Filenews 27 April 2021 - by Marilena Panagi
"Manifestly unconstitutional" characterizes the third in a row lockdown applied in Cyprus, Cypriot lawyers, while the Cyprus Bar Association in a statement raises "questions concerning the constitutionality or otherwise of the measures imposed on the basis of the principle of proportionality".
The lawyer Achilleas Emilianidis submits that, 'it has not been sufficiently substantiated why it was considered that the only measure or the most appropriate measure that could be taken at that time was the lockdown' and explains the reasons why this time the proportionality measure cannot be invoked. The President of the Cyprus Bar Association, Christos Clerides, describes as "unnecessary, dangerous and disproportionate to the intended objective", the measures applicable to the church and the conditions that will enter into force after 10 May concerning the compulsory presentation of a vaccination certificate or negative certificate after an examination", while at the same time stressing that compulsory vaccination is clearly unconstitutional.
The measure of proportionality is also invoked by the lawyer Evangelos Purgouridis, referring to the "inability to manage the pandemic", stressing that "Public health requires you to take measures that are proportionate and necessary".
Yesterday's first day of application of the third universal prohibition that has been in force in Cyprus since the onset of the pandemic to date, "cannot be sufficiently substantiated, on the basis of the measure of proportionality", the lawyers stress, and the Cyprus Bar Association, calls for the participation of its representatives in the Scientific Advisory Committee, since, as stated in its communication, it is necessary "to determine responsibly the appropriate limits of the necessary restrictions and constitutional freedoms of citizens. , aiming primarily at the protection of human life and public health, as well as at the parallel protection of citizens' constitutional rights"
'It is understood', says the GPA, 'that in view of the fact that the measures imposed to stop the pandemic restrict and/or interfere with fundamental human rights, and given that this restriction and/or intervention has been going on for over a year now', it is necessary to involve the Association, 'in the Scientific Group because the voice of the justice officers should never be excluded from rooms where de facto serious decisions are repeatedly taken restricting the constitutional freedoms of citizens'.
The positions of the GPA were analysed in detail in statements by the President of the Association Christos Clerides, arguing that "compulsory vaccination is clearly unconstitutional, and the measure introduced concerning up to 50 believers in the Church, provided that they present a vaccination certificate, is also an unconstitutional measure". This, he added, leads to the conclusion that "it is essentially mandatory to vaccinate to carry out your religious duties, since in this case there is not even the alternative to rapid testing or PCR , but only vaccination".
Explaining the measures that will take effect after the end of the lockdown, Mr. Clerides said that "we have exceeded the measure and fundamentally violated the right to privacy and free movement in the territory. What they are trying to do is to introduce into domestic law the green passport, which is in the EU's plans for summer travel for leisure purposes, etc. There though, because everyone will travel once or twice during the summer, enters this condition of rapid test, or PCR test, or vaccination and it is a limited application of the measure. Whereas if you introduce this measure inside, it means that to go shopping e.g. in a grocery store, kiosk, supermarket or buy items you need or have a drink, coffee, or eat somewhere, you have to present this green passport which because it affects everyday life and is not something that will be done once or twice in the summer for travel , it becomes both absurd and disproportionate'.
For the measures that will come into force from 10 May, the lawyer Achilleas Emilianidis seems to have a different view, since, as he said, "if we agree that there must be mobility in economic and social activity, methods must be found by which people can carry out this activity and not end up in extreme measures". "To do this," he said, "it is possible that one needs a way in which one can document that medically does not pose risks. Since it is not limited to vaccination and gives less invasive options, such as testing, and provided that the measure is limited in time, the measure could be constitutional."
E. Purgouridis: "There is an inability to manage the pandemic"
The protection of public health, the lawyer Evangelos Purgouridis told "F", "requires you to take measures that are proportionate and necessary", and added that "the problem lies in the fact that "there is weakness, inability on the part of the Government to convince citizens, to find a way to communicate with citizens and to convince them with arguments. There is an inability to manage the pandemic and this leads us to measures such as the internment of citizens."
Turning his fire on the House, Mr Purgouridis said that he "had the right to intervene and ask for all decrees issued to approve them to be filed, but which he has not done for 14 months".
"The mistake is that these things had to be properly controlled to substantiate the principle of proportionality," he added, while noting that "proper management is needed because experience has shown that with open-close, you can't contain the virus."
Ah. AIMILIANIDIS: The decision is unconstitutional
"It has not been sufficiently substantiated why the only measure or the most appropriate measure that could be taken was lockdown", nor has it been substantiated why, previous statements made by the Ministry of Health in relation to the possibility of finding additional nursing beds in hospitals ultimately do not seem to apply," Achilleas Emilianidis said, adding that "in view of the lack of sufficient documentation and justification for the reasons that made any alternative , I consider the decision to be manifestly unconstitutional'.
"When we talk about the principle of proportionality," he said, "we need to know that this principle, considered in time and space, is not a timeless concept. In the first lockdown there was a general international ignorance of the virus, when in view of the general ignorance and practice that existed, it was a means of precaution which, with the data at the time, could be classified as proportionate, because at that time the risks were high and there was also the example of Italy where major problems had been caused to the health system".
The second and third lockdowns, he said, "took place at a time when there was already time to prepare the health system for something that was expected to come and there were already consequences for economic and social activity, which, in view of their prolonged nature, were not reversible."
When, he continued, "the second and third lockdowns require to a much greater extent adequate documentation than the first."
