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
1. Are there specific provisions in the constitution of your country applicable to emergency situations (war and/or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation)?
There are two types of emergency situations provided for in the Constitution: 1) a state of emergency and 2) martial law. The Constitution also mentions other extreme cases, such as a natural disaster or epidemics (Paragraph 4 of Article 48) as the grounds to impose compulsory labour on citizens, but there is no further elaboration on or mention of these grounds in any situation other than that provided for in Article 48.
2. Do organic/constitutional or ordinary laws regulating the state of emergency exist in your country?
According to Paragraph 3 of Article 144 of the Constitution, the state of emergency shall be regulated by law.
3. Do organic or ordinary laws on health risks or other public emergency exist in your country?
The Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans sets out the foundations for the management of the prevention and control of communicable diseases in humans, dispute settlement and damage compensation, liability for the violations regulations on communicable diseases, compensations for costs related to the prevention measures etc.
4. Was a state of emergency declared in your country due to the Covid-19 pandemic? By what authority and for how long?
The state of emergency, as provided for under the Constitution and specified in the Law on the State of Emergency, was not declared in Lithuania due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the relevant constitutional provisions and the Law on the State of Emergency were not applicable when decisions were taken in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic.
5. Was the declaration subject and submitted to parliamentary approval (if it was taken by the executive)?
On 26 February 2020, the Government declared a nationwide situation of emergency (extreme situation) on the basis of the Law on Civil Protection (see Q2). This declaration is different from the declaration of the state of emergency by the Seimas (or the President, in urgent cases, when Seimas is in recession) provided by Article 144 of the Constitution.
6. Was the declaration subject and submitted to judicial review? Was it found justiciable?
The specific legal regime (state-level situation of emergency and quarantine), was declared by the Government and was not submitted to parliamentary approval; it was based on the Law on Civil Protection and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans, which empower the Government to take the necessary actions. This regime is different from the declaration of the state of emergency by the Seimas (or the President, in urgent cases, when Seimas is in recession) provided by Article 144 of the Constitution.
7. Are derogations to human rights possible in emergency situations under national law? What are the circumstances and criteria required in order to trigger an exception? Was a derogation under Article 15 ECHR or under any other international instrument made? Does national law prohibit derogation from certain rights even in emergency situations? Is there an explicit requirement that derogations should be proportionate, that is limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, in duration, circumstance and scope?
Derogation to human rights are possible if the "constitutional" state of emergency is declared under Article 144 (which did not happen in Lithuania in connection with the COVID-19 crisis).
8. Which human rights have been limited/derogated from in your country, in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic?
The specific limitations were set out in the decisions of the Government introducing the quarantine regime, which was amended several times, following the development of the situation.
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?
The Government was acting on the basis of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans, as amended and supplemented.
10. Are the possibilities for the Executive to derogate from the normal division of powers in emergency circumstances limited in duration, circumstance and scope?
If the state of emergency is declared under Article 144 of the Constitution, the Government enjoys the powers provided for in the Law on the State of Emergency.
11. Were the sessions of parliament suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic? If so, for how long? Were specific rules on the functioning of parliament during the emergency adopted? By parliament or by the executive?
According to Article 64 of the Constitution, the Parliament (the Seimas) normally convenes for two regular sessions – in spring and autumn; the spring session commences on 10 March and ends on 30 June, but it could be extended.
12. Were the judicial sessions of the Constitutional Court or court with equivalent jurisdiction and/or other courts be suspended during the Covid-19 pandemic? If so, for how long? Were specific rules on the functioning of these courts during the emergency adopted? By parliament or by the executive?
In the Constitutional Court, judicial sessions were not suspended and the regular work on preparing constitutional justice cases for examination by the Constitutional Court was carried out but, following the recommendations of the Government and by the order of the President of the Constitutional Court, the daily work was organised remotely as far as it was possible, except in cases where some functions had to be performed on the premises of the Court. In addition, the possibility of filing a constitutional petition in person was suspended for two and a half of month, but the Court continued to accept petitions filed via post or electronic means.
