Legitimate aim in the implementation of measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus disease

Abstract

The acute respiratory disease COVID-19 has caused restrictions on human rights not seen since the end of the Second World War. Restrictive measures aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus disease have been introduced almost all over the world. However, like any restrictions on human rights, such measures must meet the requirements of the principle of proportionality. The principle of proportionality provides for three main criteria for restrictions to be proportionate: they must be provided for by law, have a legitimate purpose and be proportional «stricto sensu». The paper is devoted to consideration of both the general goal of all restrictive measures and individual goals of specific restrictions. Having analyzed the issue of the existence of a legitimate goal of the implementation of measures aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus disease, we established the existence of a goal in the form of protecting the life and health of the population. Having investigated the legitimacy of human rights restrictions related to measures aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus disease, it can be concluded that preventing the spread of COVID-19 and ensuring the readiness of health care facilities to provide medical assistance to patients with acute respiratory disease COVID-19, were quite important targets in the fight against the coronavirus infection. However, due to a significant period of time after the declaration of a pandemic, such goals can only be the basis for minimal restrictions in specific critical situations. Some measures aimed at preventing the spread of the coronavirus disease introduced by Resolution No. 255 did not have a legitimate purpose at all, and therefore they cannot be recognized as proportionate restrictions on human rights.