 t his stance is potently indorsed by Justice Šugman stubbs in her concurring opinion in case U-I- 79/20 (p. 10). 45 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... nally guaranteed entitlements (specifically, freedom of movement (constitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 32(2)) and the right of assembly and association (c onstitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 42(3))), be statute (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 82), its adoption intrinsically entitled to the legislative. such proposition, compliant with the system of checks and ba- lances among the branches of government, succumbs to terminal malady in the very next paragraph. t here, the c ourt asserts that, in the event of communicable disease, the legislative cannot be denied the prospect to exceptionally delegate the power to pre- scribe constitutionally intrusive measures to the executive (Deci- sion U-I-79/20, para. 83). One is thereby faced with two opposing theses – one commit- ting direct regulation of interference with constitutional rights exclusively to the legislative, and the other exceptionally confer- ring the same direct regulation to the executive (Decision U-I- -79/20). 99 t he second dichotomy pertains to incoherence between the effect of the abrogation of ordinances, issued on the premise of unconstitutional provisions of the zNb (Decision U-I-79/20, Paras 6 and 7), and the sustained validity of the same provisions that had, in spite of their determined noncompliance with the c onstitution, not been abrogated (Decision U-I-79/20). 100 t he in- consistency implies the executive retained, the repeal of the for- mer ordinances notwithstanding, the capacity to lawfully, even pursuant to the same statutory provisions, issue new acts with content identical to that of their antecedents (Decision U-I-79/20, para. 101). t he verdict infers not only distinct failure of the Majority to comprehend the consequences a declaratory judgment entails, but also, as Justices knez and Jadek Pensa postulate in their dis- senting opinions, that the executive had, in its issuance of pro- tective measures, ab initio transgressed the slovenian legal order (Decision U-I-79/20). 101 t o ameliorate the latter implication, both dissenting Justices advocated abrogation of the challenged ordi- nances with a suspensive time-limit, the executive acts and their 99 Partly dissenting opinion of Justice Jadek Pensa, pp. 3–4. 100 t his deficiency is highlighted by Justices Jadek Pensa (partly dissenting opinion, pp. 1–2) and k nez (partly dissenting and partly concurring opinion, pp. 6–9). 101 Partly dissenting and partly concurring opinion of Justice k nez, p. 8, and partly dissenting opinion of Justice Jadek Pensa, pp. 1–3. 46 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law statutory basis thereby subject to the equivalent effect (Decision U-I-79/20). 102 t he fourth in the sequence of miscalculations impairing the reasoning refers to the application of the european c ourt of Hu- man r ights (ec Hr ) jurisprudence, the Majority having erroneo- usly invoked several of its decisions as supplementary substance to their review (Decision U-I-79/20, paras 77 – 79). Any comparative analysis, while undeniably a beneficial in- strument, intrinsically requires identity of the assessed subjects to yield practical conclusion. In its employment, however, the c ourt elected to neglect this imperative, instead inspecting legal certainty, pertinent to statutory regulation of human rights at va- riance, through the prism of criminal rather than administrative law (Judgment No. 47143/06; Judgment No. 46295/99; Judgment No. 75068/12; Judgment No. 23897/10; Judgment No. 43395/09; z obec, 2021, e-source). 103 t he course of such disposition is evidently astray as the two branches display crucial contextual disparities (Decision U-I- -79/20). 104 In particular, the court, in its equation of criminal sanctions with protective measures, repudiated the distinction between the general principle of legality, derived from Article 2 of the c onstitution, and the principle of legality in criminal law, which is enshrined in Article 28 of the constitution. t he two demonstrate tectonic disparity in their rationalia, their regulati- on consequently requiring heterogeneous legislative approach. t he outcome therefore appears a textbook example of cherry- -picking of extraneous judicial practice, the Majority pursuing a deplorable stance of result-oriented adjudication (Decision U-I-59/17). 105 2.2.3. Decision U-I-132/21 t he tide of these deficiencies spills – with unimpeded poten- cy – over into another manifestly objectionable decision, adop- ted on 2 June 2021. In it, the c ourt concluded the provisions of three ordinances, 106 by means of which the executive enacted the 102 Ibid., respectively pp. 7 and 2. 103 t he c ourt refers to Zakharov v. Russia , Stafford v. United Kingdom, Dragin v. Croatia, and Chu- mak v. Ukraine, as well as the doctrine generally established in De Tommaso v. Italy. 104 Partly dissenting and partly concurring opinion of Justice k nez, p. 2. 105 c f. dissenting opinion of Justice Jaklič. 