Venice Commission - Observatory on emergency situations
www.venice.coe.int
Disclaimer: this information was gathered by the Secretariat of the Venice Commission on the basis of contributions by the members of the Venice Commission, and complemented with information available from various open sources (academic articles, legal blogs, official information web-sites etc.).
Every effort was made to provide accurate and up-to-date information. For further details please visit our page on COVID-19 and emergency measures taken by the member States: https://www.venice.coe.int/WebForms/pages/?p=02_EmergencyPowersObservatory&lang=EN
9. If a declaration of state of emergency was not made, did the Executive enjoy additional powers under the ordinary legislation on health risks or another public emergency? Did it decide to impose exceptional restrictions on human rights based on these laws?
From the moment of the first case in Albania on 9.03.2020 and until the declaration of the state of natural disaster by the Decision of the Council of Ministers no. 243, dated 24.3.2020 "On the declaration of the state of natural disaster", the basis of actions was law no. 15/2016 “On the prevention and control of infections and infectious diseases”, as amended.
Declaration of state of emergency was made; powers of the Government are based on the pre-existing legisltion and the law on the legal regime of the state of emergency (see Q1), which describes in detail what sort of measures the Government may take once the state of emergency is declared. However, measures taken by the Government cannot impede the normal activity of the National Assembly of the Republic of Armenia, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Armenia, the courts of the Republic of Armenia and the Human Rights Defender of the Republic of Armenia.
There was no formal shift of competences towards to Executive.
Under Article 4 of the Law on sanitary and epidemiological safety the state bodies may introduce and abolish special condictions regulating education, movement, transportation and labour, in order to prevent and eliminate the spread of infectious and non-infectious mass diseases and poisonings among the population in the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
The laws of March 27, 2020 temporarily assigned special powers to the King (in practice to the federal government) in order to take measures to combat the spread of the Covid-19 (see Q2). However, measures involving restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms were not based on those laws but rather on article 181 of the law of May 15, 2007 on civil security (see Q3). On the basis of this provision, ministerial decrees imposed the exceptional restrictions described in the answer to question 8.
Article 108, paragraph 2 of the Law on Protection and Rescue of People and Material Goods from Natural and Other Disasters in the Federation of BiH stipulates that civil protection Headqarters have the authority to "order the implementation of appropriate protection and rescue measures" while Article 54 of the Law on Protection of the Population from Infectious Diseases of the Federation of BiH stipulates that the Federation Ministry of Health may order special extraordinary protective measures against these diseases. Pursuant to Article 108, paragraph 2 of the Law on Protection and Rescue of People and Material Goods from Natural and Other Disasters in the Federation of BiH, the Federation Civil Protection Headquarters issued a series of orders and conclusions which limited human rights. Similar decisions (orders and conclusions on imprisonment of wards in social protection institutions, movement of minors and the elderly, ban on presenting or transmitting false news, ban on leaving the place of residence on weekends, etc.) were passed by the Republic Emergency Headquarters on the basis of similar laws in Republika Srpska, and in the Brčko District, that decision was passed by the Rescue and Protection Headquarters of the Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
See answer to Q4: the declaration was made by the National Assembly which later amended the Health Act in order to give the Government the power to introduce emergency regime and use special powers provided for this situation in the Health Act.
Overall, the Republic of Cyprus has enacted and implemented special coronavirus protection protocols in line with the guidance and direction of its Government, the EU institutions and agencies, and the WHO. These include deferring all non-essential international travel to and from the island and imposing self-isolation and quarantine recommendations. These measures were enacted through decrees, laws, regulations and/or other acts. In times of emergency certain measures taken directly by the executive are viewed as ‘Acts of Government’ that may escape certain fundamental democratic and/or constitutional mechanisms of scrutiny and control, while the Parliament plays a subordinate role.
