The President of the Government, Pedro Sánchez, announced a month ago his intention not to extend the state of alarm again, which ends next Sunday. However, a few days before that date arrives, there are still many uncertainties about which measures can be maintained and which cannot.
In the case of the Canary Islands, the regional president, Ángel Víctor Torres, pointed out this Tuesday that they have requested a "clarification" from the central government, because the intention is to maintain controls in ports and airports, as well as to be able to restrict meeting groups and control mobility in time slots.
For his part, the Deputy Minister of the Presidency of the Government of the Canary Islands, Antonio Olivera, admitted that from Sunday it will be "a little more difficult" to control the pandemic and already took for granted that some of the measures "cannot be implemented" without a state of alarm.
Until this Tuesday, the Canary Islands Executive has continued to appeal to the need for an extension and hoping that it would occur. And if not, they demanded alternatives, "legal mechanisms" that would allow all current restrictions to be maintained with guarantees.
However, it will ultimately be the courts that set the path from now on. At least that is the message that the central government has launched again, which this Tuesday approved a royal decree that introduces a change in that judicial protection, allowing the communities to also request "assistance" from the Supreme Court, in case the Superior Courts of Justice of each region overturn the measures adopted.
That decree does extend the social measures linked to the state of alarm - such as those related to evictions - but with respect to the restrictions that affect fundamental rights, they will be subject to judicial protection from the 9th.
The measures that will be affected
With the change introduced with that decree, the Government intends that the Supreme Court can "unify doctrine" and "give guarantees" to the communities on the measures to be taken to continue containing infections. In this way, it hopes to avoid the situation that occurred last summer when, after the end of the state of alarm, the courts did not endorse in some cases the restrictions approved by the autonomous governments, especially in the Basque Country, producing contradictions between territories. Now, in case of discrepancy, they may also appeal to the Supreme Court, which will have to resolve within five business days.
In the Canary Islands, measures such as the curfew, the limitation of the number of people who can meet, the perimeter closures of islands, and also the obligation to present a PCR or an antigen test upon arrival in the Canary Islands from other parts of Spain have so far been supported by the state of alarm. Other measures can be maintained without problem, but those are the ones that present more problems because they affect fundamental rights, such as freedom of movement and assembly.
For the moment, the Government of the Canary Islands has been defending the need to maintain them all, and in particular that control at the entrance of ports and airports with the requirement of Covid-19 tests, but it will probably be next Thursday, in the Governing Council, when it specifies if it will do so and how.
Regarding the perimeter closures, there are currently none in force, after Tenerife also left alert level 3 this Tuesday, although it is not ruled out that it may be necessary again on some island. Regarding the curfew, the Deputy Minister of the Presidency of the Canary Islands pointed out this Tuesday that although it could not be maintained, the closing hours of establishments could be regulated, and also "continue adopting measures such as the closure of interiors and capacity limits".
Once the Canary Islands Government defines the measures it will try to maintain without the umbrella of the state of alarm, it will have to seek judicial endorsement, in the first instance before the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands, and with the possibility now of appealing to the Supreme Court in case they are rejected by the TSJC.