106 t he following provisions were reviewed: Article 7 of the Ordinance on the temporary prohibition 47 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... compulsory exercise of protective masks 107 and hand disinfection (Decision U-I-132/21, para. 1), noncompliant with the constituti- onal principles. t he case evokes perplexity for a multitude of re- asons, their cortege headed by the petitioners Vladek began and Žan Pajtler who had assumed, to much legal acclaim, the same part in the just reviewed casual comedy. t wo arguments render no other verdict of the slovenian c ourt more susceptible to analogy with its foreign correlatives, specifi- cally the already discussed Austrian decision G 271/2020-16. t he first observes the textually virtually homogeneous legal premise upon which the two states grounded the obligation to wear a protective mask. t he slovenian executive imposed the me- asure through ordinances premised on the second and third su- bparagraphs of Article 39(1) of the zNb, while its Austrian equal established the issuance of the c OVID-19-LV (2020) i.e. the regu- lation enforcing the Maskenpflicht, on the first subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the c OVID-19-MG. Vitally, the two statutory bases applied share the omission of an explicit reference of the impo- sed compulsion. both executives concerned therefore based the considered protective instrument on the statutory power authorising the pro- hibition of access to public spaces, 108 its substance further speci- fied by means of subordinate legislation. t he latter exhibit virtual identity when subjected to syntactic juxtaposition, the only palpa- of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the municipalities (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 52/20 and 58/20, hereinafter Ordinance/52), Article 5 of the Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the municipalities (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 60/20, hereinafter Ordinance/60), and Ordinance on temporary measures to reduce the risk of infection and spread of c OVID-19 (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 90/20, hereinafter Ordinance/90). r efer to Us rs U-I-132/21 of 2 June 2022, para. 1 of the operative part. 107 In fact, the obligation refers to “the wearing of a protective mask or other form of protection of the oral and nasal area,” which is a virtually literal translation of the phrasing of Article 1(2) of the Austrian c OVID-19-LV. t he latter was subjected to constitutional review in VfGH G 271/2020-16. 108 t he z Nb phrases this power as follows: Where the measures provided for in this Act cannot prevent the entry and spread of certain infectious diseases within the Republic of Slovenia, the Government of the Republic of Slovenia may also order the following measures: [...] 2. prohibit or restrict the movement of the population in infected or imminently endangered areas; 3. prohibit the gathering of people in schools, cinemas, public premises, and other public places until the danger of the spread of the infectious disease has ceased. c omparatively, the wording contained in the cOVID-19-MG is: (Betreten von bestimmten Orten) Beim Auftreten von COVID-19 kann durch Verordnung das Be- treten von bestimmten Orten untersagt werden, soweit dies zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von COVID-19 erforderlich ist. Die Verordnung ist 1. vom Bundesminister für Soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und Konsumentenschutz zu erlassen, wenn sich ihre Anwendung auf das gesamte Bundesgebiet erstreckt [...]. Maskenpflicht was introduced on the basis of Article 2 of the c OVID-19-MG, with the c OVID-19-LV additionally based on its first article. 48 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law ble divergence appurtenant to the obligation of disinfection whi- ch the slovenian ordinance, contrary to the Austrian regulation, expressly prescribed. As the slovenian Government covered the measure in a sequence of ordinances, I consider the earliest one reviewed, i.e. the Ordinance/52, 109 to be the most appropriate source of the diction, phrased in Article 7 as follows: “When traversing and staying in an enclosed public space where the services, referred to in Article 3 of the Ordinance, are provided, it is compulsory, with due regard to maintaining a safe distance from other per- sons, to wear a protective mask or another form of protection for the naso-oral area (scarf, headscarf, or similar form of protection covering the nose and mouth), and to disinfect the hands. Disin- fectants must be provided by the service provider.” Article 1 of the Ordinance/90, issued on Wednesday, 24 June 2020, contained a wording of parallel substance: “In order to prevent a recurrence of outbreaks of the infectious disease c OVID-19, this Ordinance temporarily makes compulsory the wearing of a protective mask or other form of protection of the oral and nasal area in enclosed public spaces, including public passenger transport, and the di- sinfection of the hands.” c omparatively, the Austrian c OVID-19-LV formulated the Ma- skenpflicht in the second paragraph of Article 1: “beim betreten öffentlicher Orte in geschlossenen r äumen ist gegenüber Perso- nen, die nicht im gemeinsamen Haushalt leben, ein Abstand von mindestens einem Meter einzuhalten und eine den Mund- und Nasenbereich abdeckende mechanische schutzvorrichtung zu tragen.” 110 sensibly, the executive regulations should, upon examination by the constitutional courts comparable in practice and manner of operation, share an equally comparable fate. At first glance, such analogy is indeed observed, the provisions determined un- lawful in both slovenia and Austria. However, it is at this point when any comparability abruptly expires. 109 Adopted on Wednesday, 15 April 2020. t he first ordinance enforcing the particular obligation, how- ever, was the Ordinance on the temporary general prohibition of movement and public gathering in public places and areas in the r epublic of slovenia, and the prohibition of movement outside the municipality, enacted on sunday, 29 March 2020 (Official Gazette of the rs , No. 38/20). 