InSearchforBalancebetween
ConstitutionalHumanRights
andTheirLimitations:Management
ofCovid-19PandemicCrisis
inSlovenia
sašazupankorže
Vanadis Ltd,Slovenija, Slovenia
sasa.zupan@vanadis.si
Nonpharmaceutical measures adopted bythegovernments in
theworldto cease thespread oftheCovid-19 havelimited some
of thebasichuman rights ofcitizens andbusinesses.Temporary
limitation ofmovement, socializing andperforming thebusiness
are onlysomeofthem. Thepurpose ofthispaper istosynthe-
sizeandcritically discus howtheGovernmentof theRepublicof
Sloveniamanaged thecrisis ofCovid-19 epidemic inthestatein
spring2020. Thesynthesisanddiscussionare basedonthere-
view oftheevents inSloveniaassessedthrough theinterpreta-
tionofhumanrightlens.Theresultsshowhowthelawtechnique
was usedto manage Covid-19 pandemic. Furthermore, theyre-
veal thatthere isathinlinebetween justifiable protection ofthe
public interesttocease thespread ofthevirus andunjustifiable
limitations oftheconstitutionalrights.Thestudycontributesto
theevolvingliterature oncrisis management with lawtechnique
andonprotection of humanrights inexceptional circumstances.
Key words: regulations, covid-19,pandemic, constitutionalrights,
crisis management
https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.15.99-120
Introduction
In the first quarter of 2020, governments around the world intro-
duced unprecedented temporary measures to tackle the Covid-19
crisis:restrictionsofmovementofpeople,shutdownofnon-essential
businesses, limitation of people-to-people interactions etc. (Organ-
isation for Economic Co-Operation and Development 2020). Rapid,
stringent and pervasive non-pharmaceutical measures (Ryan 2020)
haverisenseverallegaldilemmasif–andtowhatextent–theyhave
or might have been justifiable to limit basic human rights. In some
cases, the measures restricting enjoyment of human rights and war
management15(2):99–120
99

SašaZupanKorže
rhetoric that accompanies them have opened the way to the abuse
of emergency regulations and overreach of executive power. There-
fore, the pandemic and the response to it are putting to the test hu-
manrights(Spadaro2020).Agrowingnumberofliteraturehasbeen
emerging to discuss this issue (e.g. Amon 2020; Amon and Wurth
2020; Sparado 2020; Valerio 2020). As billions of people around the
world have been put under some sort of lockdown, concerns about
the impact of such measures on human rights have been raised by
UnitedNations’HighCommissionerforHumanRights(Officeofthe
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 2020a) and
other human experts (Office of the United Nations High Commis-
sioner forHumanRights2020b).
TocontaintheCovid-19,theGovernmentoftheRepublicofSlove-
nia (in continuation: Government) has implemented several mea-
suresthatstronglyaffectedbasichumanrightsofthecitizens.Some
legal and constitutional experts have expressed doubt that all mea-
sures to contain the virus (e.g. limitation of people’s movement
withinthebordersofthemunicipalityoftheirresidence)werejusti-
fiable,scientificallybased,proportionate andnecessary(e.g.Teršek,
2020b; Trampuš 2020a; Vuksanovi´ c 2020b; 2020c). Additionally, cer-
tain attempts of the Government to extend its authority during the
epidemic time might have created a feeling that the Government
have tried to use legitimate goals for nonlegitimate transfer of the
power from the legislative to the executive body (a case of Hun-
gary)andtoincreasethecontroloverthecitizens(Zimic2020).Con-
sequently, several proposals have been filed to the Constitutional
court to decide on the conformity of the regulations of the Gov-
ernment adopted during Covid-19 pandemic with the constitutional
provisions (Teršek2020).
The goal of the study is threefold. First, the study highlights how
extensively the Government used laws and regulations to man-
age the Covid-19 pandemic in Slovenia, accompanied by the war
rhetoric. Second, itrevealswhat kindof human rights wereaffected
byrestrictions.Thethirdgoalistohighlightthepolarisationoflegal
opinions toward the restrictive measures of the Government in the
caseofConstitutional CourtdecisionfromAugust2020.
Theory
Although the Covid-19 pandemic may not prove to be the worst
pandemic in history, almost all affected countries have imposed ex-
tremely strict restrictions of private and economic life to contain
the virus (Meßershmidt 2020). States and international institutions
100
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
haveadoptedasetofthefollowing emergencymeasures:restricting
travelers from countries with high infection rates, preventing inter-
and intra-state movement, quarantine, isolation, surveillance, using
mobile telephone data, contact tracing digital apps etc. The major-
ity of people in the world have been faced with stay-at-home or-
ders, limitations on the number of people assembled in one place
andotherrestrictionsofpublicgatherings,work-from-homeorders,
education-from-home orders, closing non-essential businesses etc.
(RichardsonandDivineinpress).
Meßershmidt (2020) points out that strong reaction dedicated by
the Covid-19 crisis do not only reflect the severity of the crisis,
but also points to the growing influence of precautionary princi-
ple. States used the ‘better safe than sorry’ approach, although this
principle does not supplant the principle of proportionality. Precau-
tionarity sets limits to risk-related legislation even though it allows
restrictions in the absence of scientific consensus. Precautionary
principle can help to maintain (or restore) rationality and prudent
risktrade-offsevenintimesofemergencylegislations.
With the above mentioned measures, states created a unique so-
cial experiment with an uncertain outcome (Meßershmidt 2020).
Subsequently,thelimitationsofpeople’srightstotheextentthathas
been unprecedent in democratic countries in time of peace raised
important question of international human rights (Spadaro 2020).If
human rights are limited, substantive claims brought by individu-
alscomplainingabouttherestrictionsadoptedcanbeadjudicatedin
termsoftheirlegality,necessityandproportionalitywiththeregards
of theidentified legitimateaim(Spadaro2020).
As international legal order is structured around the principle of
statesovereignty,statesauthoritieshavethemonopoly onthelegiti-
mate use of physical force in their territory (Lebret 2020). However,
the state’s power is not limitless: ‘International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights’ (1967) imposes conditions under which limita-
tion or derogation of human rights can be justified. For eumember
states,humanrightsarealsosubjectofthe‘EuropeanConventionon
HumanRights’(1950)whichis–accordingtotheEuropeanCourtof
Human Rights – qualified as an ‘instrument of European public or-
der’.