13. Was legislation on the state of emergency or on the emergency amended or adopted to deal with the Covid-19 pandemic?
There were some amendments to the existing lelgislation regulating the regime of the quarantine (which was used by the Government to cope with the COVID crisis). Two main legal acts: the Law on the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Humans and the Law on Civil Protection – have formed the legal basis for the government actions introducing the quarantine regime and the quarantine measures. Both these laws were amended in view of the Covid-19 pandemic. Some other laws were also amended and a new law regulating the consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic for legal persons was adopted. Amendments to relevant laws were adopted few days after the measures were taken by the Government, which can be explained by the fact of postponing some sittings of the Seimas.
14. Was this additional legislation subject to judicial review?
According to Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution, only the Constitutional Court is entitled to review the constitutionality of acts issued by the Parliament and the Government.
15. Was the state of emergency prolonged? For how long? Was the prolongation subject and submitted to parliamentary control? Was it subject and submitted to judicial review?
The state of emergency (provided for in the Constitution) was not declared; instead, the nationwide situation of emergency was declared in Lithuania, as well as the third level of alert for the civil protection system, and the quarantine regime was introduced in the entire territory of the Republic of Lithuania by the government decree No 207 of 14 March 2020 (with subsequent amendments).
16. What are the legal remedies available against general measures and/or individual taken under the state of emergency? What are the legal remedies for measures taken in application of ordinary legislation on health crisis? Has any change to the available legal remedies been decided on account or brought about by the state of emergency? Were any emergency measures invalidated and for what reasons (competence, procedure, lack of proportionality etc.)
The Constitutional Court has repeatedly stated that, in a democratic state, courts are the main institutional guarantee of human rights and freedoms. Paragraph 1 of Article 30 of the Constitution prescribes: “A person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to apply to a court.” Any person considering his or her rights or freedoms to be violated by the measures taken during the quarantine regime may apply to a court, challenging the legal regulation or claiming damages for compensation or the redress of the situation.
17. If parliamentary and/or, where applicable, presidential elections were scheduled to take place during the Covid-19 emergency: were they held? Were special arrangements made, and if so, which arrangements? Was it necessary to amend the electoral legislation? What was the turnout? How was it compared to the previous elections? If they were postponed, what was the constitutional or legal basis for doing so? Who took the decision? For how long were they postponed? Was this decision subject and submitted to parliamentary control or judicial review?
According to Article 143, in time of war actions, regular elections are not held: if a regular election must be held in time of war actions, either the Seimas or the President of the Republic shall adopt the decision to extend the term of powers of the Seimas, the President of the Republic, or municipal councils; in such a case, elections must be called not later than three months after the end of the war.
18. Same questions as under 17), mutatis mutandis, as regards local elections and referendums.
There were no local elections or referendums scheduled during the Covid-19 pandemic or in the next months to come. Next local election is to be held in 2023.
Lithuania
In their turn, the first two situations of emergency are specified in more detail.
Article 144 of the Constitution provides for the possibility of introducing a state of emergency, in cases of threats to "the constitutional system or social peace in the State". It is declared by the Seimas. The period of the state of emergency shall not exceed six months.
In cases of urgency, between sessions of the Seimas, the President of the Republic shall have the right to adopt a decision on the state of emergency and convene an extraordinary session of the Seimas for the consideration of this issue. The state of emergency shall be regulated by law.
The doctrine considers that a "threat to the constitutional system" consists of a threat to the fundamental constitutional elements: democracy, the rule of law and the protection of human rights; a threat to social peace could be understood as riots, public violence or other similar disruptions.
The second emergency situation provided for in the Constitution, which differs from a state of emergency, is martial law (regulated by Article 142); martial law can be imposed by the Seimas or the President of the Republic essentially under a threat of an armed attack, which is decided essentially in the same procedure as the state of emergency
Paragraph 2 of Article 147 of the Constitution stipulates that the Constitution may not be amended during a state of emergency or martial law.
In practice, during the COVID-19 epdiemy those Constitutional provisions were not invoked: the Government used powers granted by the ordinary legislation (see Q2 and Q3)
In implementing this constitutional provision, the Parliament adopted the Law on the State of Emergency, which regulates the basis and the procedure for the declaration of a state of emergency, temporary restriction on the use of individual rights and freedoms, temporary restriction on the activity of legal persons, temporary powers of public and municipal authorities during a state of emergency, control over the legality of the above-mentioned public and municipal authorities, and the procedure for the revocation of a state of emergency (Article 1, Paragraph 1). The purpose of this law is to protect the constitutional system of the state, guarantee public security and public order, and the protection of human rights during a state of emergency (Article 1, Paragraph 2). This law regulates the "constitutional" state of emergency declared by Seimas or by the President of the Republic (see Q1 for constitutional provision).