110 t ranslated as follows: “When entering enclosed public places, a distance of at least one metre from persons not living in the same household must be observed and a mechanical protective device cov- ering the oral and nasal area must be worn.” t he succeeding paragraph (Article 1(3) of the c OVID- 19-LV) assigns the same obligation to the users of public transport (Massenbeförderungsmittel). 49 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... t he Austrian VfGH, as already clarified, concluded the provi- sion illegal due to the Government’s failure to provide a suffici- ent statement of reasons for the measure itself at the time of its adoption (Decision G 271/2020-16, para. 64). t o restate, it establi- shed that the executive breached the obligation assigned by the second sentence of Article 2(1) of the c OVID-19-MG (Decision G 271/2020-16, para. 65). In so doing, the Austrian court found the latter statutory pro- vision a sound premise for the Maskenpflicht, otherwise enfor- ced with the Article 1(2) of the cOVID-19-LV, and implied the statutory power compliant with the principle of legality (Deci- sion G 271/2020-16, para. 52). t he reasoning mirrors that of the slovenian c ourt in its Decision U-I-83/20 by acknowledging the existence of a crisis that inherently compelled the executive into immediate response to an unknown and rapidly evolving threat to public health. t he latter value, the protection of which is gua- ranteed within the context of the right to life, therefore prevailed over other individual rights curtailed by the protective measure (Decision G 271/2020-16, paras 56 – 59; Decision U-I-83/20, paras 55, 56). t he slovenian court, observing the practice set out in Deci- sion U-I-79/20, 111 pursued a diametrically opposite approach. It determined, through reassertion of the stringent application of the principle of legality (constitution of the r epublic of slove- nia, Article 120(2)), the statutory premise itself encompassed no sufficient statutory power to introduce the obligation of wearing a protective mask (and compulsory disinfection of hands) (Deci- sion U-I-132/21, paras 35 and 36). t he most glaring aspect of such conclusion is the appraisal of Article 39 of the z Nb, performed with total indifference towards the very contextual essence of the statute. t he Majority’s forma- listic methodology thereby all but nullified its ratio legis, i.e. pro- tection of lives in the eventuality of a health crisis. On the other hand, the VfGH, as indicated above, unreservedly observed this aspect in its consideration. A further error tarnishing the integrity of the verdict is, as stres- sed by the late Professor Dr Šturm in one of his final scholarly publications, 112 the entirely overlooked facet of international con- 111 t he Majority liberally refers to Us rs U-I-79/20, e.g. in paras 14, 22, 26, and 32 of the reasoning. 112 Although the article assesses Us rs U-I-79/20, I consider it contextually apt to emphasise the de- 50 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law tract law (Šturm, 2021). specifically, the Majority disregarded the WHO guidelines, in particular that of 5 June 2020 113 that compre- hensively attended to the compulsory exercise of masks (WHO, 2020). Although – as stated by Frau (2016, e-source) – not of legally binding character, the guidelines nevertheless comprise a consti- tutionally prescribed source of law that the c ourt is, in accordan- ce with the (in casu defied) principle of iura novit curia, obliged to consider (constitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 8; Ivanc, 2011). 114 t he discounted guideline, appraised by Profes- sor Šturm (2021) as a sufficient basis for the specified measure, contained a comprehensive and well-founded account of the ob- served obligation, which the WHO considered essential to deter the spread of a highly virulent disease (WHO, 2020). Hence, the adopted verdict could have been much less contentious had the Majority given due regard to the document in question. In avoidance of any prospect ambiguity, a distinction must be drawn with the relevant Austrian decision, which likewise at no point evokes explicit reference to the WHO guidelines. As oppo- sed to the slovenian c ourt, the VfGH never disputed the statutory premise for the measure itself and thereby subtracted the need to derive one from other legal sources. A no less striking flaw in the reasoning of the c ourt is the (re- curred) absence of value judgment, which effectively places the freedom of movement and association amongst the set of human rights that can in no case bear impingement (c onstitution of the r epublic of slovenia, Article 16(2); Decision U-I-132/21). 115 such interpretation, an ineluctable consequence of the stringently for- malist stance favoured by the Majority, prematurely immobilised the review, thus preventing the discussion of the legal context in which the statutory provision was placed and in which it merited fects evident in Us rs U-I-132/21. 113 t he delay with which the guidelines were issued subjected the WHO to fierce disparagement from states Parties. 114 t he WHO issues its guidelines in accordance with Article 18(1) of the International Health r egula- tions, which are an international treaty par excellence and as such explicitly considered a source of applicable law. 115 t he relevant article enumerates the human rights that cannot be subject to any suspension or restriction: inviolability of human life (Article 17), prohibition of torture (Article 18), protection of human personality and dignity (Article 21), presumption of innocence (Article 27), principle of legal- ity in criminal law (Article 28), legal guarantees in criminal proceedings (Article 29), and freedom of conscience (Article 41). t he exhaustive nature of the catalogue was pointed out by Justice Šorli (joined by Justice Jaklič) in his dissenting opinion in case U-I-132/21, p. 2. 