In theory and practice, there is distinctive difference between the
groupof absolutehumanrights(e.g.righttolife,notorture,noslav-
ery etc.) and the group of non-absolute human rights. While the
rights in the first group cannot be derogated at all, the rights from
the second group can be limited or derogated, but only for valid
number2·2020
101

SašaZupanKorže
purposes (‘International Covenant on Human and Political Rights’
1967). Non-absolute human rights are allowed to be limited if they
are prescribed by the law, when they pursue a legitimate aim, when
such limitations are necessary in a democratic society and propor-
tionate to identified legitimate aim. That means that no other less
restrictivealternativeisavailable.Limitationsallowpreciselyforthe
balancing ofindividual andcollectiveinterests(Spadaro2020).
From the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, several scholars
have discussed the relation between protecting human rights and
containment measures for ending the Covid-19 crisis. Spadaro’s
(2020) study has been selected as one of the best examples to high-
light how human rights are interdependent while at the same time
reflectingcompeting interestthataresometimeshardtoreconcile.
Spadaro (2020) points out that even the Covid-19 pandemic itself
threaten the enjoinment of human rights, particularly the right to
liveandtherighttodie.Thestateshaveaduediligenceobligationto
protect individuals from deprivation of life caused by another per-
son. In Covid-19 pandemic this obligation means protection of indi-
vidualsfromthreattolifeposedbyotherscarryinganinfection.The
obligation of the states to ensure the right to life also encompasses
foreseeable threats and taking measures to address life-threating
disease. The prevention and treatment of epidemics are also facets
of therighttohealthandtherightofaccesstohealthcare.
The pandemic underlines the necessity of upholding the rights to
life and health in order for the normal life of a pandemic society
and shows the tension between these and other rights. The ten-
sion is caused by the scare resources to address and manage the
pandemic on one side and by competition between individual and
collective interest. Thus, public health measures clash with a num-
ber of individual rights e.g. freedom of movement, particularly re-
strictedmovementwithinthe borders of a state/region/municipality
orevenwithinthewallsoftheapartmentorhouse,so-calledshelter-
in-place orders. Furthermore, the enjoyment of the right to per-
sonal freedom is affected by the imposition of mandatory quaran-
tine for the passengers coming from abroad or by imposition of iso-
lationtothepeoplesuspectedorknowntobepositive.Prohibitionof
public gathering affects freedom of assembly and association. Some
surveillance measures aim at tracing contacts by using mobile data
and artificial intelligence tools. Those measures pose a challenge to
fullenjoymentoftherighttoprivatelife.Theclosureofplaceofwor-
ship affected the human right to religion. The closure of businesses
and workplace also has consequences on the right to work, espe-
102
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
ciallyforworkersintheinformaleconomyandforthosewhocannot
work fromhome (Spadaro2020).
Spadaro (2020) points out that the law allows some limitations
of non-absolute human rights for the protection of public health.
Therefore, governments can use some limitations or derogations of
those to address the exceptional character of the pandemic. How-
ever, it is of paramount importance that the measures are limited
– materially and temporally – to what is strictly necessary to man-
age the pandemic. However, in any case two rights cannot be sus-
pended: therighttoinformationandtherighttofreedomof expres-
sion. Those rights allow constant monitoring of the legitimacy, ne-
cessity and proportionality of the containment measures taken by
governmentsinrelationtotheirimpactonhumanrights.
Itisofparamountimportancethatinterferenceswithfundamental
human rights should be viewed with caution, if no suspicion. Lim-
itations should not be used to promote power grabs, quash dissent
or prosecute minorities. Therefore, constant scrutiny should be ap-
plied by national courts, legislative bodies and civil societies to all
governmental initiatives. Instead of using continued restrictions or
suspensions of human rights, states should adopt a long-term strat-
egytomanagethe pandemic(Spadaro2020).
In some studies, the ‘war metaphors’ were pointed out to present
the way some state leaders (e.g. French president Emmanuel Mar-
con, usapresident Donald Trump) wanted to emphasize the excep-
tional nature of the situation of the Covid-19 pandemic. Linguistic
and communication experts diverge such rhetoric. For one group,
war rhetoric is not unusual in the medical area (e.g. ‘fighting can-
cer’).Furthermore,itmakesclearabouttheseverityofCovid-19sit-
uations and allows gathering the nation together toward the same
objective. On the other hand, war metaphors might serve as a polit-
ical justification of serious human rights limitations (Lebret 2020).
War rhetoric can suggest that the outbreak should be designated as
anarmedattack,whichshouldbefollowedbythewar-likeresponses
to the pandemic, taking the measures that severely limit the enjoy-
mentofpersonalfreedom(Spadaro2020).
However, French philosopher Lebre thinks that military reaction
towardpandemicisinaccurateandinappropriate.Warisalegalcon-
cept in which virus cannot be an enemy. With war rhetoric, politi-
cians only reveal their short-sightedness, in which they understand
securityandprotectiononlyintheformofpoliceandthearmy,while
they donotknow how toanticipate realthreats(Podkrižnik2020).
In particular, Spadaro (2020) emphasizes that the curtailment of
number2·2020
103

SašaZupanKorže
human rights should not become a new normal. The Covid-19 pan-
demic should not create a world where human rights have lost all
significance (Spadaro 2020), as there have already been evidences
evenintheeu.Intheeu,certaingovernmentsusedtheCovid-19cri-
sis as anopportunity for more autocratic way of leading their states.
Drinóczi and Bie´ n-Kacała (2020) pointed out the example of Hun-
gary and Poland, where governments already apply the non-liberal
version of the Rule of Law (illiberal legality) and exploited Covid-
19 pandemic for political gain. In Hungary, a case of constitutional
bypassing has been done during the pandemic for enabling leaders
to pursue their ideas. Those ideas can more smoothly be achieved
in the pretense of fighting against a human pandemic than in usual
situations.
The practice of Hungary was not left unnoticed by the eu.There-
fore, the Council of Europe (2020) emphasised that measures of eu
memberstatesinthepandemicmustcomplywithbothnationalcon-
stitutions and international standards and must observe the very
essenceofdemocraticprinciples.
TheCovid-19situationcanbeviewedasanexampleofconfronta-
tion between the logic of power (public order and peace) and the
powerofthelogic(ruleoflaw)(Zupanˇ ciˇ c2004).Inausualsocialsit-
uation, when the government operates stably, there will be greater
emphasis on the rule of law. However, when society is threatened,
there will be greater emphasis on public order and peace. The ‘rule
of law’ recedes a little, but is still present. The question is to what
extentitwillrecedeinCovid-19pandemic.