During the state of emergency, the government relied on the emergency powers granted to it by the emergency legislation. After the end of the state of emergency, some of the measures have been enacted based on the standard legislation, mainly the Law on the Protection of Public Health. In early May 2020 the Government considered introducing an extensive draft amendment of this law that would give the Minister of Health increased powers to introduced restrictive measures outside the state of emergency. The idea however have not been carried out so far.
The Executive enjoyed additional powers under the legislation ordinary legsilation on health hazards, as amended in March 2020 (see answer to Q3). The restrictions imposed, however, cannot be said to be exceptional; for example, restrictions on public gatherings did not affect the right to assemble for political or religious purposes.
Pursuant to Article L.3131-1 of the Health Code (see Q3) and given the "exceptional circumstances", the Prime Minister was able to take measures to restrict movements (decree of 16 March 2020).
Powers of the executive during the epidemic crisis are regulated by the pre-existing legislation, namely the IfSG (see Q2). According to Article 28 I IfSG, the competent authorities can take the necessary protective measures if sick, suspected or contagious suspects are identified, insofar as and as long as this is necessary to prevent the spread of communicable diseases. This applies in particular to the measures mentioned in §§ 29 – 31 IfSG. For example, the competent authorities can oblige people not to leave the place where they are located, or only to leave it under certain circum-stances, or not to enter certain places or public places, or only to enter under certain circum-stances. § 32 IfSG authorizes the Länder authorities, under the conditions of 28 IfSG, to issue commandments and prohibitions to combat communicable diseases by means of statutory or-dinances with state-wide effect. Lower authorities, especially local authorities, may issue in-dividual or general orders on the basis of § 28 IfSG.
The Hungarian constitutional framework is based on a system of six different types of special legal regimes (orders). After having declared the mildest of these, i.e. the state of danger on 11 March, the Government has issued several decrees on emergency steps to combat the threat of the virus. In addition, some powers were given to the Government by the Act XII of 2020 on the containment of coronavirus (see in English here). Finally, Act LVIII of 2020 on the transitional measures related to the termination of the state of danger and on epidemiological preparedness amended the rules of health crisis and provided the Government with a wide range of crisis management powers.
Yes the effect of the amendments to the Health Act (see Q3 above) was to confer additional powers under that ordinary law on the Minister for Health who is part of the Executive. These additional powers were used when exceptional measures were introduced by the Minister by regulations, which measures did have the effect of limitations on the rights at Q8 above.
An answer to the question should take into account Italy’s specific legal framework of the state of emergency (see Q5), where the declaration of the state of emergency does not have a constitutional basis, but only a legislative one.
Powers of the executive are based on the existing legislation (namely the IDCPA); in theory, the President may use powers given by Articles 76 and 77 of the Constitution, but it was not needed in the current situation
In accordance with the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Government exercises the powers assigned to it by the Constitution and laws. However, the laws do not grant the Government the right to impose any restrictions on human rights. Human rights under article 20 of the Constitution may be restricted only by law. Thus, when a state of emergency is declared, only the set of restrictions provided for in the Constitutional Law «On the State of Emergency» are used. Accordingly, the President or Parliament may, in the event of a state of emergency, impose only the restrictions provided for in the above-mentioned Constitutional Act.
Certain regulations introduced during the epidemy were based on the Swiss Epidemic Act, incorporated in the legal order of Lichtenstein (see Q3). Otherwise, the government was not vested with additional powers.
The Government was acting on the basis of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans, as amended and supplemented.
The Government does not have any exceptional powers, except those which are conferred by virtue of the general law on health
The declaration of emergency has not been made, since the Constitution does not provide it; necessary measures were taken by the executive on the basis of ordinary legislation on police powers.
The decree law of March 2020 allows the government, in case of need, to take, on an exceptional basis, any economic or financial or social or environmental measure that would contribute directly to limiting the negative effects of the state of emergency. It also punishes any person who disobeys the orders and decisions of the authorities with one to three months in prison and a fine of between 300 and 1300 dirhams, or one of the two penalties.
Emergency measures in Norway has been made according to both pre-existing general emergency legislation and according to special Covid-19 legislation adopted to deal with the crisis.