Another law regulating emergency situations is the Law on Civil Protection. This law provides for the possibility of declaring a situation of emergency, or the extreme situation (ekstremalioji situacija) which could be of the state or municipal level, by the Government. It is declared where an incident of a natural, technical, ecological or social character, of a certain intensity, poses a sudden and grave hazard to the life or health of residents, their property or the environment, or causes death and mutilation, or is likely to result in another damage (Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Article 2). The Law on Civil Protection lays down the legal and organisational framework for the organisation and functioning of the civil protection system, as well as the competence of state and municipal institutions and agencies. According to the provisions of this law, the Government, the Ministry of the Interior, the Emergency Commissions, the Fire and Rescue Department and agencies subordinate thereto, other ministries and the Director of the Municipal Administration concerned (where relevant) are competent institutions to perform functions provided for by this law. Under Point 11 of Article 9 of this law, the Government, among other things, is entitled to declare and lift a national level emergency and appoint the State-Level Emergency Operations Chief.
Finally, a quarantine may be imposed under the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans (see Q3)
This law, inter alia, gives a definition of the quarantine regime, defines, in Article 21, the the purpose of quarantine (to set up a special procedure, restrictions and conditions for the work, living, rest and movement of persons and their economic and other activities in order to limit the spread of communicable diseases).
Under the law, quarantine must not exceed 3 months and can be extended for not more than one month each time. Quarantine can be imposed nationwide or in several municipalities by the decision of the Government upon submission by the Minister of Health, or on the territory of one municipality by the decision of the Government upon joint submission by the Direction of the Administration of the Municipality concerned and the Minster of Health.
Another legal regime provided for by this law is qualified quarantine, which is applied in cases of mass outbreaks of serious communicable diseases. This quarantine covers a limited territory, specific object, specific raw material and (or) product or a specific service. Modalities of this type of quarantine are determined by the chief epidemiologist of the Republic of Lithuania or the chief epidemiologist of the county.
This law also regulates questions of mandatory hospitalisation and (or) isolation of patients, persons suspected to be ill, those who have been exposed to or are carriers of agents, which have been relevant during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Another law which is relevant in the circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis is the Law on the State of Epergency and the law on the Civil Protection (see Q2)
Instead, a nationwide situation of emergency was declared by the executive on the basis of thethe Law on Civil Protection (see Q2), without determining its duration (26 February 2020) and quarantine was introduced (by decree no. 207) on the entire territory of Lithuania for three months.
On 26 February 2020, the Government declared a state-level situation of emergency (extreme situation) on the basis of the Law on Civil Protection (see Q2) and, having regard to the situation, on 14 March 2020, declared the third-level alert of the civil protection system and introduced quarantine from 16 March 2020 in the entire territory of the Republic of Lithuania on the basis of the Law on Civil Protection and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Humans.
Therefore, it was the Government that declared the legal regime for the state-level situation of emergency and, subsequently, quarantine, by introducing necessary restrictions, while acting on the basis of the provisions of the relevant laws (the Law on Civil Protection and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Humans).
Initially, the quarantine was introduced for two weeks and, subsequently, it was extended several times, mostly for a period of two weeks each time. The quarantine was effective until 16 June 2020, 24:00 (in total, for 3 months since its introduction), and it was revoked by the resolution of the Government of 10 June 2020 (entering into force on 17 June 2020). As mentioned above, the state-level situation of emergency was declared without determining its duration, until the Government would adopt the resolution lifting the situation of emergency.
During the period of fighting against 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.
The quarantine lasted until 16 June 2020; after the quarantine was revoked, the temporary control of the borders has remained, with the prohibition for citizens of particular countries to enter the territory of Lithuania and the requirement for all persons arriving from the list of indicated countries (which varies from week to week according to the pandemic situation in the world) to stay in isolation; some border posts in order to enter the territory of Lithuania have remained closed; special rules and limitation on the number of persons for organising events in indoor and outdoor places have been set.