Methods
Integrated review, content analysis and description have been used
as the methods for collecting and processing data and for present-
ing the results of the study. The selectedmethods were identified as
the most appropriate combination according to the qualitative na-
ture of the data, the researchtopic, the purpose and the goals of the
research,thenoveltyofthetopicandintermsoftheperiodinwhich
study wasprepared.
Following Snyder (2019), the method of integrative literature re-
view was used for data collection. This method allows for a more
creative approach from systemic or semi-systematic literature re-
view: it does not cover all literature that has ever been published
on a research topic but combines different perspectives on it. The
methodwasidentifiedasthemostappropriateforobtainingdatafor
achievingthe researchgoals.
104
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
Data were collected from secondary sources. The process was de-
signed to prepare relevant and quality set of documents, which in-
cluded steps, criteria and guidelines taken from existing qualitative
studies, adapted to this research. We defined the time frame for the
relevant documents, the data-bases for their collection, the search
key-words and the selection process for further analysis. The docu-
ments, published in Slovene language, online and offline, in the pe-
riod from January until the middle of October 2020, were collected.
The documents were searched in the relevant daily news, weekly
magazines, and legal journals, in statements of relevant legal ex-
perts, opinions and researches, in Official Gazette and pisrsdata
baseandotherrelevantresearch-relatedpublications.
A selection of the collected documents was performed in the next
step. First, we eliminated the documents that did not contribute to
the results of the research. Then, we studied the content of the se-
lected documents according to specific goals of the study. The final
selection was processed using the content analysis method, follow-
ing the guidelines of Miles, Huberman, and Sandaña (2004), how to
analyzequalitative data.
Findings
Thefindingsectionisdividedtotwosubsections.Inthefirstone,the
regulations that restricted human rights of Slovenes are presented,
accompaniedbysomecomparisonwithother eumemberstatesand
by some of legal and medical experts. The focus of the second sub-
section is on the process, decision and comments of the Constitu-
tional Court about intra-municipality movementof people.
RestrictiveMeasuresImplementedbyGovernment
ofRepublicofSlovenia
context
As eumemberstates did not confer a competence to the euin pub-
lichealth,thedecisionofhowtomanagetheCovid-19pandemicwas
sovereignjurisdictionofthememberstates(Lebret2020).Inorderto
achievecommonobjectives,the eucouldonlysupport,coordinateor
supplement the actions of memberstates,which excludes the adop-
tionofthelaws.Therefore,inCovid-19pandemic, eumemberstates
remained the first authorities to take the administrative and other
measures. This leads to disparity of national strategies, although in
themiddleofMarch,euproposedmemberstatestotemporarylimit
the non-essentialtravel(EuropeanCommission2020a).
number2·2020
105

SašaZupanKorže
In Slovenia, the time on Covid-19 pandemic coincided with the
changesinthepoliticalarena.AttheendoftheJanuary,PrimeMin-
ister Marjan Šarec resigned (Slovenska tiskovna agencija 2020a).
The formation of a new government was taking place in Slovenia
subsequently with the spread of the Covid-19 in Europe. A day af-
ter the World Health Organisation declared Covid-19 as pandemic,
Slovenia declared Covid-19 as epidemic (‘Odredba o razglasitvi epi-
demije’, 2020). Two days later, the state got new Government and
the new Prime Minister, Janez Janša (Slovenska tiskovna agencija
2020b). This was his third mandate in the sovereign Slovenia. The
first decision of the new Government referring to the Covid-19 epi-
demic measures was formation of the ‘crisis headquarter’ (Eržen
2020). Jelko Kacin (one of the former Slovenian ministers for de-
fense)wasappointed asthe officialSpokesman.
As both key persons – the Prime Minister and the Spokesman –
had military educational background, they often used war rhetoric
when they communicated measures to contain the virus with the
publicandwiththemembersoftheNationalAssembly.Dolar(2020)
emphasized that such military terms aroused and increased panic
among the people. As states usually gain enormous power in the
war, the author warned that the power could be used for regressive
legislation and excessive use of the military. Teršek (2020) believed
that due to the communication of daily politics with the public, fear
amongpeoplebecamemoreepidemicthanCovid-19epidemicitself.
limitationsofbasichumanrightsandviewsoftheir
eligibility
The spread of the Covid-19 in the state and in the neighbouring
countries (e.g. Italy) required quick governmental response. It came
intheformofseveraldecreesthattemporarylimitedpeople’smove-
ment,socializing,performing businessetc.
For the purpose of this study, limitations are classified into four
groups,following the areaof their restrictions:
 banonfreemovementandgathering;
 banonperformingnon-essentialbusinesses;
 limited access to public services – health, education, public
transport;
 application of safety and hygiene measures (use of face masks,
physicaldistance,hygiene).
The often discussed topic in the period of the first declaration of
the Covid-19 epidemic in Slovenia was the ban on movement and
106
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
gathering of people, particularly the restriction of movement out-
side the borders of their municipality. As the latest decision of the
Government was submitted to the Constitutional court for review
(the decision of the Court is discussed in the next subsection), this
subsectionfocuseson thisgroup of bans.Otherrestrictions arepre-
sented to better understand the extent of the human rights limita-
tions in the country.
RestrictionsonFreeMovementandGathering
Thefirstgeneralbanprohibited–inthefirstversionfornon-definite
period–movementandgatheringofpeopleinpublicplaces/areasin
the state and prohibited access to public places/areas (‘Odlok o za-
ˇ casni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja’, 2020). There were cer-
tainexceptionstothisgeneralprohibition,e.g.goingtowork,buying
essentialgoods,buyingpharmaceuticalproducts etc.
According to the strict interpretation of the decree, people should
not move outdoor, except for the reason stated in the decree as an
exception. Nevertheless, milder approach from the strict version of
the bans was adopted in Slovenia than e.g. in Italy or Spain. People
could walk outside with family members, perform individual sport
activities if they respect physical distance and wear face-masks in
closedspaces.