The additional powers were given to the executive by virtue of the Presidential declaration proclaiming the state of emergency (see Q1)
Outside the period of validity of the state of emergency (see Q1), the Government has special powers granted by the Framework Law of Civil Protection (Law No. 27/2006, of July 3), namely the declaration of the calamity situation, when, in face of occurrence or danger of the occurrence of a serious situation likely to cause damage or victims , which severely affects living conditions and the socio-economic capacity in areas or in the entire national territory.
The declaration of the state of emergency conferred on the executive powers to adopt decrees having the force of law - which were submitted to the National Assembly for approval (and approved) as soon as it was able to convene, as required by Article 200 of the Constitution
A declaration of state of emergency was made. The Executive (mainly the Public Health Authority), did take a number of additional measures under the ordinary legislation on health risks (see Q3), which did not fall under the special regime of state of emergency. The parliament also restricted certain fundamental rights by passing ordinary legislation (see Q13 and Q14 for more details).
Not applicable - the Government has made the declaration and has used powers provided by the constitutional law on the three regimes of emergency (see Q2).
Additional powers are vested with the Government by ordinary legislation (see Q3). Following the declaration of a public health state of emergency by the governemnt on 31 January, the governement started issuing decree laws which introduced specific restrictive measures. These decree laws were confirmed by Parliament. Subsequently the decree laws were supplemented by the ministerial orders and acts taken at the regional level.
In Switzerland, there was no declaration of state of emergency, however, the Executive (the Federal Council) enjoyed additional powers under the ordinary legislation on health risks: On the one hand, regarding the restriction on fundamental rights, and on the other hand, regar-ing the separation of powers between the Federation and the cantons.
A state of emergency was declared. If it was not declared it would be possible for the Government to act on the basis of the Law on Crisis Management, but the problem was that there was not active Parliament. So, the need of legislating certain measures could not be satisfied with declaration of crisis, because in such situation the Government does not have right to adopt decrees with the force of law.
A state of emergency has been declared by the President (see Q4). But the government has also benefited from an enabling law to intervene in the legislative field.
Declaration of the state of emergency was not made in connection with the COVID-19 crisis.
The ordinary law governing the powers of the executive, and, more specifically, of sanitary authorities gives them additional competencies in the times of an epidemy.
There is no constitutional framework providing for the "declaration for the state of emergency", but the Government enjoys powers to issue emergency regulations under the CCA (see Q2).
The federal government and all 50 states (including the five discussed herein) issued declarations of states of emergency in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the executive had no need for any alternative additional powers under the ordinary legislation of health risks or other public emergencies.
Albania
Limitations on fundamental rights and freedoms, mentioned above, throughout this period have been made based on the Orders of the Minister of Health and Social Protection.
It appears that the Government in parallel used the possibility of adopting normative acts with the force of law, provided by Article 101 of the Constitution (see Q1). On 16 April 2020, within the 45 days deadline provided for by Article 101, these normative acts were approved by Parliament to continue to have legal force.
Armenia
Austria
However, the Executive enjoys additional powers under the legislation on health risks, namely, under the Epidemics Act, which is – together with several COVID-19-Acts – is a part of the legal foundations for ordering and executing measures to combat the spread of COVID-19. Accordingly, the Government issued a number of regulations within this legal framework.
By decree of the Minister of Health, the COVID-19 was included into the scope of application of the Epidemics Act. For this reason, authorities may take precautions as set forth in the Epidemics Act in order to combat the spread of COVID-19.
The Epidemics Act provides for several precautionary measures in this regard, such as quarantine, closure of educational facilities and commercial operations, as well as transport and travel restrictions. The Executive has the competence to implement such measures and to issue regulations which, for instance, prohibit large gatherings of people (section 15) or determine how to implement measures in public transportation (section 26 paragraph 1). These regulations are issued by the Minister of Health (if applicable to the entire territory), by the Governor (if applicable to an entire province or several municipalities) or by the regional administrative authorities (section 43 paragraph 4a). According to Section 28a paragraph 1 of the Epidemics Act, public security organs shall support the competent authorities and organs in the exercise of their functions and in the implementation of the measures. They also have to contribute to the implementation of the Epidemics Act and of any regulations adopted on the basis of this act (Section 28a paragraph 1a).