The state of emergency, as provided for under the Constitution and specified in the Law on the State of Emergency, was not declared in Lithuania due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the relevant constitutional provisions and the Law on the State of Emergency were not applicable when decisions were taken in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic. Instead, a state-level situation of emergency was declared without determining its duration and quarantine was introduced in the entire territory of Lithuania for three months. This declaration did not require a parliamentary approval.
Initially, the quarantine was introduced for two weeks and, subsequently, it was extended several times, mostly for a period of two weeks each time. The quarantine was effective until 16 June 2020, 24:00 (in total, for 3 months since its introduction), and it was revoked by the resolution of the Government of 10 June 2020 (entering into force on 17 June 2020). As mentioned above, the state-level situation of emergency was declared without determining its duration, until the Government would adopt the resolution lifting the situation of emergency.
As the special legal regime (state-level situation of emergency and quarantine) was introduced by the resolutions of the Government, only the Constitutional Court has the exclusive competence to verify the legality of the acts adopted by the Government (Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution). The Constitutional Court has no right to initiate constitutional review cases by itself; it administers constitutional justice after a subject entitled to file a constitutional petition challenges a particular legal regulation. No such petition challenging the constitutionality of the governmental resolution that declared the situation of emergency and quarantine has been accepted for examination in the Constitutional Court so far. There is one individual petition filed with the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutionality of the resolution of the Government declaring the quarantine and introducing the lockdown measures, but the issue concerning the admissibility of this petition has not been resolved yet.
In addition, some limitations may be introduced if the Government declares the state of emergency regime provided by the Law on Civil Protection (which was introduced in Lithuanian in 2020 - on measures under the Law on Civil Protection see further below).
Article 145 of the Constitution indicates the possible restrictions on human rights in the event that a state of emergency or martial law is declared:
“Upon the imposition of martial law or the declaration of a state of emergency, the rights and freedoms specified in Articles 22, 24, 25, 32, 35, and 36 of the Constitution may temporarily be limited.”, i.e. the right to private life and to the privacy of communications (Article 22); the right to the inviolability of home (Article 24); freedom of expression, information and convictions (Article 25); freedom of movement (Article 32); freedom of association (Article 35); and freedom of assembly (Article 36).
The Law on the State of Emergency specifies that limitations on the above-mentioned rights and the use of the measures should be determined by the Parliament or the President of the Republic, having regard to the circumstances. All limitations may not be contrary to the international obligations of the State. It is forbidden to limit other rights than those provided for under the Constitution and the law. Specific restrictions concerning each of the enumerated human rights are specified in the said Law on the State of Emergency: for example, the examination of correspondence and control over communication can be carried out without the order of the court (Article 19); the right to free movement can be limited by ordering not to change permanent residence (Article 22); assembly in public spaces is prohibited (Article 25); etc.
There are other restrictions, which may be introduced under the Law on the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Humans: thus, restrictions to the right of free movement and freedom of economic activity during quarantine are provided under Paragraph 11 of Article 21 of this law. The Government may determine the conditions and procedures for the production of goods and their sale, drinking water supply and the provision of services (Point 1 of Paragraph 11 of Article 21); the Government may also limit or temporarily prohibit all public events and other meetings in institutions and public spaces; to limit or temporarily prohibit residents from leaving the municipality of residence and to limit their movement within it, to refuse entry to the foreigners to the territory of the Republic of Lithuania; to order temporary removal of residents from the territory of quarantine (Point 2 of Paragraph 11 of Article 21), etc.
The Law on Civil Protection provides that, when carrying out rescue or search operations and urgent operations freedom of movement, the right to property and the inviolability of home can be restricted; also in the event that a state-level situation of emergency is declared, freedom of economic activity and the right to receive public services can be limited (Article 8).
Under the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans, the special regime of quarantine permits limitation of the freedom of movement, freedom of economic activity, freedom of work, etc (Paragraph 1 of Article 21). The same Law provides for the quarantine may in zones of an outbreak of epidemics (Paragraph 21 of Article 2).
