The present survey is meant to offer a general overview concerning the different approach that courts in several jurisdictions on a global scale adopted to deal with the potential and actual conflicts between Covid-19 related emergency measures (justified by public health interests) and the freedom to conduct a business. Such conflicts encompass either situations where business activities were closed down or limited due to the pandemic or situations in which closed businesses requested compensation or questioned the appropriateness of the relief schemes designed by public authorities.
The relation between public health and economic freedoms in times of pandemic is a complex one, which is also deeply affected by how the interactions between the principles of the economic constitutions are shaped and function in different legal systems. The issue, therefore, necessarily requires the assessment of the critical connection between law and economic policy.
The analysis carried out in the survey mainly revolves around case law and places great emphasis on the use of general legal principles such as proportionality, reasonableness, precaution, and non-discrimination to carry out a balancing of conflicting rights and interests.
At the same time, given the factual complexity of the concrete situations triggering such conflicts, the analysis also highlights how the specific features of the “legal emergency”, such as the declaration of a state of emergency or the reliance on scientific evidence concerning the evolution of the pandemic, may affect the courts’ reasoning.
The goal of the survey is to provide a general comparative landscape of the different approaches chosen by courts to deal with some of the economic consequences of the pandemic.