According to Section 2 of the COVID-19 Measures Act, a regulation may be issued in order to prohibit entering public places. A corresponding regulation was issued. It has provided for several exceptions to the general prohibition of entering public places, namely, to avert immediate danger; to care for vulnerable people; to meet necessary basic needs of daily life; to fulfil work responsibilities and go to an outside public place alone, provided that a distance of one meter from other people is maintained (Section 2). Another regulation was issued by the Minister of Health ordering the closure of shops, fitness centres, restaurants etc but also providing for various exceptions (e.g. for supermarkets, post offices, pharmacies, gas stations; (see Sections 1-3; cf Section 20 of the Epidemics Act)).
One of the regulations adopted temporarily authorizes the Federal Chancellor to issue regulations which contain procedural rules for proceedings before the Constitutional Court.
Azerbaijan
According to Article 25 ofthe Law on sanitary and epidemiological safety, if there is a threat of the occurrence or spread of infectious, parasitic, non-infectious mass diseases, the government of the Azerbaijan Republic, the main state sanitary doctors, within their competence, introduce special conditions and modalities in the sphere of labour, education, movement, transportation, and take necessary measures, aimed at preventing the occurrence and spread of these diseases and their elimination.
Belgium
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
The Crisis Management Law (N. 240/2000 Coll.) provides, in para. 5, that during the emergency state or the state of menace certain rights could be limited, "for the
period and to the extend unavoidably required", and para. 6 gives the Government the power to order certain measures (evacuation of people from the determined territory, prohibition of movement of people on a designated territory, border controls etc.). The law contains different sets of precise measures depending on the type of the regime (state of emergency/state of menace). Thus, state of emergency provides for a possibility for the Government to prohibit intry into the national territory of persons in general (para. 6 (1) (b)), while under the state of menace the Governemnt may only prohibit the entry on the national territory of non-citizens.
Denmark
France
Under the Law 2020-290 of 23 March 2020,(introducing the concept of the "state of health emergency"), Art. L. 3131-15, the Prime Minister, in territorial constituencies where a state of health emergency is declared, may, by regulatory decree may adopt certain measures - restrict or prohibit the movement of persons and vehicles, prohibit persons from leaving their homes, order the placement and detention in isolation, order the temporary closure of one or more categories of establishments receiving the public etc. The prescribed measures must be strictly proportionate to the health risks incurred and appropriate to the circumstances of time and place. For more details [see here https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/eli/loi/2020/3/23/PRMX2007883L/jo/text]
The appeal to exceptional circumstances refers to an old jurisprudential theory of the Council of State which is regulated by the jurisprudence and provides that the regulatory power is exercised under the full control of the judge (thus according to the usual terms of the judicial review).
Germany
General orders (Allgemeinverfügungen) to protect people from the risk of infection apply to everyone and not just to persons who have been infected or who are suspected of being infected. According to the revised § 5 II IfSG, federal authorities may also issue ordinances and orders. But this authorization is limited; it is valid for the period of ascertainment of the epidemic situation of national signifi-cance and expires on March 31, 2021 at the latest.
Hungary
Ireland
Thus, for example, under Act 2020, Section 10, new Article 31A is added to Act of 1947, which empowers the Minister to adopt regulations in specific areas, impose additional restrictions (such as travel bans or confinement orders) and, in addition, authorises the Minister to take “(i) any other measures that the Minister considers necessary in order to prevent, limit, minimise or slow the spread of Covid-19.” However, the powers of the Minister under Article 31A are circumscribed by procedural safeguards, for example the duty to “have regard” to the official reports of the WHO, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, consult with Chief Medical Officer, take into consideration available human and financial resources etc.