With the amended version of the decree adopted at the end of
March 2020, the Government enforced the restriction of the move-
ment of the people outside the municipality of their residence (‘Od-
lok o zaˇ casni splošni prepovedi prepovedi gibanja izven obˇ cin’,
2020). This decision was not accepted among the whole population
as a necessary measure to contain the virus; it rose considerations
fromatleastthreereasons.Firstly,themeasurewasnotbasedonthe
recommendations of the epidemiologists (Zgonik 2020). Secondly,
the justification was based on unconvincing evidences presented
by public representatives and certain mayors about the so-called
‘massinvasion’ of Slovenes totwomajor touristic destinations (Bled
and Portorož/Piran) on the last sunny weekend in March. Accord-
ingtothequantityofthetraffic(numberofvehiclesisautomatically
counted every day) and webcam shots the invasion has never been
confirmed. Therefore, the measure was accepted more as showing
the determination of the Government that they did everything to
protectthepopulation (Zgonik2020).Thirdly,therehavebeensome
attempts in the first three weeks of the new Government to extend
theirauthority.Governmenttriedtotransfercertainauthoritiesfrom
the National Assembly to itself (
ˇ
Cas 2020) and to extend the con-
number2·2020
107

SašaZupanKorže
trol over the citizens, e.g. with controlling the movement of citizens
in quarantine (as in Israel and Slovakia), with delegation of police
powers to the army etc. (Trampuš 2020c; Kos 2020). Markeš (2020)
believed that with the implementation of intra-municipality move-
ment measures, the Covid-19 virus had transformed into a ‘power
virus’: there were no professional arguments, except the position of
power thatoverwhelmedeveryargument.
Several amendments of the decree relating to the limitation of
movement and gathering were adopted in the following next few
monthsoftheepidemicandpandemic.AttheendofApril,theGov-
ernment mitigated most of the strict movement restrictions. How-
ever, gathering restrictions stayed in place in form of maximum al-
lowed people in one place (from 20 to 500 in open spaces). The last
dayinMaywasalsothelastdayofofficialstateofepidemicinSlove-
nia (‘Odlok opreklicuepidemije’,2020).
Despite the limitation on gathering, the protests emerged in the
citiesacrossSlovenia,similarasinothercitiesaroundtheworld.Rus
andRušt(2020)markedthemasspontaneous challengeto potential
authoritariantendenciesoftheGovernmentandtoothergeneralis-
sues (e.g. necessity of protection of workers’ rights, environmental
concerns, public health problems etc.). Protests again the restric-
tions also took place in Berlin, Germany. Despite the fact that some
Germanpoliticians havecalledfor the ban(due tothe dangerof the
virus spreading), the Federal Minister of Justice believed that even
in those circumstances people should be able to express their views
against the current government policy (Zimic 2020). The protest in
capital of Slovenia took place 25 Fridays in a row. The authorities
have tolerated the protests until the severe deterioration of the epi-
demicsituation inOctober2020(Košak2020).
At the beginning of the epidemic, special decree was adopted to
limit people crossing the state borders (land, see and air). Check-
points, border opening times and exceptions were introduced for
crossing the border with Italy and Austria in the beginning of epi-
demic and later for all bordering countries (‘Odlok o prehodih na
zunanji meji’, 2020).From the declaration of pandemic until the be-
ginning of June, it was impossible for Slovene citizens to go out of
the state for no particular reason apart from those stated in the de-
cree. For visitors, coming to Slovenia from abroad, quarantine was
anobligatorymeasuretopreventthespreadof thevirus.
InJune,restrictionsoncrossingthebordersofSloveniaweregrad-
ually mitigated, following the guidelines of the eu(European Com-
mission 2020b). First international transit was allowed for the citi-
108
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
zensofSchengen eumemberstatesandinJulyforother eumember
states. Stricter regime than for eumember states was implemented
forenteringSloveniafromnon-eustates.Measures(quarantine)de-
pended mostly on theirepidemiologic statusof thecountry.
Vuksanovi´ c (2020c) pointed out two restriction measures that in-
dicated nonequal treatment of citizens. The first one was related to
SlovenecitizenswhoownrealestateoravesselinCroatia.Theown-
ership allowed them to travel to Croatia earlier that those Slovenes
thatdidnothavethatprivilege.Thesecondnon-equaltreatmentthe
authorsawinobligatoryquarantinefortravelersarrivingtoSlovenia
from non-eucountries.Noargumentwasgivenonthoseissues.
Until October 2020, the decree about crossing the border have
been changed several times – from mitigating restrictions in July
and August to their extension during the next two months, when
epidemiologic picture in Slovenia and in most countries in the eu
was getting worse. Following the guidelines of eu(European Com-
mission2020c),theGovernmentimplementedrestrictionsaccording
totheso-called‘semaphorecolour model’.Thefreeentryorrestric-
tionstoentrythestate(quarantine)dependingontheepidemiologic
statusof aparticularcountry orregion.
OtherLimitationsandRestrictions
Followingtheaimofceasingthecirculationofthevirus,theGovern-
ment closed kindergartens and schools, including universities (‘Od-
lok o zaprtju vrtcev, šol, fakultet’, 2020) the next day from declaring
the epidemic. The closure of kindergatens and schools has brougth
many issues, e.g. about organisation of the childcare, the loss of hot
meals for some children, a greater risk of infection for granparents
whowilltakecareof childrenetc.
A decree from the middle of March, prohibited the offering and
sale of goods and services directly to consumers, e.g. services as
tourist accommodation, food and beverages, wellness, sports and
recreation,cultural,hairdressing,cosmetic,pedicure,gambling(‘Od-
lokozaˇ casniprepovediponujanja’,2020).Asthesetofeconomicac-
tivitiesreferredexclusivelytoservicesandnottogoods(Vuksanovi´ c
2020a), this provision should not have been in accordance with the
Infectious Diseases Act (‘Zakon o nalezljivih boleznih’, 2006). The
Act only states the ‘sale of goods’, but not the ‘sale of services’. Us-
ing the narrow linguistic explanation of the Act’s provisions, the
finding of Vuksanovi´ c (2020a) might have been correct. However, it
has not been known so far if any case was brought to the Constitu-
tional Court on this regard. On the same day, the Government also
number2·2020
109

SašaZupanKorže
temporary prohibited public transport (‘Odlok o zaˇ casni prepovedi
javnegaprevoza’,2020).
With the closing down of almost all non-essential businesses, re-
strictions on movement and gathering, public transport, Slovenia
was actually in the state of ‘lock-down’. Furthermore, at the end of
March, Government discontinued all medical preventive activities
and dental services other than emergency and those whose omis-
sion would lead to permanent damage to general and oral health.