Article 15 of the ECHR was not invoked, as it concerns a state of emergency, which was not declared in Lithuania. Derogations under the ICCPR were not made.
Under the Constitution, certain rights are considered absolute, such as the right to life (Article 19), human dignity (Article 21) and prohibition of torture (Article 21). There are no provisions permitting derogations from these rights and freedoms even in emergency situations. All derogations from human rights and freedoms in an emergency situation are precisely prescribed by relevant laws in an exhaustive manner.
As to the requirements of proportionality the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 29 December 2004 proclaimed that any limitation of human rights and freedoms needs to be lawful and necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the rights and freedoms of other persons, the values of the Constitution, as well as constitutionally important objectives. The limitation should not destroy the essence of the right or freedom, and the constitutional principle of proportionality should be observed. The Constitutional Court also described in detail the proportionality test (see, inter alia, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of 6 May 1997).
The principle of proportionality is also enshrined in the legislation. For example, the Law on the State of Emergency provides that restrictions on human rights can be applied only inasmuch as it is required by the deterioration of the situation (Paragraph 2 of Article 18). It follows from the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans that restrictive measures introduced during the quarantine may not be applied longer than the duration of quarantine. The Law on Civil Protection provides that the Government, when regulating restrictions on economic activity, especially the provision of services and the sale of certain products, must keep in line with, among others, the principle of proportionality, and must determine the period of the applicable restrictions, which must not exceed the duration of the situation of emergency itself; all the measures should be revoked as soon as the circumstances implying the introduction of the restrictive measures change (Article 301); the same applies to restrictions on other human rights and freedoms provided for by this law – limitation on the application of restrictions in time.
Under decree No 207, with further amendments, the Government limited the freedom of movement of people within the national territory, prohibited foreigners' entry to the country, introduced border traffic controls, imposed mandatory isolation of 14 days for persons entering Lithuania, introduced restrictions in public transportation, prohibition for cruise ships to enter the port of Klaipėda. Special zones were subjected to stricter regulations - thus, as from 16 April to 24 April, entering or leaving the town of Nemenčinė as a coronavirus hotspot was totally prohibited, except for work travel. Certain economic activities were suspended, for example sport, leisure, cultural and training institutions; mass sportive and entertainment events were banned, restaurants, cafes, bars, nightclubs and other entertainment venues were closed (except where food can be taken away or it can be delivered otherwise); hotel services could be prohibited by the decision of the municipality (some municipalities took such a decision). The governement ordered temporary ban on all types of assembly, introduced distance learning in schools and universities, closed pre-school institutions.
Some restrictions concerned the right to privacy/family life: prison and hospital visist suspended, surgical operations and planned hospitalisation postponed (subject to exceptions); restrictions on recieving some medical services at home.
The Government also recommended to limit all religious meetings, including holy masses; this recommendation was implemented by religious institutions.
Most of the restrictions were revoked by the end of May 2020.
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.
In addition, the Government may claim powers it has under the Law on Civil Protection and the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans. The Government, acting on the basis of the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned laws, may take decisions on specific limitations and restrictions on certain human rights (freedom of movement, restrictions of economic activity), but, where applicable, in duration, circumstances and scope as strictly provided for by the laws adopted by the Parliament.
It appears that, by ordering certain measures under the law on the prevention and control of contagious diseases, the Government exceeded the legislative mandate, which required adoption, with retroactive effect, of amendments to this law by Parliament, legalising those measures (see Q13)
Article 96 of the Statute of the Seimas, regulating the frequency of sittings of the Seimas, provides that, as a rule, four sittings in a week – two on Tuesday and two on Thursday (morning and afternoon sittings) – are held during a session of the Seimas, with a week-long adjournment of sittings of the Seimas every three weeks. On other days of a week and in a week when no sittings of the Seimas are held, meetings of the Board of the Seimas, the Conference of Chairs, political groups, committees and commissions and meetings of members of the Seimas with electors or representatives of local authorities are held. A schedule of sittings for a session of the Seimas is approved by the Board of the Seimas.