51 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... consideration. At the close, the two jurisprudent courses, impeccably encap- sulated in decisions U-I-132/21 and G 271/2020-16, bifurcate, their divergence impressing upon any reader an acrimonious afterta- ste. t he trail of Austrian (and by extension French and German) case-law traverses the complexity of the observed situation, whi- ch required the executive be inventive in its construal of the va- gue statutory concepts. t hereby, it determines the latter, in con- sideration of the legal and factual context (and despite manifest blemishes), enable an implementation of a vast range of lawful measures. Its slovenian counterpart, on the other hand, opts for a diame- trically converse footpath through the grimy puddles and scrub of legal formalism. Quite absurdly, such method renders even hand sanitisation too great of an interference with constitutional rights for its enforcement be conferred to secondary legislation without an overly exact statutory basis. 3. Coda How can one justify such palpable comparative dissonances, their discord spanning not syntonic comma, but an octave? Instinctively, a benevolent and indulgent observer might ascri- be the errors of the contemporary Majority to superficiality and impetuosity, two unfortunate but inevitable corollaries of the vir- tually astronomical caseload crippling the state’s highest regu- latory institution. t his impediment is by no means novel to the traditionally overstrained slovenian judiciary and its extension to the c onstitutional c ourt would seem much alluring. c redulity of such inference is, however, patent to anyone who esteems candour over benevolence. t hose unquenched will thus find the presented deviations a testimony not to the Majority’s overburden, but rather its servility to an expired cause. t his un- forgiving, yet confidently asserted supposition is corroborated by the genesis of the contemporary constitutional turbulence, attributed to the articulated selection of Justices according to their political inclination (r upar, 2022, e-source). such tendency has impelled the c ourt towards its nominal pre- decessor of the yesteryear. Indeed, there is time future contained 52 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law in time past. And both idiosyncratic by their conduct, the extra- polation most manifest in the inspected cOVID jurisprudence abound with aberrations and faulty formalist entanglements. Yet, I entertain no illusion of the Majority’s ignorance. Its con- stituent Justices must have known a habitual employment of the (elsewhere frequented) proportionality test would modify, per- haps even reverse their verdicts. And what could be more benefi- cial to the right of life (is there no one near to breathe memento mori in their ear)? such partiality effectively conflated the Majority with the con- temporary parliamentary opposition, substituting its function of the supreme supervisor with that of a political figure. Inexorably lamed by this transmutation, the c ourt leant on most unjust po- stulations to propel its waning step towards the abyss it conside- red just. t here is a skull beneath this darkened countenance, and the order not in form of multifoliate rose, but series of concentric, dwindling circles. It is, after all, better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n – BIBLIOGRAPHY AND SOURCES Publications Adamovich, L. k ., & Funk, b. (1985). Österreichisches Verfassungsrecht. springer-Verlag. Avbelj, M., Šturm, L. (2019). komentar 2. člena Ustave. In Avbelj, M. (ed.), komentar Ustave r epublike slovenije, pp. 35-60. Nova univerza, evropska pravna fakulteta. brown, G. D. (1966). DeGaulle’s Republic and the Rule of Law: Judicial Review and the Conseil d’Etat. boston University Law r eview, Vol. 46, pp. 462-492. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/71467268. pdf bumke, c ., Voßkuhle, A. (2019). German Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press. Ivanc, b. (2011). komentar 51. člena Ustave. In Šturm, L., Jambrek, P., Jerovšek, t . et al. (ed.), Komentar Ustave Republike Slovenije, DOPOLNITEV-A, pp. 815-873. Fakulteta za državne in evropske študije. Jambrek, P. (2002). komentar 22. člena Ustave. In Šturm, L. (ed.), Komentar Ustave Republike Slove- nije, pp. 238-250. Fakulteta za podiplomske državne in evropske študije. Jasanoff, s. et al. (2021). Comparative Covid Response: Crisis, Knowledge, Politics. Harvard kenne- dy school. https://assets.website-files.com/5fdfca1c14b4b91eeaa7196a/601837a0fe0be974fc0b51 8f_Harvard-c ornell%20r eport%202020%20Updated.pdf kerševan, e., sitar, r . (2019). Varstvo ustavnih pravic v upravnem sporu. Odsev dejstev v pravu : da mihi facta, dabo tibi ius : liber amicorum Janez kranjc, pp. 231 – 243. Pravna fakulteta Univerze v Ljubljani. kramer, U., Hinrichsen, t . (2015). German Law of Administrative court Procedure: an Overview. Journal of siberian Federal University. Humanities & social sciences 10 (2015 8), pp. 2050-2061. http://elib.sfu-kras.ru/bitstream/handle/2311/19824/06_k ramer.pdf;jsessionid=842c FD91AF6637 AbA4c 14154b84177F1?sequence=4 53 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... k rbek, I. (1929). Upravno pravo I. Jugoslovenska štampa d.d. Milenković, D. (2012). Javna uprava: odabrane teme. Čigoja. National Assembly of the r epublic of slovenia. (1994, January 27). Poročevalec Državnega zbora Republike Slovenije z dne 27. januarja 1994 (Journal of the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia of 27 January 1994). Državni zbor r epublike slovenije. Pavčnik, M. (2016). Teorija prava. GV z aložba. Šturm, L. (2002). komentar 2. člena Ustave. In Šturm, L. (ed.), komentar Ustave r epublike slovenije, pp. 52-99. Fakulteta za podiplomske državne in evropske študije. Šturm, L. (2021). Uvodni pogled na odločitve Ustavnega sodišča Covid 19 U-I-79/20 z dne 13. 