For the case-law on the delegated legislation see here
Italy
Therefore the declaration of the state of emergency afforded a very weak ground for the restrictions of human rights. Moreover in the text of the constitution all limitations of fundamental rights are to be provided by a legislative act (riserva di legge). These are the reasons why the government resorted to law decrees in order to involve Parliament in the decision-making process.
Decree law no. 6/2020 (click here mandated "competent authorities" to enact containment and management measures , including the prohibition to leave or enter certain areas; suspension of work, meetings, events and schooling; closing of some categories of offices and shops, limitations to public transport; quarantine etc. It contained an open-ended residual clause which mandated the head of the governement to adopt “any containment and management measures adequate and proportionate to the evolution of the epidemiological situation”.
Measures based on this general mandate were taken by the head of the national governement as well as some regional authorities. Furthermore, the head of the government (President of the Cabinet of Ministers) issued his own decrees on the basis of the decree law no. 6 (for an example click here
Decree law no. 6/2020 was converted into law no. 13/2020, and more decrees (nos. 9, 11, 14/2020 and no. 18 of 17 March 2020, the most comprehensive) have been adopted with additional measures. The decree law of 25 March 2020 was aimed at harmonising measures taken at different levels (national, regional, local).
Korea, Republic
Kyrgyzstan
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
During the period of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Minister of Health was appointed as the State-Level Emergency Operations Chief, responsible, inter alia, for the implementation of governmental resolutions and taking other actions to prevent and control the spread of Covid-19. After the quarantine was revoked, the Minister of Health, acting in his capacity as the State-level Emergency Operations Chief, is the entity supervising and implementing the safety measures.
Mexico
Monaco
Morocco
Norway
According to the 1994 Act relating to control of communicable diseases, the government is allowed to derogate from the requirements in the act and to adopt legislative measures supplementing the act.
Similarly, the government is also provided limited legislative powers according to the 2000 Act on health and social preparedness. The government has adopted a number of restrictive infection containment measures according to both these acts.
More controversial in Norway, leading to an intense public debate, parliament also adopted the so-called Corona Act, delegating more general legislative powers to the government, and which allows derogation and amendments to 62 laws listed in the Corona Act. The rationale for the Corona Act was to make changes to existing general legislation due to the societal impact of the containment measures, i.a. changes to tax law, economic stimulus measures, employment aid, exceptions from deadlines and meeting requirements for courts, associations etc. All legislative powers delegated to the government are subject to the constitutional protection of human rights as well as the ECHR. The Corona Act specifically requires all delegated legislation to be in accordance with human rights guaranteed by Norwegian law. It also allows a minority of 1/3 of the members of parliament to veto any legislative act adopted by the government in accordance with the Corona Act. Moreover, the Corona Act limits the government’s legislative powers to situations where the parliament is unable to adopt the required legislation within the required time-frame. The duration of the act and all acts adopted by the government in accordance with the Corona Act, were also limited to one month. The Corona Act was finally repealed on May 27. All legislation adopted by the government pursuant to the Corona Act has to be adopted as law by parliament within one month after the date of expiry of the Corona Act, or they will be abolished.
Peru
Portugal
In first phase of the fight against the pandemic, the government has determined some specified restrictions (Decree-Law nº 10-A/2010 of March 13): suspension of teaching and formative activities with physical presence, interdiction of tours organized by finalist students, access restrictions or conditions imposed on some establishments (restaurants and bars), prophylactic isolation determined by health authorities, and the possibility of unilateral imposition of teleworking regime; in the context of public calamity , a “sanitary fence” was delimitated in the territory of a municipality affected by an epidemiological situation with active community transmission through the adoption of exceptional measures for two weeks: interdiction of circulation on the public roads and spaces, except for necessary and urgent cases (buying food, pharmacies, health reasons, access to the workplace, if located in the area of the municipality, assistance to elderly, minors etc.); closure of commercial or industrial establishments, except those that provide essential services ; interdiction of entering or leaving the municipality, except in specifically defined cases (Resolution of the Council of Ministers nº. 10-D/2020, of March 19) .
