The Canary Islands will not be able to impose a curfew on any island, regardless of its alert level. This has been ratified by the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, which has dismissed the appeal filed by the Government of the Canary Islands against the order of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, which agreed not to authorize the 'curfew' between 0.30 and 6 hours on the island of Tenerife, or subsidiarily, the municipalities of said island with a Covid incidence rate higher than 100 cases per 100,000 inhabitants. The proposal to limit the freedom of movement of people on said island was adopted by the Canary Islands Government in a session on July 8, but has not obtained judicial endorsement.
The high court considers that the order of the TSJ of the Canary Islands has reasonably concluded that the limitation of the proposed freedom of movement lacks justification in view of the circumstances on the island of Tenerife, and that said restrictive measure was not "proportional".
The Supreme Court refers 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 the one now proposed, and in addition, the high presence of asymptomatic people and the percentage of vaccination were highlighted, among other reasons that made other measures different from the one adopted ineffective.
However, firstly, the Supreme Court indicates that in that town in Jaén it was a perimeter closure and not a 'curfew', "which requires greater justification that the measures are essential to safeguard public health." Furthermore, it agrees with the Trial Chamber on the 'lack of clarity' in the approach of the Canary Islands Government's claim, "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 identified municipalities are not homogeneous."
Likewise, it rejects that there is a contradiction between the pronouncement of the Canary Islands Court and that made by the superior courts of Valencia, Catalonia and Cantabria, since it considers that the Canary Islands Government has not proven that the circumstances of Tenerife are the same as those examined by those other courts.
In this regard, it points out that these other autonomous administrations "based their claim for ratification of the measures on data of the high incidence of the number of infected and their pressure on the health system, which the Canary Islands Chamber misses in this case."