5. 2021 z vidika načel legalitete in sorazmernosti. Dignitas: t he slovenian Journal of Human r ights, No. 89/90, pp. 9–24. Online publications D. J. (2020, May 14). Janša poslancem: Hodite na proteste, kjer meni osebno grozijo s smrtjo. Žurnal24. Ur L: https://www.zurnal24.si/slovenija/jansa-poslancem-hodite-na-proteste-kjer-meni-osebno-gro- zijo-s-smrtjo-346879, 31. 5. 2023. edenharter, A. (2020, March 19). Freiheitsrechte ade?: Die Rechtswidrigkeit der Ausgangssperre in der oberpfälzischen Stadt Mitterteich. Verfblog. Ur L: https://verfassungsblog.de/freiheitsrechte-ade/, 31. 5. 2023. ettel, A., Vettel, P. (2020, February 29). Die heikle Macht des Gesundheitsamtes. Die Welt. Ur L: https:// www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article206220857/c oronavirus-Die-unheimliche-Macht-der-kommunalen- -Gesundheitsaemter.html, 31. 5. 2023. Frau, r . (2016, April 13). Creating Legal Effects for the WHO’s International Health Regulations (2005) – Which way forward? Völkerrechtsblog. Ur L: https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/creating-legal-effects- -for-the-whos-international-health-regulations-2005-which-way-forward/, 31. 5. 2023. Gesley, J. (2020, April 2). Austria: Government Makes Wearing Protective Masks for Grocery Shopping Mandatory to Prevent Spread of COVID-19. Library of c ongress. Ur L: https://www.loc.gov/item/ global-legal-monitor/2020-04-02/austria-government-makes-wearing-protective-masks-for-grocery- -shopping-mandatory-to-prevent-spread-of-covid-19/, 28. 08. 2023. k arčić, F. (2020). A Study on Legal Formalism in the Former Yugoslavia and its Successor States. c entre for Integrity in the Defence sector. Ur L: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339600465_A_ study_on_Legal_Formalism_in_the_Former_Yugoslavia_and_its_successor_states, 28. 8. 2023. klafki, A. (2020, March 18). Corona-Pandemie: Ausgangssperre bald auch in Deutschland? JuWiss- blog. Ur L: https://www.juwiss.de/27-2020/, 31. 5. 2023. M. z . (2021, september 24). Janša: Ob uvedbi epidemije je NIJZ-jev sistem za poročanje v realnem času deloval kot v 19. stoletju. rt V sLO. Ur L: https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/jansa-ob-uvedbi-epi- demije-je-nijz-jev-sistem-za-porocanje-v-realnem-casu-deloval-kot-v-19-stoletju/595056, 31. 5. 2023. M. z ., La. Da. (2020, March 14). Janša: Ključni ukrep je samoizolacija. rt V sLO. Ur L: https://www. rtvslo.si/zdravje/novi-koronavirus/jansa-kljucni-ukrep-je-samoizolacija/517187, 31. 5. 2023. Porcher, s. (2020, November 25). Response2covid19, a dataset of governments’ responses to COVID-19 all around the world. Nature. Ur L : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-00757-y, 31. 5. 2023. r upar, A. (2022, June 16). Ustavno sodišče o posvojitvah otrok v istospolna razmerja. Družina. Ur L: https://www.druzina.si/clanek/ustavno-sodisce-o-posvojitvah-otrok-v-istospolna-razmerja-foto-vi- deo, 31. 5. 2023. sehl, M. (2020, April 16). Stadt Gießen erlaubt Demo mit Auflagen. Legal t ribune Online. Ur L: https:// www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/bverfg-1bvr82820-versammlung-verbot-giessen-hessen-coro- na-verordnung-eilverfahren-ermessen/, 31. 5. 2023. stöger, k. (2021, November). Austria: Legal Response to Covid-19. Oxford constitutional Law. Ur L: https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-occ19/law-occ19-e28?rskey=eos6sc & result=2&prd=Occ 19%20-%20osnova, 31. 5. 2023. t hielbörger, P., behlert, b. (2020, March 30). COVID-19 und das Grundgesetz: Neue Gedanken vor dem Hintergrund neuer Gesetze. Verfblog. Ur L: https://verfassungsblog.de/covid-19-und-das- -grundgesetz-neue-gedanken-vor-dem-hintergrund-neuer-gesetze/, 31. 5. 2023. Ukom. (2021, November 9). Z doslednim izvajanjem ukrepov proti zaprtju države. Government of the Republic of Slovenia. Ur L: https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-11-09-z-doslednim-izvajanjem-ukre- pov-proti-zaprtju-drzave/, 31. 5. 2023. zobec, J. (2021, June 4). Ali središče drži. siol. Ur L: https://siol.net/siol-plus/kolumne/jan-zobec-ali- -sredisce-drzi-553795, 31. 5. 2023. 54 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law Other online sources bundestag. (2019, June 14). Kriterien der Wesentlichkeitslehre des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Ur L: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/655254/1764b49aa3c85458a840652cf134e031/WD-3- 152-19-pdf-data.pdf, 31. 5. 2023. Government of the r epublic of slovenia. (2020, March 24). Predlog Zakona o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo (ZIU- ZEOP) (Bill of the Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Contain the COVID-19 Epidemic and Mitigate its Consequences for Citizens and the Economy). Ur L: https://www.gov.si/assets/ vlada/seja-vlade-sz J/2020/03-2020/tc_1.pdf, 31. 5. 2023. Ministry of Health of the r epublic of slovenia. (2020, August 21). Predlog predpisa – Zakon o nalezlji- vih boleznih (Bill - Communicable Diseases Act). Ur L: https://e-uprava.gov.si/drzava-in-druzba/e- -demokracija/predlogi-predpisov/predlog-predpisa.html?id=11571, 31. 5. 2023. Parliament Österreich. (2020a, March 14). Initiativantrag des COVID-19 Gesetzes (396/A). Ur L: https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAkt /VHG/XXVII/A/A_00396/index.shtml, 31. 5. 2023. Parliament Österreich. (2020b, september 15). Initiativantrag des Epidemiegesetz, Tuberkulosegesetz u.a., Änderung (826/A). Ur L: https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAkt /VHG/XXVII/A/A_00826/index. shtml, 31. 5. 2023. r echtsinformationssystem des bundes. (2023, March 27). Bundesrecht konsolidiert: Gesamte Recht- svorschrift für COVID-19-Maßnahmengesetz, Fassung vom 27.03.2023. Ur L: https://www.ris.bka. gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20011073, 31. 