Serbia
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
On exceptional restrictions on human rights, see Q8.
Article 35 of decree law no. 9/2020 declared void emergency measures taken by mayors at the local level which conflicted with measures taken nationwide.
Switzerland
Article 185 al. 3 of the Constitution and Article 7 of the Epidemics Act confer on the Federal Council the competence to issue ordinances that may, without a specific legal basis, severely infringe upon fundamental rights. These provisions authorise the Federal Council to act in lieu of the legislator. However, the Federal Council is not authorised to act against the Constitu-tion or “contra legem”. Article 7 of the Epidemics Act leaves more room for manoeuvre, since it also legitimises derogations from the law, provided they comply with the aims pursued by the Epidemics Act (see answer to question 3). In this regard, there are “no exceptional re-strictions” in the sense of an unconstitutional limitation or restriction on human rights, and no such criticism has been raised so far.
The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic also challenged the Swiss model of federalism, as under the Epidemics Act, the powers of the Federal Council are extended in the event of a special or extraordinary situation. In the event of an extraordinary situation under the Epi-demics Act, the Confederation can standardise pandemic plans at both federal and cantonal level and oblige the cantons to apply the rules laid down at federal level uniformly, even in areas that fall within the competence of the Cantons.
North Macedonia
During a state of war or emergency, the Government, in accordance with the Constitution and law, issues decrees with the force of law. The authorization of the Government to issue decrees with the force of law lasts until the termination of the state of war or emergency, on which the Assembly decides.
This interpretation of those constitutional provisions was a matter of some controversy; the confusion came from the formulation that “the Government, in accordance with the… law issues decrees with the force of law.” There is no special law on state of war or emergency, so it is not entirely clear what laws the decrees should be based on.
The decrees with the force of law are mentioned in two articles of the Law on Government of the Republic of Macedonia. Article 35 of the Law on Government enumerates the acts that are adopted by the Government, stating that: “For the purpose of implementing the laws, the Government shall adopt decrees with the force of law, decrees, decisions of general applicability, instructions, programs, decisions of individual applicability and conclusions.”
Article 36 regulates that: “By a decree with the force of law, the Government shall regulate issues within the area of competence of the Assembly in the case of martial law or state of emergency, if there is no possibility of convening the Assembly.”
The confusion was exacerbated by the fact that Article 35 enumerates the decree with the force of law among the acts adopted by the Government, for the purpose of implementing the laws (as opposed to changing them).
The Constitutional court gave two interpretations to the concept of a "decree with the force of law". In some of its decisions, the Constitutional court took the stand that “the decrees with the force of law can be adopted only for operationalization of the constitutional and statutory provisions, and not to regulate originally certain situation which is not foreseen in the constitution or in the statute” (Decision No. 49/2020). However, in other decisions the Constitutional Court took a different position, namely that “the decrees with the force of law are specific legal regulations which are adopted in the state of emergency, when there is a need of taking fast and efficient measures, of fast regulation of certain questions which are not regulated at all by statute or are regulated in a manner which does not allow for an efficient taking of measures which are imposed by the emergency situation, with aim to face and overcome the reasons which leaded to emergency situation, as well as its consequences and return into normal constitutional legal system.” (No. 56/2020 and 42/2020).
Under Article 127 of the Constitution “during the state of war, if the Assembly cannot meet, the President of the Republic may appoint and discharge the Government, as well as appoint or dismiss officials whose election is within the sphere of competence of the Assembly.” Also, the Constitution regulates that mandate of certain positions will be extended during the state of war or emergency (Article 128).
Article 63 (4) provide for the extention of the mandate of the Assembly during states of war or emergency.
Tunisia
Turkey
Decisions regarding the relevant measures were taken and implemented by the competent authorities in accordance with Article 11/C of the Provincial Administration Law and Articles 27 and 72 of the Law No. 1593 on Protection of Public Health.