All specialist examiantions and surgical procedures were cancelled
except those marked with a degree of urgency or emergency (e.g.
oncology treatment and pregnant women) (‘Odlok o prekinitivi in
omejitvi zdravstvenih dejavnosti’, 2020). Komel (2020) pointed out
that restriction of helth treatment potentialy might have been un-
constitutional, while the Government issued them with the decree
and not by law. The fact that the Government addopted restrictions
about availability of the health care under time preasure and in a
rather unkown sitation, cannot be reasonable ground for bypassing
the ruleof law.
The most public discussion and confusion was related to the ap-
plication of hygene and safe measures, particularly to physical dis-
tance and face masks. The physical distance among people on pub-
lic places and the use of face-masks were detemined with the in-
structions and recommentadions of the National Institute for Public
Health.TheGovernmentincorporatedthemintheirdecreesrelated
tothe Covid19pandemic.
However,theinstructionsandrecommendationshavebeenchang-
ing constantly (even in two or there days), explained differently
by various governamental representatives and therefore brought
enormous confusion among the public. The confused approach has
repetedlyrevealeddifferentstandpointsamongepidemiologists,be-
tween epidmiologists and politicans, and ignorance of the latest to
explain what kind of measures functioned and which did not (Mag-
dalenc 2020).
JohanGieske(Sweedishepidemiologist)openlyadmited(inApril)
that there was little scientific evidence of eligibility of some mea-
sures taken by the majority of states, e.g. closure of state borders,
closureofschools,restrictionsofmovement,mandatoryuseofface-
masksetc.(Zgonik2020).Accordingtohisexperience,politiciansare
notsointerestedwhetherthemeasureswillbeactuallyeffective,but
more how the public will perceive them. E.g. the spraying disinfec-
tantonsidewalksandhouseshenameda‘stupidact’,whichshowed
–ontheotherhand–thepresenceofconstantgovernmentactionin
sense‘weprotectyou’.
110
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
While Slovene politicians always presented their actions as the
only appropriate and decisive ones for the protection of the popu-
lation, the Slovene epidemiologists were more modest than politi-
cians.E.g.,dr.BojanaBeoviˇ c(theheadofthemedicalgroup)didnot
hesitate to admit (Zgonik 2020) that only few decisisons made dur-
ing epidemichadreallygoodscientificbackground: therewas much
judgement and observations what other countries did; some mea-
surescouldevenbewrong.
It seemed that the ‘herd instinct’ played a major role in the adop-
tion of restrictive measures (Zgonik 2020). States have monitored
what kinds of measures were adopted in other countries. The ma-
jorityofpoliticians quicklybecameafraidthattheymighthavebeen
accusedofnegligenceiftheyhadnotadoptedatleastthesamestrict
measures.Slovenia wasnoexception totherule inthatprocess.
From the declaration of Covid-19 as pandemic on, many actions
taken by the Government when referring to the virus, was given a
form of law – legal acts and measures. Thus, the question is if the
techniqueoflawhasbecomeanewwayofmanagingpeople(Lovšin
2020).
ConstitutionalCourt:Intra-MunicipalityMovement
RestrictionWasaLegalMeasure
Theinitiativefortheassessmentoftheconstitutionality andlegality
of the measure of restriction of movement across municipality bor-
ders (in continuation: disputed provision) was filed at the Constitu-
tional Court (incontinuation: theCourt)by agroupof citizens.They
claimedthatdisputedprovisioncontradictedtheprincipleofpropor-
tionality; therefore, it is not in accordance with the first paragraph
of Article 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which
guaranties freedom of the movement (‘Odloˇ cba Ustavnega sodišˇ ca’
2020).
The Court has decided in a short period that the decision of the
Government, whencertainmeasurewillendor extend, is not of po-
liticalbutofprofessionalnatureandthereforemustnot beindefini-
tive. Thus, the time-frame of validity of the Governmental decision
must be based on the (epidemiologic) expert’s opinion. This deci-
sion committed the Government to the continuous monitoring and
following-up theexpert opinion (‘SklepUstavnegasodišˇ ca’2020).
By very quick first review of the initiative, the Court announced
that the system of balance between the legislative and executive
bodieswasworkingdespitetheepidemicandthattheGovernmental
decreeswereunder theconstitutional review(Žerdin2020).
Different opinions of legal/constitutional experts have been ex-
number2·2020
111

SašaZupanKorže
pressed in the following months. For some (e.g. Trampuš 2020a;
TeršekandDragan2020;Lovšin2020;Vuksanovi´ c2020a),restriction
ofmovementinsidemunicipalitiesseemedtobethemostcontrover-
sialandincomprehensiblemeasureimplementedinSlovenia(Figelj
2020).Itshould havebeenneither reasonablenor proportional with
the current epidemic situation in the state, while Slovenia was far
from having such epidemic situation as Italy or Spain had in March
2020(Teršek2020).
DespitehavingasimilarepidemiologicalsituationasSlovenia,the
majority of Germans could travel around the state fairly smoothly
(Zimic 2020);not all, while in Germany,the measuresto contain the
Covid-19wereundertheauthorityofthefederalstates.However,the
High Court in Greifswald abolished the measure of land Mecklen-
burg, who restricted their people access to other places. The Court
stated that the travel ban was too severe measure and that people
have the right to travel to the coast (Kršinar 2020). In Austria, peo-
ple were not limited to stay inside the borders of municipalities, al-
thoughtheyhadworseepidemiologicsituationthanSlovenia (Figelj
2020).
The view of Zagorc (2020) was slightly different from the above-
mentioned Slovene legal experts. The author advocated the princi-
ple of precautionarity. For him, in the initial period of the epidemic,
the Government as the decision-maker did not have relevant data
(due to the delay of symptoms) and was actually guessing about the
further evolvement of the epidemic. Nor did the Government know
when certain measures would have shown the effects. Therefore, it
reacted according to the legal precautionary principle, thinking to
the worst scenario all the time. It is known that in real life, the pre-
cautionary measures had intense negative effects on the rights of
individuals, but they were implemented to protect public interest –
health of people. The author emphasized that in the health care, a
specialchallengeistheparticularburdenofcost-benefittechniques.
Thereasonliesinthepsychologicalforces,whicharesoviolentthat
even judges cannot avoid them. In professional literature, there is a
well-known conflict between concrete (identified) lives and statisti-
callives.According to the previous experiences,the choice between
different paths of action systematically shows the greater value of
‘concrete life’. With names and surnames, they take place ten times
morebefore our eyesthanstatisticallives do.