The sittings of the Seimas were not suspended, but some of them were postponed to May by the decision of the Board of the Seimas. In total, there were one and a half of week in March and a week after Easter when no sittings were held and there were two weeks with less sittings than usual. No other specific rules, except the changes to the timetable of sittings of the Seimas, were adopted regarding the functioning of the Seimas but, during the sittings of the Seimas, the members of the Seimas have been bound by the same rules of keeping personal distance, wearing masks, etc.
Amendments to the Statute of the Seimas in relation to the possibility of remote sittings of the Seimas were prepared and presented but were not adopted by the Seimas.
No specific rules on the functioning of the Constitutional Court were adopted by Parliament or the Government during the quarantine. Later during the quarantine the President of the Constitutional Court approved new working methods.
The Judicial Council, on the basis of recommendations of the Government, issued the recommendations regarding the organisation of courts' activities during the quarantine period. Oral hearings, except in urgent cases, were postponed until May; instead, hearings by videoconference were organised where possible. Access to court premises was restricted. From 4 May, oral hearings were renewed, with necessary sanitary precautions being taken.
On 31 March 2020, the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans was amended and supplemented, inter alia, by determining the conditions and procedure for situations when it is admissible to temporarily limit freedom of movement and enumerating the cases where some restrictions on economic activity may be introduced. The Government was empowered to impose certain quarantine measures related to restriction or limitation on the determined human rights and freedoms.
Thus, amendments were made related to the mandatory hospitalisation and/or isolation of patients, persons suspected to be ill, those who have been exposed to or are carriers of virus (Article 9 of the Law). The general rule is that the mandatory hospitalisation and/or isolation of persons could be applied by the motivated decision of the commission composed of three doctors until the patient ceases to pose a threat to other persons, but not beyond 7 calendar days without the judicial decision. The new amendment provides that this rule does not apply to cases where the mandatory hospitalisation and/or isolation of persons is necessary in the event of a particularly serious communicable disease, which was the reason for introducing the quarantine regime in the entire territory of Lithuania. In such a case, when the Government takes the reasoned decision that there is no other means to prevent or contain an outbreak of an epidemic, the person could be hospitalised or isolated by a motivated decision of a doctor for no longer than 1 month without the judicial decision (Paragraph 21 of Article 9). The Government used this provision as a legal basis when it introduced the mandatory isolation of 14 days for individuals arriving from abroad.
In addition, provisions regulating the quarantine regime were amended (Article 21 of the above-mentioned law), by providing for particular restrictions on freedom of movement and restrictions on economic activity. In both cases, the Government was assigned the power to take the decision on introducing the quarantine measures (Paragraph 11 of Article 21). In relation to the restrictions on economic activity, the Government may determine the conditions and procedures for the production of goods and their sale, drinking water supply and the provision of services (Point 1 of Paragraph 11 of Article 21). In relation to restrictions on freedom of movement, during the quarantine period, the Government may determine the following measures: to limit or temporarily prohibit all events and other meetings involving more than 2 persons in institutions and public spaces; to limit or temporarily prohibit residents from leaving their municipality, or restrict their movement within it etc. (Point 2 of Paragraph 11 of Article 21). The amendements set out the maximum duration of quarantine (3 months, renewable) (Paragraph 3 of Article 21).
The law (Articles 32, 321, 33) provides for an increase in salaries and social security for employees of healthcare institutions providing healthcare services to patients suffering from particularly serious communicable diseases or implementing the prevention measures in the zones of epidemic outbreaks.
On 28 April 2020, the Law on Civil Protection was amended, inter alia, by specifying the powers of the Government in cases where a state-level situation of emergency is declared. The powers of the Emergency Commission were clarified (Paragraph 8 of Article 2). Article 8, which provides for a list of human rights which may be limited, was supplemented with possible restrictions on freedom of economic activity and the provision of public and administrative services in cases where a state-level situation of emergency is declared.
Also, powers of the crisis management bodies were specified more clearly (Article 9), and special procedures for the functionning of the Emergency Commission were introduced (Point 2 of Paragraph 4 of Article 11).
The Law on Civil Protection was supplemented by a new Article 301, which provides that the Emergency Commission can determine the list of products and services that are necessary for residents, public institutions, municipalities or other economic operators and can monitor the availability of these products and services. The Emergency Commission can recommend to the Government to take measures aimed at increasing the availability of these products and services if necessary.
