CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE'S CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW DURING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES: ANALYSIS BASED ON THE CONSTCOVID DATABASE

Background: Although significant scholarly assessments have been made regarding the conditions for restricting fundamental rights under extraordinary circumstances and the impact of public health emergencies on the separation of powers, the literature has not yet been able to fully rely on the systematization of the extensive recent constitutional court jurisprudence—particularly in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) region. In recent years, constitutional courts (or supreme courts with constitutional review powers) have addressed many aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. A thorough examination of this case law can contribute both theoretically and practically to the legal framework governing public health emergencies, the limitations of fundamental rights, the evolution of the separation of powers, and the reinterpretation of the constitutional effects of the global pandemic. Nevertheless, scholars have repeatedly noted the difficulty in accessing relevant materials, which has hindered further research in this field. Methods: The ConstCovid project aims to close this gap by offering systematic access to global constitutional case law related to COVID-19, thereby expanding the potential for comparative research. Several specific examples from the CEE region will be used to demonstrate the regional usefulness of the ConstCovid database. Based on this case law, the regional tendencies and shortcomings of constitutional practice during public health emergencies will be identified. Utilising the ConstCovid database, this study contributes to the broader understanding of the constitutional ramifications of the COVID-19 pandemic and explores its potential implications for managing future public health emergencies in CCE. Results and conclusions: This contribution draws some conclusions from the analysed constitutional case law stemming from ConstCovid, which may be valuable for preparing potential unwanted future public health emergencies. First, it examines strands of case law that applied general constitutional standards to the extraordinary circumstances. Second, it illustrates that these ways of argumentation were combined inconsistently with the elaboration of new frameworks of constitutional interpretation, resulting in meaningful uncertainty across the region. Third, the analysis highlights the absence of constitutional remedies specifically established to address public health challenges.