5. 2023. Venice c ommission. (2020). Observatory on emergency situations. Ur L: https://www.venice.coe.int/ files/emergencyPowersObservatory/by_country-e.htm, 31. 5. 2023. World Health Organization. (2020, June 5). Advice on the use of masks in the context of COVID-19: interim guidance (WHO). Ur L: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/332293/WHO- 2019-nc ov-IPc _Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, 31. 5. 2023. Jurisprudence Decision 1 bvQ 28/20 of 10 April 2020, bundesverfassungsgericht, ec LI:De:bVerfG:2020:qk202004 10.1bvq002820. Decision 1 bvQ 44/20 of 29 April 2020, bundesverfassungsgericht, ec LI:De:bVerfG:2020:qk202004 29.1bvq004420. Decision 1 bvr 755/20 of 7 April 2020, bundesverfassungsgericht, ec LI:De:bVerfG:2020:rk2020040 7.1bvr075520. Decision 1 bvr 828/20 of 15 April 2020, bundesverfassungsgericht, ec LI:De:bVerfG:2020:rk202004 15.1bvr082820. Decision 2 bvL 8/77 of 8 August 1978, bundesverfassungsgericht. Decision 20 Ne 20.704 of 9 April 2020, bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof. Decision 3 eN 238/20 of 9 April 2020, t hüringer Oberverwaltungsgericht. Decision 4 k 1246/20 of 25 March 2020, Verwaltungsgericht Freiburg. Decision 6 L 212/20 of 30 March 2020, Verwaltungsgericht Dresden. Decision 7 e 535/20 of 10 April 2020, Verwaltungsgericht Weimar. Decision G 202/2020-20 of 14 July 2020, Verfassungsgerichtshof, ec LI:At :VFGH:2020:G202.2020. Decision G 271/2020-16 of 1 October 2020, Verfassungsgerichtshof, ec LI:At :VFGH:2020:G271.2020. Decision I U 979/2012 of 20 November 2012, Administrative court of the r epublic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2012:I.U.979.2012. Decision n° 2020-800 Dc of 11 May 2020, c onseil c onstitutionnel. Decision n° 446715 of 8 December 2020, c onseil d’etat. Decision n° 446930 of 29 November 2020, c onseil d’etat. Decision n° 447208 of 11 December 2020, c onseil d’etat. Decision n° 447698 of 23 December 2020, c onseil d’etat. Decision OVG 11 s 12/20 of 23 March 2020, Oberverwaltungsgericht berlin-brandenburg. Decision south bay United Pentecostal c hurch, et al. v. Gavin Newsom, Governor of c alifornia, et al., February 5, 2021, supreme c ourt of the United states, 20A136 (20–746). Decision U-I-110/16 of 12 March 2020, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2020:U.I.110.16. Decision U-I-131/04 of 21 April 2005, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2005:U.I.131.04. Decision U-I-132/21 of 2 June 2022, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2022:U.I.132.21. 55 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... Decision U-I-225/96 of 15 January 1998, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1998:U.I.225.96. Decision U-I-269/12 of 4 December 2014, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2014:U.I.269.12. Decision U-I-282/94 of 18 October 1995, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1995:U.I.282.94. Decision U-I-296/95 of 27 November 1997, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1997:U.I.296.95. Decision U-I-302/98 of 14 October 1998, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1998:U.I.302.98. Decision U-I-58/95 of 6 July 1995, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1995:U.I.58.95. Decision U-I-59/17 of 18 september 2019, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2019:U.I.59.17. Decision U-I-71/98 of 28 May 1998, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1998:U.I.71.98. Decision U-I-79/20 of 13 May 2021, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2021:U.I.79.20. Decision U-I-83/20 of 27 August 2020, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2020:U.I.83.20. Decision U-I-84/21 of 8 April 2021, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2021:U.I.284.21. Decision U-I-92/07 of 15 April 2010, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :2010:U.I.92.07. Decision Up-185/95 of 24 October 1996, constitutional court of the republic of slovenia, ec LI:sI:UPrs :1996:Up.185.95. Decision V 363/2020-25 of 14 July 2020, Verfassungsgerichtshof, ec LI:At :VFGH:2020:V363.2020. Decision V 411/2020-17 of 14 July 2020, Verfassungsgerichtshof, ec LI:At :VFGH:2020:V411.2020. Decision V 436/2020-15 of 10 December 2020, Verfassungsgerichtshof, ec LI:At :VFGH:2020:V436.2020. Judgment No. 23897/10 of 18 March 2021, c humak v. Ukraine, european c ourt of Human r ights, ec LI:ce :ec Hr :2021:0318JUD2389710. Judgment No. 43395/09 of 23 February 2017, De t ommaso v. Italy, european c ourt of Human r ights, ec LI:ce :ec Hr :2017:0223JUD4339509. Judgment No. 46295/99 of 28 May 2002, stafford v. United kingdom, european court of Human r ights, ec LI:ce :ec Hr :2002:0528JUD4629599. Judgment No. 47143/06 of 4 December 2015, zakharov v. r ussia, european c ourt of Human r ights, ec LI:ce :ec Hr :2015:1204JUD004714306. Judgment No. 75068/12 of 24 July 2014, Dragin v. c roatia, european c ourt of Human r ights, ec LI:c e:ec Hr :2014:0724JUD7506812. Opinion of Lord braid in the cause r everend Dr. William J. U. Philip and others for Judicial r eview of the closure of places of worship in scotland of 24 March 2021, Outer House, c ourt of session. Order I U 517/2021-9 of 2 April 2021, Administrative c ourt of the r epublic of slovenia. Legislation Act Determining Intervention Measures to Prepare for the second Wave of cOVID-19 (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za pripravo na drugi val COVID-19), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 98/20, 152/20 – zz UOOP. Act Determining the Intervention Measure of Deferred Payment of borrowers’ Liabilities (Zakon o interventnem ukrepu odloga plačila obveznosti kreditojemalcev, zIUOPOk), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 36/20, 49/20 – z IUze OP, 203/20 – z IUPOPDVe. Act Determining the Intervention Measures on salaries and contributions (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih na področju plač in prispevkov, zIUPPP), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 36/20, 49/20 – z IUze OP, 61/20 – z IUze OP-A, 80/20 – z IUOOPe. Allgemeinverfügung des bayerischen staatsministeriums für Gesundheit und Pflege vom 20. März 2020 - z 6a-G8000 -2020/122-98. Allgemeinverfügung des bayerischen staatsministeriums für Gesundheit und Pflege und des bayeri- schen staatsministeriums für Familie, Arbeit und soziales vom 16. März 2020 - 51-G8000- 2020/122- 67. Allgemeinverfügung des bayerischen staatsministeriums für Gesundheit und Pflege vom 17. März 2020 - z 6a-G8000-2020/122-83. 