Epidemic state vs. state of emergency

The announcement of the state of epidemic threat in Poland on 13 March 2020 and the subsequent announcement of the state of epidemic was not accompanied by a formal introduction of any of the types of state of emergency defined in Chapter XI of the Constitution. Taking into account the ubiquity of regulations introduced in connection with the state of epidemic, as well as the enormous (and unprecedented) scope and intensity of interferences in constitutional freedoms and rights, this very article constitutes an attempt to verify whether the prerequisites to introduce the state of emergency in March 2020 were not fulfilled and therefore it was only (sic!) not promulgated in a manner prescribed by the Constitution. The novelty of this study consists in focusing the analysis solely on the initial four weeks since the introduction of the state of epidemic threat in the country. The first area of the analysis covers a verification of the way in which the state bodies operated within the analysed timeframe – especially whether their extraordinary operation did not occur (including that of constitutional state bodies). The second analysed area is the legal framework introduced under the state of epidemic threat and the state of epidemic. It is then compared against the characteristics of the state of emergency. The third area under analysis concerns establishing whether there exists an obligation to introduce the state of emergency. Only such a thorough analysis makes it possible to discuss the matter of potential consequences resulting from the materialisation of prerequisites necessary to introduce the state of emergency without a simultaneous promulgation of one of the constitutional types of state of emergency.

The announcement of the state of epidemic threat in Poland on 13 March 2020 and the subsequent announcement of the state of epidemic was not accompanied by a formal introduction of any of the types of state of emergency defined in Chapter XI of the Constitution. Taking into account the ubiquity of regulations introduced in connection with the state of epidemic, as well as the enormous (and unprecedented) scope and intensity of interferences in constitutional freedoms and rights, this very article constitutes an attempt to verify whether the prerequisites to introduce the state of emergency in March 2020 were not fulfilled and therefore it was only (sic!) not promulgated in a manner prescribed by the Constitution. The novelty of this study consists in focusing the analysis solely on the initial four weeks since the introduction of the state of epidemic threat in the country. The first area of the analysis covers a verification of the way in which the state bodies operated within the analysed timeframe – especially whether their extraordinary operation did not occur (including that of constitutional state bodies). The second analysed area is the legal framework introduced under the state of epidemic threat and the state of epidemic. It is then compared against the characteristics of the state of emergency. The third area under analysis concerns establishing whether there exists an obligation to introduce the state of emergency. Only such a thorough analysis makes it possible to discuss the matter of potential consequences resulting from the materialisation of prerequisites necessary to introduce the state of emergency without a simultaneous promulgation of one of the constitutional types of state of emergency.