The Constitutional Court adopted final decision in August 2020.It
carriedouttheassessmenteventhoughthedecreeceasedtobevalid
during the procedure. The reasonwasthat the initiative has opened
112
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
a particularly important precedent-setting issue of a systematic na-
turetowhichtheCourthasnotyethadtheopportunitytocomment;
furthermore, the decision would serve as a precedent in the follow-
ingsimilarsituations (‘Odloˇ cba Ustavnegasodišˇ ca’2020).TheCourt
conducted meritory assessment on the basis of a test of legitimacy
(if by interfering the Government pursued constitutionally permis-
sibleaim)andthestricttestofpro portionality (assessment of the
appropriateness, necessity and narrower proportionality of the in-
terference).Itdecidedthatthedisputedprovisiondidnotdispropor-
tionally interferewiththefreedomof movement.
Five constitutional judges have supported the Governmental de-
cree, four have not. Tight majority could be interpreted in the way
that the opposite situation might have happened (Trampuš 2020b).
Four constitutional judges wrote a separate opinion to the major-
ity decision. One of the judges emphasized that the Court has re-
nounced its basic mission – to control the executive branch of the
Slovene legal system. The other pointed out that at least ten consti-
tutional rights have been restricted with the Governmental decrees,
but Constitutional Court simply ignoredthat fact.
Ribiˇ ciˇ c(2020b)commentedthatthefact,thatinthetimeofjudge-
ment the decree has already been ceased, might have an influence
onthemorestrictjudgementasitwouldhavebeenotherwise.More-
over, the decision of the Court might have been even more unsure
if there hadn’t been prior position on the constitutional conformity
of the prohibition even before the proportionality test was carried
out. According to the before mentioned constitutional expert, there
has been evident methodological deficiency in the composition of
the Constitutional Court: two Constitutional judges always confirm
the standpoints of theGovernment thatis currentlyinthe position.
For the time being, the Constitutional Court decision – agree with
it or not – is here to be respected. It is a precedence that will serve
to the Government as a guideline to test how far it can go with re-
stricting the human rights when managing the Covid-19 pandemic
in the future. The fact is that political authorities might abuse crises
to suspend the constitution (Ribiˇ ciˇ c 2020a). Therefore, the follow-
ingdecisionsoftheGovernment,restrictingthehumanrightsasthe
way of managing pandemic, might indicate in what kind of society
wewillfindourselveswhentheCovid-19 pandemicisover.
Discussion
The Covid-19 pandemic, the most shuttering event that happened
in the 21st century, revealed the level of the (in)competency of the
number2·2020
113

SašaZupanKorže
majorityof theworld’s leaderstodealwithpandemic.Stateauthori-
tieshavebeenput infrontofenormouschallenges,whenthehealth
crisis has become an economic and social crisis, affecting even the
basichumanrights.
Having no vaccine for Covid-19, the non-pharmaceutical mea-
sures were (and still are) the only measures to contain the spread
of the virus: limitation of movement, restriction on gathering, clos-
ingofnon-essentialbusinessesetc.Someofthemseverelyrestricted
basichumanrights,therighttofreemovementthe most.
According to international human rights conventions and consti-
tutions of the majority of democratic states, non-absolute human
rights canbe limited under certaincircumstancesand to certainex-
tent.However,therehavebeensomeevidencesinthestatesallover
theworldthatgovernmentsmighthaveusedthecurrenthealthcrisis
and restrictive measures for their own purpose, to strengthen their
power. Inthe eu,Hungaryhasbecomeanevidentcaseofit.
When evaluating the rights in Covid-19 pandemic, there is not
doubt that the value of the society is more important than the in-
dividual rights. Therefore, setting the public interest of managing
the health crisis in front of the certain individual human rights is
a legitimate goal for their temporary restrictions. Yet, restrictions
can be justifiable only if the measures meet certain legal standards;
theyhavetobenecessary,proportional,scientificallyvalidandtime-
bounded.Constantcheckofthosestandardsbynationalcourtsisthe
tool to prevent abuse of governments to extend their power under
thepretextofprotectingpublicinterest.AsWesterndemocraciesare
moreresilienttosuchattemptsthanyoungerones,Covid-19hasput
Slovenia, as a young democracy, under severe test of their constitu-
tionality.
As there hasn’t been generally accepted approach on how to re-
strain the virus from spreading, each state was sovereign to imple-
ment restrictions in their territory. There has been little scientific
evidenceatthattime,whichmeasuresreallycontainthevirus(apart
fromthetotalstay-homemeasures)andwhichdonot.Someofthem
were based on ‘trial and error’ principle. The countries with worse
epidemiological situationthanothers,implementedmoreseverere-
strictions (total quarantine, lock-down). Some measures could be
understanedmore as‘shows’ of politicians to presenthow they took
care of their society, the others might express the power of the state
authorities over itscitizens,whiletherestmighthavebeenrealyef-
fective.Thefactthattherewasalackofexperiencewiththespread-
ingofthenewvirusmightbeanexcuseforthegovernmentstomake
114
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
some ‘trial and error’ actions. However, the pandemic goes on and
further actions of governments should be under more severe judge-
mentaswerethose inthefirstwaveofCovid-19 outburst.
ConclusionsandApplications
The paper synthesisesand critically discusses how the Government
of Slovenia have managed the situation in the time of the first wave
ofCovid-19inthestate(fromMarchuntilOctober2020).Itpresents
crucial regulations, acts, events and standpoints of the public, legal
andmedicalexpertsandscholarspublished inthis period.
The insight in Governmental management of the Covid-19 situa-
tion in Slovenia reveals comparable approaches and events to those
in other countries: severe interference in basic human rights, use
of war rhetoric, protests of disagreed part of citizens, initiatives for
assessing conformity of governmental decrees with constitutional
rightsandattemptsofextending thepower of executive bodies.
The results show that the Government have managed the epi-
demic time mostly with legal acts, governmental decrees, which can
be classified according to the areas of restrictions. During the days
following the declaration of epidemic in the country, six crucial sec-
torial decrees were adopted, with more than 50 amendments in the
next couple of months. Such managerial approach of the Govern-
ment indicates that in practice, the technique of law has been used
to manage people. Constant changes have raised confusion among
citizens and severe disagreements of so many exceptions to general
restrictions, as they have put people under different treatment (the
problem of equality).
The findings reveal a polarized opinion among public, legal and
medicalexperts,ifallmeasureswereproportionatetotheepidemio-
logicsituationinthestate.Evenwhenthemostcontroversialrestric-
tion measure(intra-municipality movement)haspassedthe assess-
ment of its constitutionality and become an important precedence
for the consequent governmental decisions, the polarization contin-
ued. Moreover, the decision of the Constitutional Court itself has
raised serious considerations among legal experts, which might be
– or not – considered in the following assessments of governmental
restrictions by the Court. As the Government in October 2020 again
declared epidemic, it is assumed that there will be more initiatives
filledtoConstitutionalCourtagainstitsrestrictions(e.g.policehour).