The Code of Administrative Offences was amended and the fines for infringements of the quarantine rules and other relevant laws during the quarantine period were reinforced. Respectively, the provisions of the Criminal Code related to the violation of the regulations governing the control of epidemics or contagious diseases were also amended.
Parliament adopted the amendments to the Labour Code (Articles 47 and 49) allowing a more flexible regulation of labour relationships in the event of an extreme situation on the state level: an employer may impose vacations on an employee or a group of employees when the Government declares an extreme situation or quarantine on the state level and hereupon the employer is unable to provide the employee with the work agreed upon in the employment contract. In such cases an employee cannot be required to come to the workplace and must be paid remuneration not lower than the minimal monthly salary approved by the Government etc.
Although a state of emergency was not declared, the Law on the State of Emergency was also amended. The list of emergency measures was supplemented: the Government was given the power to limit, during the state of emergency, the maximum wholesale and retail prices for products and services that are necessary for residents and institutions, or introduce restrictions on the sale of these products.
So far, the Constitutional Court has not received for consideration any petitions questioning the amendments of legislation related to the quarantine measures adopted to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.
The legal regime of quarantine was initially introduced for two weeks (16 to 31 March); then it was prolonged for additional two weeks (until 13 April, 27 April, 11 May), subsequently for additional three weeks (until 31 May) and, ultimately, for two more weeks until 16 June (in total, 3 months); it was revoked as of 17 June 2020 and only the nationwide situation of emergency and the third level of alert under the Civil Protection Law (absolute preparedness) have remained.
The government decrees on introducing or prolonging the quarantine regime were not submitted to parliamentary control. According to Paragraph 3 of Article 21 (wording of 31 March 2020) of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Communicable Diseases in Humans, the duration of the quarantine regime must not exceed 3 months and, if, after this time limit, the necessity to control and limit the spread of communicable diseases persists, quarantine may be prolonged every time for no longer than one month. Upon recommendation by the Minister of Health, the Government is empowered to declare and revoke quarantine throughout the entire territory of the Republic of Lithuania and approve its measures. In the context on the Covid-19 pandemic, Article 21 of the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans, which regulates a quarantine regime, was amended by determining the maximum duration of a quarantine regime, with the possibility of extending it. The above-mentioned law does not require that governmental decisions concerning the introduction of quarantine be submitted to parliamentary control.
So far, no government resolutions on introducing and prolonging the quarantine regime have been submitted to judicial review.
It is expressis verbis provided for in the Law on the Prevention and Control of Contagious Diseases in Humans (Article 38) that all disputes involving the violation of personal rights with respect to communicable disease prevention and control, as well as all disputes concerning the non-fulfilment of the obligations of legal and natural persons with respect to communicable disease prevention and control, are resolved in a court.
Regarding the quarantine measures adopted by the Government, as the review of its legal acts falls into the exclusive competence of the Constitutional Court (Articles 102 and 105 of the Constitution), the Constitutional Court is the only institution to invalidate these measures. Only one individual petition challenging a governmental decree adopted during the quarantine has been received in the Constitutional Court, but the question of the admissibility of this petition has not been resolved yet. No other petitions seeking to invalidate particular emergency measures have been received in the Constitutional Court by now.
So far, the measures taken to prevent the spread of Covid-19 were not invalidated by any judicial decision, but, once the measures had lost their relevance or the situation had changed, these measures were amended or discontinued by the same institution that had ordered them.
No parliamentary or presidential elections were scheduled during the Covid-19 pandemic so far, therefore, no special arrangements or special electoral legislation were adopted.
However, the regular parliamentary elections should take place on 11 October 2020 (as, in accordance with Articles 57 and 84 of the Constitution, it is declared by the decree (No 1K-247) of 9 April 2020 issued by the President of the Republic) and, if necessary, the second round should take place on 25 October 2020.
Some concerns related to health issues during this upcoming election have been expressed, but no legislative action has been taken so far. Special rules and necessary amendments to the Law on Elections to the Seimas are under preparation (for example, in relation to greater space between voting cabins, line regulations in front of voting buildings, a longer period of voting in advance (4 days instead of 2), increase in the number of premises for voting, provision of masks and other health security means for voters, etc.).
Next presidential election is scheduled for 2024.