56 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law basic school Act (Zakon o osnovni šoli, zOsn), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 81/06, 102/07, 107/10, 87/11, 40/12 – z UJF, 63/13, 46/16 – zOFVI-k . Bayerische Infektionsschutzmaßnahmenverordnung – bayIfsMV - vom 27. März 2020 2126-1-4-G, 2126-1-5-G, bayMbl 2020 Nr. 158. bayerische Verordnung über eine vorläufige Ausgangsbeschränkung anlässlich der corona-Pande- mie vom 24. März 2020, 2126-1-4-G, bayMbl 2020 Nr. 130. bundestag-Drucksache Nr. 8/2468 of 15 January 1979. b-VG, Federal c onstitutional Law (Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz), stGbl. Nr. 450/1920, bGbl. Nr. 1/1920. c onstitution of October 4, 1958 (Constitution française du 4 octobre 1958). c onstitution of the r epublic of slovenia (Ustava Republike Slovenije), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 33/91-I, 42/97 – Uzs 68, 66/00 – Uz 80, 24/03 – Uz 3a, 47, 68, 69/04 – Uz 14, 69/04 – Uz 43, 69/04 – Uz 50, 68/06 – Uz 121,140,143, 47/13 – Uz 148, 47/13 – Uz 90,97,99, 75/16 – Uz 70a in 92/21 – Uz 62a. c OVID-19-Lockerungsverordnung (c OVID-19-LV), bGbl. II Nr. 197/2020. c OVID-19-MG, c OVID-19 Measures Act (COVID-19-Maßnahmengesetz), bGbl. I Nr. 12/2020, 16/2020, 23/2020, 104/2020, 124/2020 (VFb), 138/2020, 23/2021, 33/2021, 82/2021, 90/2021, 100/2021, 105/2021, 143/2021, 183/2021, 204/2021, 255/2021, 6/2022, 64/2022, 89/2022, 103/2022. c OVIfsGAnpG, First statute for the Protection of the Population in an epidemic situation of National significance (Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite), bGbl. I 14/2020 (27. März 2020). cs P, Public Health c ode (Code de la santé publique, cs P). Décret n° 2020-1310 du 29 octobre 2020 prescrivant les mesures générales nécessaires pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 dans le cadre de l’état d’urgence sanitaire, JOr F n° 0264 du 30 octobre 2020. Décret n° 2020-293 du 23 mars 2020 prescrivant les mesures générales nécessaires pour faire face à l’épidémie de covid-19 dans le cadre de l’état d’urgence sanitaire, JOr F n°0072 du 24 mars 2020. epiG, epidemics Act (Gesetz über die Verhütung und Bekämpfung übertragbarer Krankheiten - Epi- demiegesetz), bGbl. Nr. 186/1950 (WV), 185/1961, 116/1967, 127/1968, 702/1974, 191/1999 (bG) (1. brb G), 98/2001, 65/2002, 114/2006, 76/2008, 43/2012, 80/2013, 63/2016, 37/2018, 16/2020, 23/2020, 43/2020, 62/2020, 103/2020, 104/2020, 124/2020 (VFb), 136/2020, 23/2021, 33/2021, 64/2021 (VfGH), 82/2021, 90/2021, 100/2021, 105/2021, 143/2021, 183/2021, 255/2021, 6/2022, 21/2022, 80/2022, 89/2022, 103/2022, 131/2022, 195/2022. european c onvention on Human r ights, (Evropska konvencija o varstvu človekovih pravic) Official Gazette of the rs , No. 33/1994. Fourth statute for the Protection of the Population in an epidemic situation of National significance (Viertes Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragwe- ite), bGbl. I s. 802 (22. April 2021). GG, basic Law for the Federal r epublic of Germany (Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutsc- hland), bGbl. s. 1 (23. Mai 1949). IfsG, Infection Protection Act (Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfsG), bGbl. I s. 1045 (20. Juli 2000). International c ovenant on c ivil and Political r ights, Official Gazette of the rs , No. 35/92, 9/92. International Health r egulations, World Health Organisation (WHO), 2005. Loi n° 2020-1379 du 14 novembre 2020 autorisant la prorogation de l’état d’urgence sanitaire et por- tant diverses mesures de gestion de la crise sanitaire, JOr F n° 0277 du 15 novembre 2020. Loi n° 2020-290 du 23 mars 2020 d’urgence pour faire face à l’épidémie de c OVID-19, JOr F n° 0072 du 24 mars 2020. Loi n° 2020-546 du 11 mai 2020 prorogeant l’état d’urgence sanitaire et complétant ses dispositions, JOr F n° 0116 du 12 mai 2020. Loi n° 2020-856 du 9 juillet 2020 organisant la sortie de l’état d’urgence sanitaire, JOr F n° 0169 du 10 juillet 2020. Loi n° 2021-160 du 15 février 2021 prorogeant l’état d’urgence sanitaire, JOr F n° 0040 du 16 février 2021. Niedersächsischen Verordnung zum schutze vor Neuinfektionen mit dem c orona-Virus vom 17. April 2020, Nds. GVbl. Nr. 10/2020, ausgegeben am 17. 4. 