Some limitations related to this study need to be mentioned. The
first one is subjectivity of the researcher, which commonly accom-
panies the collection, selection and analysis of the non-numerical
number2·2020
115

SašaZupanKorže
data. The second limitation relates to the limited number of docu-
mentsavailableontheresearchtopicsandtheirquality.Inacademia,
some of the resources used in this research might be characterised
by the term ‘grey literature’ or papers ‘more driven by practicethan
research’. However, the fact is that there have not yet been many
studies on the topic. The study is geographically limited to Slove-
nia, even though some comparisons with other countries have been
mentioned.
References
Amon, J. J. 2020. ‘covid-19 and Detention: Respecting Human Rights.’
HealthandHumanRightsJournal22(1):367–70.
Amon,J.J.,andM.Wurth.2020. ‘AVirtual Roundtableon covid-19and
Human Rights with Human Rights Watch Researchers.’ Health and
HumanRightsJournal22 (1):399–413.
Council of Europe. 2020. ‘Secretary General Writes to Victor Orban
Regarding covid-19 State of Emergency in Hungary.’ Newsroom,
24 March. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/secretary-general-
writes-to-victor-orban-regarding-covid-19-state-of-emergency-in-
hungary.
ˇ
Cas, T. 2020. ‘Sodelovanje vojske pri izvajanju nalog policije.’ Dnevnik,
28 March.https://www.dnevnik.si/1042925786.
Dolar,R.2020.‘Koronavirusvmetaforah.’Mladina,4April.https://www
.mladina.si/197549/koronavirus-v-metaforah/.
Drinóczi, T., in A. Bie´ n-Kacała. 2020. ‘covid-19 in Hungry and Poland:
ExtraordinarySituationandIlliberalConstitutionalism.’TheTheory
andPracticeof Legislation8(1–2): 171–92.
European Commission. 2020a. ‘Communication from the Commission
totheEuropeanParliament,TheEuropeanCouncilandtheCouncil
Covid-19:TemporaryRestrictiononNon-EssentialTraveltothe eu.’
com/2020/115final, European Commisson,Brussels.
. 2020b. ‘Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, The European Council and the Councilon the third as-
sessment of the Application of the Temporary Restriction on Non-
EssentialTraveltothe eu.’ com(2020)399final,EuropeanCommis-
son,Brussels.
.2020c.‘ProposalforCouncilRecommendation onaCoordinated
Approach to the Restriciton of Free Movement in Response to the
covid-19 Pandemic.’ com(2020) 499 final, European Commission,
Brussels.
‘European Convention on Human Rights.’ 1950. https://www.echr.coe
.int/Documents/Archives_1950_Convention_ENG.pdf.
Eržen,B.2020.‘Vladaustanovilakrizništabinopravilamenajvena ˇ celu
policije invojske.’Delo, 14 March.https://www.delo.si/novice/
116
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
slovenija/vlada-ustanovila-krizni-stab-in-opravila-menjave-na
-celu-policije-in-vojske/.
Figelj, M.2020. ‘Moralamedepidemijo alikajsonamukradli.’Dnevnik,
16 May.https://www.dnevnik.si/1042929473.
‘International Covenant on Human and Political Rights.’ 1967. https://
treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1976/03/19760323%2006-17%20AM/Ch
_IV_04.pdf
Komel, P. 2020. ‘Pravica do zdravstvenega varstva v ˇ casu covida-19.’
Dnevnik,26August. https://www.dnevnik.si/1042937233.
Kos, S. 2020. ‘Koronavirus in ˇ covekove pravice: predlagana širitev
pooblastil policije za zajezitev epidmeije sproža številne dileme.’
Delo, 31 March.
Košak, K. 2020. ‘Vlada želi konˇ cati “fešte” in proteste.’ Dnevnik,8Octo-
ber. https://www.dnevnik.si/1042940608/slovenija/video-hojs
-od-jutri-zbiranje-ljudi-omejeno-na-najvec-10-ljudi-policija-strogo
-nad-petkove-protestnikeike.
Kršinar,I. 2020. ‘Osvoboditevizobˇ cin.’Reporter,4May .
Lebret, A. 2020. ‘Covid-19 Pandemic and Derogation to Human Rights.’
JournalofLawandtheBioscience7(1):Isaa015. https://doi.org/10
.1093/jlb/lsaa015.
Lovšin, P. 2020. ‘Dr. Andraž Teršek, ustavni pravnik: Ohranjam upanje,
da seljudje nebodopustiliponeumiti.’Dnevnik,19 September.
Magdalenc, L.2020. ‘Premalo vasje strah.’Dnevnik,19 September.
Markeš, J.2020. ‘O tako imenovanistroki.’Delo, 7 April.
Meßerschmidt, K. 2020. ‘Covid-19 Legislation in the Light of the Pre-
cautionary Principle.’ The Theory and Practice of Legislation8(3):
1–26.
Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman, and J. Sandaña. 2014. Qualitative Data
Analysis:AMethodSourcebook. LosAngeles: Sage.
‘Odloˇ cba Ustavnega sodišˇ ca U-I-83/20-36.’ 2020. Uradni list Republike
Slovenije, št. 128. https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-
01-2291.
‘Odlok o odrejanju in izvajanju ukrepov, povezanih s prepreˇ cevan-
jem širjenja covid-19, na mejnih prehodih na zunanji meji in na
kontrolnih toˇ ckah na notranjih mejah Republike Slovenije.’ 2020.
UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,št. 50. https://www.uradni-list.si/1/
objava.jsp?sop=2020-01-0775.
‘Odlok o preklicu epidemije nalezljive bolezni sars-Cov-2 (covid-19).’
2020. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 68. https://www.uradni-
list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-01-1030.
‘Odlok o zaˇ casni prepovedi in omejitvah javnega prevoza potnikov v
republiki Sloveniji.’ 2020. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 24.
https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-01-0566.
‘Odlok o zaˇ casni prepovedi ponujanja in prodajanja blaga in storitev
potrošnikom v Republiki Sloveniji.’ 2020. Uradni list Republike Slo-
number2·2020
117

SašaZupanKorže
venije, št.25. https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-01
-0570.
