The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court has rejected the appeal filed by the Canary Islands Government for a curfew in islands on alert levels 3 and 4 between 00.30h and 06.00h, and has overturned the report from the Prosecutors Office for the same curfew in municipalities that have a high incidence of the virus, saying that there is no justification that it will prevent the spread of the virus and decrease the number of new infections.
The high court considers that the order of the Canary Islands Supreme Court has reasonably concluded that the proposed limitation of freedom of movement lacks justification in view of the concurrent circumstances on the island of Tenerife, and that said restrictive measure was not proportional to the health situation.
Despite the fact that the Prosecutor's Office supported the appeal last Friday of the Canary Islands Government, which requested the perimeter closure by municipalities that exceed the incidence of infections, the high court has once again denied this possibility.
The Supreme Court has referred to its recent ruling in which it endorsed the confinement of the municipality of Peal de Becerro (Jaén), and highlights that in that case the incidence rate was more than ten times higher than that in the Canaries, and also highlighted the high presence of asymptomatic patients and the lower percentage of vaccinations at the time, among reasons that made other measures ineffective.
However, the Supreme Court indicates that in that town of Jaén it was a perimeter closure and not a 'curfew', "which required greater justification that the measures are essential to safeguard public health". In addition, it coincides with the Court of Instance saying there is 'little clarity' in the statement of the claim of the Canary Government "when the main request was the authorization of the 'curfew' throughout the island of Tenerife despite the fact that the figures provided regarding the different municipalities identified are not homogeneous”.
Likewise, it rejects that there is a contradiction between the pronouncement of the Canarian Court and that made by the higher courts of Valencia, Catalonia and Cantabria, since the Canarian Government has not proven that the circumstances of Tenerife coincide with those examined by those other courts.
In this regard, they point out that those other regional administrations “based their claim to ratify the measures with the support of data on the high incidence of the number of infected and their pressure on the health system, which the Canary Islands doesn´t have to the same extreme in this case".
