CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) COVID-19 RESTRICTIONS OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT IN THE CR AND LITHUANIAs … of the Constitution and the Law on the State of Emergency: this freedom was restricted by a resolution of the Government and not by law; it was restricted in the absence of a state of war or emergency, that is, not in compliance with the requirements arising from Article 145 of the Constitution; the contested provisions introduced, in essence, a curfew, which, under the Emergency Law, can be applied only after the imposition of a state of emergency.” 36 The Court refused to accept his complaint on the grounds that the complainant´s position and his human rights were not actually infringed. Two other petitions were received and accepted by the Constitutional Court in May 2021. 37 One of the petitions was related to the provision of the Government decree declaring the second quarantine which prohibits the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania with a positive COVID-19 test result to return to Lithuania. According to the petitioner, this means that the disputed legal regulation prohibits persons suffering from COVID-19 from trying to enter Lithuania even when their travel conditions meet all the safety requirements that ensure that the infection will not spread during the trip. The petitioner also mentioned that the right to health care could also be infringed if the country where the citizen of Lithuania is temporarily staying has worse conditions of health care than those of Lithuania. The second complaint is not directly related to travelling, as the Constitutional Court is asked to investigate whether the provision allowing for the removal of persons from their workplace due to refusal to check if the person does or does not have COVID-19 in certain fields of work if there is no possibility to move him to other position in the same workplace is in coherence with the Constitution. Speaking about the practice of administrative courts, there were not many cases related to COVID-19 containment measures. One of the cases analysed in the High Administrative court was related with the legality of the measures against COVID-19 as it was contested that the government violated the procedural rules for appointing the Head of the Government Emergency Commission of the Republic of Lithuania. 38 The issue that the court addressed was that most of the 42 acts in questions were not valid anymore at the time when the complaint was lodged. The court stated that neither the Administrative court, nor the Constitutional court may consider legal acts that are no longer in force. The court iterated that “if the human rights of persons are violated due to such normative administrative act they may, in accordance with the procedure established by law, seek to defend their rights by applying to a court, in which case the administrative courts will have the power to investigate the legality of the normative administrative act.” 39 Three of the acts 40 were established to be valid at the time of the complaint and they were declared invalid due to formal requirements: the head of the Government Emergency 36 Decision of the Constitutional Court of 2 July 2020 No. KT116-A-S108/2020, https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/teismo- aktai/paieska/135/ta2172/content. 37 The information of Constitutional Court https://www.lrkt.lt/lt/apie-teisma/naujienos/prasymo-priemimas/1335/ konstitucinis-teismas-vertins-teisinio-reguliavimo-kuriuo-ribojama-teigiama-covid-19-tyrimo-atsakyma-turinciu- lietuvos-respublikos-pilieciu-teise-grizti-i-lietuva-konstitucinguma:327andhttps://www.lrkt.lt/lt/apie-teisma/ naujienos/prasymo-priemimas/1335/konstitucinis-teismas-vertins-ar-konstitucijai-nepriestarauja-teisinis- reguliavimas-pagal-kuri-darbuotojas-atsisakes-tikrintis-del-uzkreciamosios-ligos-yra-nusalinamas-nuo-darbo- nemokant-jam-darbo-uzmokescio:334. 38 Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, Administrative Case No. A-2913-438/2021. 39 Ibid. 40 They regulated the wearing of masks in the airports and regarding the services of calls to health care institutions.

241