Pursuant to Article 11 / C of the Provincial Administration Law;
“Providing peace and security, personal immunity, safety, public well-being and the competence of preventive law enforcement within the provincial borders are among the tasks and duties of the governor. To ensure these, the governor shall take the necessary decisions and measures.
In the event that public order or security has been deteriorated in a way that will stop or interrupt ordinary life, or if there are serious indications that it will deteriorate, the governor may restrict the entrance and exit to certain places in the province for no more than fifteen days, for those who are suspected to disrupt public order or public safety; may regulate or restrict people's wandering, gathering, driving of vehicles in certain places or hours, and may prohibit the carriage and transportation of all kinds of weapons and bullets, even if they are licensed.
The provisions of Article 66 shall apply to those who do not comply with the decisions and measures taken and announced under this paragraph.”
Articles 27 and 72 of the Law No. 1593 on Protection of Public Health regulate the powers of the public hygien councils, which may take measures to improve the sanitary condition of the city and towns and the villages and to eliminate the existing disadvantages by always paying attention to
the sanitary condition of the region. The councils collect information about infectious and epidemic diseases, enlighten the public about ways to prevent infectious and internal diseases and the benefits of sanitary life, and in case of an infectious disease, they help to perform the measures taken to eliminate the disease.
Under Article 72, if one of the diseases mentioned in Article 57 occurs or if its occurrence is suspected, the following measures are applied:
1 - The isolation and observation of people by health officials in their homes or in special places [...]
2 – Application of serum or vaccine to patients or those exposed to the disease.
3 - Cleaning of persons, belongings, clothes, laundry and buildings and all other substances that are found to have been exposed to the disease
4 - Culling of pests and animals that spread the disease
5 - Examination of people travelling in the country where necessary and cleaning of their belongings
6 - Prohibition of the use and consumption of foodstuffs that cause the contamination and spread of the disease
7 - Closure and evacuation of public areas where infectious and epidemic diseases occur, until the danger passes
Ukraine
Measures limiting human rights during the crisis were adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers on the basis of, in particular, the Code of Civil Protection of Ukraine (art. 16) and Law “On the protection of the population from infectious diseases” (art. 3).
Thus, Law "On protection of the population from infectious diseases" of April 6, 2000 № 1645-III (as amended) in Article 30 provides that in the territories where quarantine is established, local executive bodies and local self-government bodies have the right to limit the entry to and the exit from the territory of quarantine of people and vehicles, and, if necessary, to carry out sanitary inspection of luggage, vehicles and cargo, to introduce stricter regulations on quality, conditions of production and sale of food, treatment and quality of drinking water; to establish a special procedure for carrying out preventive and anti-epidemic, including disinfection, and other measures; to create checkpoints etc.
The Law "On protection of the population from infectious diseases", of April 6, 2000 № 1645-III (as amended) provides for the possibility to impose a quarantine, by a decision of the the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Under Article 29, "The decision to establish quarantine shall specify the circumstances that led to it, determine the boundaries of the quarantine area, approve the necessary preventive, anti-epidemic and other measures, their executors and deadlines, set temporary restrictions on the rights of individuals and legal entities and additional responsibilities them, the grounds and procedure for mandatory self-isolation, a person's stay in the observatory (observation), hospitalization in temporary health care facilities (specialized hospitals)"
On the basis of this Law, the Cabinet of Ministers has adopted two Resolutions (No. 211 of 11 March 2020 and No. 392 of 20 May 2020) on introducing quarantine.
United Kingdom
The regulations will lapse either after 30 days or earlier if specified in the regulations (s. 26(1)). If the regulations lapse, new regulations may be made to replace them (s. 26(2)).
United States of America
At the federal level, the National Emergencie Act permits the President, after making a declaration of emergency, to use some powers specifically designated by this law - as President Trump did in 2019 when he declared the emergency in relation with the migration crisis and in order to use the power provided by this law to divert the funds allocated to other military projects to the building of the wall.