2020. Order on the declaration of the c OVID-19 epidemic in the territory of the r epublic of slovenia (Od- redba o razglasitvi epidemije nalezljive bolezni SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) na območju Republike Slovenije), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 19/20. Ordinance determining the conditions of entry into the r epublic of slovenia to contain and control the cOVID-19 infectious disease (Odlok o določitvi pogojev vstopa v Republiko Slovenijo zaradi zajezitve in obvladovanja nalezljive bolezni COVID-19), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 46/21. Ordinance on temporary measures to reduce the risk of infection and spread of cOVID-19 (Odlok o začasnih ukrepih za zmanjšanje tveganja okužbe in širjenja okužbe z virusom SARS-CoV-2), 57 DIGNITAS n Paradise lost - Comparative perusal of Slovenian constitutional ... Official Gazette of the rs , No. 90/20. Ordinance on temporary prohibiting gatherings of people in educational institutions and universi- ties and independent higher education institutions (Odlok o začasni prepovedi zbiranja ljudi v zavodih s področja vzgoje in izobraževanja ter univerzah in samostojnih visokošolskih zavodih), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 25/20. Ordinance on the restriction of air services performance in the r epublic of slovenia (Odlok o pre- povedi opravljanja zračnih prevozov v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 26/20 Ordinance on the restriction of public transport of passengers in the r epublic of slovenia (Odlok o začasni prepovedi in omejitvah javnega prevoza potnikov v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 24/20. Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the municipalities (Odlok o začasni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja ljudi na javnih mestih in površinah v Republiki Sloveniji ter prepovedi gibanja izven občin), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 38/20 and 51/20. Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia (Odlok o začasni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja ljudi na javnih mestih in površinah v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 30/20. Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the municipalities (Odlok o začasni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja ljudi na javnih krajih, površinah in mestih v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 60/20. Ordinance on the temporary prohibition of the gathering of people at public meetings at public events and other events in public places in the r epublic of slovenia and prohibition of movement outside the municipalities (Odlok o začasni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja ljudi na javnih krajih, površinah in mestih v Republiki Sloveniji ter prepovedi gibanja izven občin), Official Ga- zette of the rs , No. 52/20 and 58/20. Ordinance on the temporary restriction of the gathering of people in public spaces and areas in the r epublic of slovenia(Odlok o začasni splošni omejitvi zbiranja ljudi na javnih krajih in mestih v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 69/20, 78/20, and 85/20. t hird statute for the Protection of the Population in an epidemic situation of National significance (Drittes Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragwe- ite), bGbl. I s. 2397 (18. November 2000). Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und konsumentenschutz be- treffend vorläufige Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von cOVID-19, bGbl. II Nr. 96/2020. Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und konsumentenschutz gemäß § 2 z 1 des c OVID-19-Maßnahmengesetzes, bGbl. II Nr. 98/2020. Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und konsumentenschutz mit be- sondere schutzmaßnahmen gegen die Verbreitung von c OVID-19, bGbl. Nr. II 465/2021. Verordnung des bundesministers für soziales, Gesundheit, Pflege und konsumentenschutz, mit der die Verordnung betreffend vorläufige Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung der Verbreitung von cO- VID-19 geändert wird, bGbl. II Nr. 151/2020. Verordnung zur bewältigung der cOVID-19 Folgen im schulwesen für die schuljahre 2019/20 und 2020/21 - c OVID-19-schuleverordnung (c -schVO), bGbl. II Nr. 208/2020. VersG, Federal Act concerning Assemblies and Processions (Versammlungsgesetz des Bundes), bGbl. I s. 1789 (15. November 1978). zDr -1, employment r elationships Act (Zakon o delovnih razmerjih), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 21/13, 78/13, 47/15 – zzs Dt , 33/16 – Pz -F, 52/16, 15/17, 22/19 – z Poss, 81/19, 203/20 – z IUPOPD- Ve, 119/21 – z ČmIs-A, 202/21, 15/22, 54/22 – z UPŠ-1. zDUOP, Additional Measures to Mitigate the consequences of cOVID-19 Act (Zakon o dodatnih ukrepih za omilitev posledic COVID-19), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 15/21, 112/21 – zNUPz , 206/21 – z DUPŠOP, 141/22 – z NUNbz . z IUOPDVe, Act Determining the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the c onsequences of the second Wave of c OVID-19 epidemic (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za omilitev posledic drugega vala epi- demije COVID-19), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 175/20, 203/20 – z IUPOPDVe, 15/21 – z DUOP, 51/21 – zz Vzz -O, 57/21, 112/21 – z IUPGt . zIUze OP, Act Determining the Intervention Measures to c ontain the c OVID-19 epidemic and Miti- gate its c onsequences for c itizens and the economy (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo), Official Gazette 58 DIGNITAS n Human Rights Law of the rs , No. 49/20, 61/20, 152/20 – zz UOOP, 175/20 – zIUOPDVe, 15/21 – zDUOP, 206/21 – z DUPŠOP. z MVN-1, r eal Property Mass Valuation Act (Zakon o množičnem vrednotenju nepremičnin), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 77/17, 33/19, 66/19. zNb, communicable Diseases Act (Zakon o nalezljivih boleznih), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 33/06, 49/20 – z IUze OP, 142/20, 175/20 – z IUOPDVe, 15/21 – z DUOP, 82/21. zVis, Higher education Act (zakon o visokem šolstvu), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 32/12, 40/12 – zUJF, 57/12 – zPc P-2D, 109/12, 85/14, 75/16, 61/17 – zUPŠ, 65/17, 175/20 – zIUOPDVe, 57/21, 54/22 – z UPŠ-1, 100/22 – zsz UN. z Vrt, k indergartens Act (z akon o vrtcih), Official Gazette of the rs , No. 100/05, 25/08, 98/09 – z IUz - Gk , 36/10, 62/10 – z UPJs, 94/10 – z IU, 40/12 – z UJF, 14/15 – z UUJFO, 55/17, 18/21.