Wednesday, October 20

Justice overturns the curfew in Catalonia and only allows it to be applied in the 19 municipalities with the most infections

The Superior Court of Justice of Catalonia has denied this Thursday the extension of the curfew in the terms that the Generalitat of Catalonia had claimed. While the regional administration requested mobility restrictions for 148 municipalities, the Litigation Chamber has only admitted it for the 19 that present the highest incidence, among which are not any of the largest cities in Catalonia.

The court has accepted the curfew for Alcarràs, Amposta, Arenys de Munt, Badia del Vallès, Balaguer, Banyoles, Calafell, Celrà, Cervelló, Gelida, Manlleu, Martorell, Montblanc, Móra d’Ebre, Palafolls, Salt, Sant Feliu de Guíxols, Sarrià de Ter and Torroella de Montgrí. All these municipalities have an incidence of over 250 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in the last seven days.

In this way, most of the Catalan cities, including Barcelona, ​​L’Hospitalet, Terrassa, Badalona, ​​Sabadell, Tarragona, Lleida or Girona, will be out of any night mobility restriction from midnight this Friday.

This Tuesday the Government had once again cut the maximum incidence threshold in half, from 250 to 125 cases. A change of criterion that the court considers is not sufficiently justified, because the pandemic has been mitigated with the previous threshold, which was 250. During the last month, the Generalitat had been lowering the threshold to maintain the curfew in most of the territory, despite the fact that incidents fell by half in most municipalities.

According to the order of the TSJC, the Generalitat should “explain the reason why the technical criterion previously considered has occurred at this inaccurate moment.” “Apart from this”, the magistrates add, “it is possible to consider that the change in the accumulated incidence rate of 250 / 100,000 inhabitants to half, in principle, is an ideal criterion for the sanitary purpose (as would also be lowering the index of incidence accumulated to a quarter or an eighth of that, and so on), but the Administration does not justify that it is proportionate, nor that there is no other equally suitable and less intrusive measure “.