The magistrates of the contentious-administrative chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of Aragon doubt the legality of the curfew and the perimeter confinements that were imposed under the state of alarm. They are determined to raise this question before the Constitutional Court (TC), the result of a lawsuit filed by ten Aragonese citizens who considered their rights violated by this state of alarm.
The Supreme Court of Aragon is about to submit the case to the Constitutional Court, through what is called question of unconstitutionality. It is a mechanism that has recently been put into practice for another matter, the alleged violation of rights in which the regional government has been able to incur for taking over the power to order forced transfers of public employees, as ABC revealed this Monday. This other case is already being investigated by the TC.
Regarding the state of alarm, the constitutional doubt fully affects how it was articulated, both in substance and in form. As other regional governments did, that of Aragon made use of that state of alarm and the delegation of powers that the president granted them under it. Pedro Sanchez. And they did it to suspend fundamental rights with the curfew and the perimeter confinements of municipalities, counties, provinces or regions as a whole.
These restrictions applied by the Government of Aragon is what ten citizens took to court. And it is what has led the magistrates of the Supreme Court of Aragon to raise the probable unconstitutionality of these measures. The last perimeter confinements were raised in Aragon a few weeks ago.
In line with what was argued by the plaintiffs, the contentious-administrative chamber of the Supreme Court of Aragon considers that it is highly doubtful to suspend fundamental rights with a state of alarm, and that it would have been necessary to declare a state of exception .
In the case of the state of alarm, the Supreme Court of Aragon doubts its constitutionality – and this is how it wants to raise it with the TC – for three reasons. One of them, the aforementioned of suspension of the fundamental right of free movement without declaring the state of exception. Other, for having delegated powers from the state of alarm to the regional presidents, a mechanism not contemplated by the organic law that regulates the states of alarm, exception and siege. And the third reason, because the state of alarm was extended for six months when you could only do it for 15 days.
Before raising the matter to the TC, the president of this chamber of the Supreme Court of Aragon, Juan Carlos Zapata, has issued an order notifying the parties involved in the process that they have a non-extendable period of ten days to present their allegations.