Not a request, but a warrant. Seniors must stay at home, according to the regulation – Law and justice – GazetaPrawna.pl

And to those who want to say that satisfying the needs of everyday life is everything – then I would like to remind you that in the sharpest lockdown it was exactly the same. And then Police and the military patrolled the streets and questioned people about the purpose of being outside.

– Patryk Słowik (@PatrykSlowik) October 23, 2020

—

– Unfortunately, and this is already a standard in these regulations that limit the rights and freedoms of citizens in times of epidemics, this restriction, which applies to the movement of seniors, was issued without a proper legal basis and is contrary to the constitution – he says in an interview with gazetaprawna.pl Sylwia Gregorczyk-Abram, advocate. – All restrictions that apply to movement should be in the actand not in the ordinance or at the press conference of Prime Minister Morawiecki. Meanwhile, in the act on infectious diseases, we have two provisions that apply to movement: one specifies the manner of movement, and the other prohibits staying in certain places and objects – the issued regulation does not apply to any of them. If the legislator wants to prohibit movement, he should do it properly, in accordance with the principles enshrined in the constitution – says the advocate and adds: “The same applies to spontaneous assemblies, the prohibition of which was included in this regulation, and should be in the act.”

– A regulation is an act that imposes a specific obligation. In this regard, the legislator issued an instruction that regulates the behavior of seniors. It is not permission to act, it is not a matter of choice, but determining what behavior is legally permissible. We are dealing here with a typical norm of rights that can be realized by a citizen. The legislator also established the scopes of these rights, and at the same time specified that all others cannot be exercised in a public manner – says gazetaprawna.pl dr hab. Jacek Zaleśny.

– Of the three groups of rights that can be exercised, the first group concerns professional activities directly related to going to work, its performance and returning home. The second element concerns the satisfaction of the necessary needs related to the current affairs of everyday life, i.e. those that are necessary for a person to live and fulfill his biological needs. This includes the provision of food, medical care and essential activities related to human functioning, such as, for example, a walk, related to biological existence, but it excludes the performance of typically relaxation, leisure activities, not related to life needs – he explains.

When asked if someone has to walk for health reasons (e.g. he is obese), then such walks are essential in life, so it is permissible, he replies: – Yes, but if someone who does not have such essential needs and would like to walk around Old Town, this is out of the question as far as the wording of this provision is concerned. A tourist walk is something different than a healthy walk.

Jacek Zaleśny also refers to such an example: if a person over 70 is looking after another person and has to travel there every day, will he still be able to do it? – Caring for another person does not concern the essential life need of the person who fulfills this need. It is the other person’s life need. Her help is not a necessity from the point of view of fulfilling life needs – explains Dr. Zaleśny.

– The third element in the regulation concerns the constitutional one rights a citizen to participate in religious worship. It includes reaching, participating in and returning from a place of religious worship – explains Dr. Jacek Zaleśny.

According to attorney Gregorczy-Abram, this regulation also violates the principle of proportionality, because – as he reminds – we still do not have a declared state of natural disaster, which allows for further social ailments. – Here we have, at the level of the ordinance, limiting once again constitutional human rights and freedoms – he adds

– The more that it is burdened with serious sanctions. Breaking this ban is punishable by a penalty from 5,000 to 30,000. PLN, which is immediately enforceable. You can appeal against it, but what if the debt is seized in the meantime? – says the attorney. Who will decide if the senior has broken the law? – The legal basis of this regulation is contained in the Act and on this basis the body which it is right used, in this case the police, determines the facts. In the event of a dispute, it remains road forensic – explains Dr. Zaleśny.

– So we have an unconstitutional obligation to behave in a certain way under the threat of very large financial restrictions – in this situation there are seniors now – sums up Gregorczyk-Abram.

–