‘Odlok o zaˇ casni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja ljudi na javnih
mestih in površinah v Republiki Soveniji.’ 2020. Uradni list Repub-
likeSlovenije, št.30. https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=
2020-01-0602.
‘Odlok o zaˇ casni splošni prepovedi gibanja in zbiranja ljudi na javnih
mestih in površinah v Republiki Sloveniji ter prepovedi gibanja
izvenobˇ cin.’2020.UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,št.38.https://www
.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-01-0688.
‘Odlokozaˇ casni prepovedizbiranjaljudivzavodihspodroˇ cjavzgojein
izobraževanja ter univerzah in samostojnih visokošolskih zavodih.’
2020. Uradni list Republike Slovenije, št. 25. https://www.uradni-
list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-01-0568.
‘Odlok o zaˇ casnih ukrepih na podroˇ cju zdravstvene dejavnosti zaradi
zajezitveinobvladovanjaepidemije covid-19.’2020.UradnilistRe-
publikeSlovenije,št.40.https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop
=2020-01-0708.
‘Odredba o razglasitvi epidemije nalezljive bolezni sars-Cov-2(covid-
19) na obmoˇ cju Republike Slovenije.’ 2020. Uradni list Republike
Slovenije, št. 19. https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-
01-0532.
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
2020a. ‘Coronavirus: Human Rights Need to be Front and Centre
in Response,saysBachelet.’ 6March. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25668
.2020b.‘Covid-19:StatesShouldNotAbuseEmergencyMeasures
toSuppress Human Rights– unExperts.’ 16 March.https://www
.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID
=25722.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. 2020. ‘To-
urismPolicy Responsestocoronavirus (covid-19).’https://www
.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/tourism-policy-responses
-to-the-coronavirus-covid-19-6466aa20/.
Podkrižnik, M. 2020. ‘Vojni diskurz, ki se širi skupaj z virusom, je ne-
toˇ cen inneumesten.’ Delo, Sobotnapriloga, 4April.
Ribiˇ ciˇ c, C. 2020a. ‘Kaj nas bo nauˇ cila kriza: sorazmernost in avtori-
tarnost.’ Dnevnik,15April. https://www.dnevnik.si/1042927929/
slovenija/kaj-nas-bo-naucila-kriza-sorazmernost-in-avtoritarnost.
.2020b. ‘Opogumu in kritiki.’Dnevnik,Objektiv,12October.
Richardson, E., and C. Devine. In press. ‘Emergencies and Eventually:
HowtoBetteAnalyzeHumanRightsRestrictionsSparkedbyCovid-
19 Pandemic Unter International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights.’MichiganJournalofInternationalLaw.
118
management·volume15

InSearchfor Balance
Rus, U., and M.Rušt, M. 2020. ‘Kaj druži “leve fašiste” in “kaviar social-
iste.”’ Dnevnik,13July.
Ryan, M. 2020. ‘In Defence of Digital Contact-Tracing: Human Rights,
South Korea and Covid-19.’ International Journal of Pervasive Com-
putingandCommunications16 (4):383–407.
‘Sklep Ustavnega sodišˇ ca št. U-I-83/20-10.’ 2020. Uradni list Republike
Slovenije, št. 58. https://www.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2020-
01-0843.
Slovenskatiskovnaagencija.2020a.‘Šarecodstopilspoložajapremiera.’
27 January. https://www.sta.si/v-zivo/odstopsarec.
. 2020b. ‘Slovenija dobila 14. vlado.’ 14 March. https://www.sta.si/
v-srediscu/vlada2020.
Snyder, H. 2019. ‘Literature Review as a Research Methodology: An
Overview andGuidelines.’ JournalofBusinessResearch104:333–39.
Spadaro, A. 2020. covid-19: ‘Testing the Limits of Human Rights.’ Eu-
ropean Journalof RiskRegulation11 (2):317–25.
Teršek, A. 2020. ‘O zakonitosti in ustavnosti ukrepov in omejitev: us-
tavne pravice med uradno epidemijo.’ Dnevnik,11 July.https://www
.dnevnik.si/1042933835.
Teršek,A.,inJ.Dragan.2020.‘Ustavnopravnaanalizaomejitveustavnih
pravic v ˇ casu pandemije.’ Javna uprava 56(1–2): 85–102.
Trampuš, J. 2020a. ‘Dr. Rajko Pirnat: Demokracija ne deluje na podlagi
hitrega odloˇ canja.’ Mladina,24 April.
.2020b. ‘Bianco menica.’ Mladina,25September. https://www
.mladina.si/201501/bianco-menica/.
,J.2020c. ‘Vladakršipravilapravnedržaveinnaˇ celozakonitosti.’
Mladina,3April.
Valerio, C. 2020. ‘Human Rights and Covid-19 Pandemic.’ jbraAssisted
Reproduction24(3):379–81.
Vuksanovi´ c, I. 2020a. ‘Tehtanje med konkretnimi in statistiˇ cnimi živl-
jenji.’Delo, 18April.
. 2020b. ‘Kako zagotoviti sorazmernost odziva na epidemijo co-
vida-19? Ustavno sporna prepoved gibanja.’ Dnevnik, 28 March.
https://
www.dnevnik.si/1042925777.
.2020c.‘Preventivnozapiranjebrezpodlage.’Dnevnik,22August.
https://www.dnevnik.si/1042936942.
‘Zakon onalezljivih boleznih – znb(uradno preˇ cišˇ ceno besedilo) (znb-
upb1).’2006. UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,št. 33. https://www
.uradni-list.si/1/objava.jsp?sop=2006-01-1348.
Zimic, B.2020a. ‘Slovenijavs. Nemˇ cija.’ Delo, 14 April.
.2020b. ‘Prepovedi protestov nebo.’ Delo, 8August.
Zgonik, S. 2020a. ‘Ivan Eržen: Po mojem mnenju najnovejši drastiˇ cni
ukrepi niso bili potrebni. S strokovnega vidika jih ne morem zago-
varjati.’ Mladina,3April.
number2·2020
119

SašaZupanKorže
.2020b. ‘Pripravenamaraton.’ Mladina,24 April.
Zupanˇ ciˇ c, B. M. 2004. ‘Mednarodna sodna presoja in internacional-
izacija ustavnega prava.’ http://www.us-rs.si/media/govor_dan
_ustavnosti_2004.pdf.
Žerdin, A.2020. ‘Ustava ali epidemija.’ Delo, 18April.
120
management·volume15