{"id":21677,"date":"2020-03-17T19:11:00","date_gmt":"2020-03-17T18:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/state-of-emergency-due-to-covid-19-legal-analysis-of-royal-decree-463-2020\/"},"modified":"2026-08-12T15:05:08","modified_gmt":"2026-08-12T13:05:08","slug":"state-of-emergency-due-to-covid-19-legal-analysis-of-royal-decree-463-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.in-diem.com\/en\/state-of-emergency-due-to-covid-19-legal-analysis-of-royal-decree-463-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"State of Emergency Due to COVID-19: Legal Analysis of Royal Decree 463\/2020"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

IMPORTANT:<\/strong> This article analyzes Royal Decree 463\/2020, dated March 14<\/strong>, which declared the first state of emergency to manage the health crisis caused by COVID-19, in accordance with the regulatory framework in effect at the time of its publication.<\/em><\/p>\n\n

This post provides, for informational and historical purposes, a legal analysis of Royal Decree 463\/2020, dated March 14<\/strong>, which declared a state of alarm to manage the health crisis caused by COVID-19. Its content should be read in the context of the regulatory environment at the time of its publication and the exceptional measures in effect during that period. <\/p>\n\n

State of Emergency Due to COVID-19: Legal Analysis of Royal Decree 463\/2020<\/h2>\n\n

The Royal Decree 463\/2020, dated March 14<\/strong><\/a>, declared a state of emergency throughout Spain to address the health emergency caused by the COVID-19 coronavirus.<\/p>\n\n

The regulation was issued pursuant to the Spanish Constitution<\/strong> and Organic Law 4\/1981, of June 1,<\/strong><\/a>, which regulates states of alarm, exception, and siege. Its purpose was to establish an exceptional framework for action to coordinate measures related to public health, administration, mobility, transportation, supply, and public safety. <\/p>\n\n

The state of emergency was initially declared for a period of fifteen calendar days, subject to any subsequent extensions that might be agreed upon in accordance with the constitutionally established procedure.<\/p>\n\n

Competent authorities during the state of emergency<\/h2>\n\n

The Royal Decree designated the Government as the competent authority and assigned specific functions to various ministries within their respective areas of responsibility.<\/p>\n\n

Among the delegated competent authorities were the ministries responsible for defense, the interior, transportation, and health, which were authorized to issue orders, resolutions, regulations, and instructions necessary to ensure the provision of essential services and the protection of people, property, and locations.<\/p>\n\n

The Ministry of Health played a particularly important role, especially with regard to public health measures, the coordination of the health care system, and decision-making aimed at containing the spread of the virus.<\/p>\n\n

Action by Law Enforcement Agencies<\/h2>\n\n

While the state of emergency was in effect, the State Security Forces, regional and local police forces, Civil Protection, private security, and, if necessary, the Armed Forces were subject to a strengthened system of coordination and collaboration.<\/p>\n\n

Law enforcement officers were authorized to conduct inspections of individuals, vehicles, and property to verify compliance with the measures set forth in the Royal Decree. They were also authorized to take action to ensure compliance with mobility restrictions, the maintenance of essential services, and the protection of public health. <\/p>\n\n

Public administrations continued to exercise their ordinary powers, but were required to adapt their actions to the orders, instructions, and measures issued by the competent authority during the state of alarm.<\/p>\n\n

Restrictions on freedom of movement<\/h2>\n\n

One of the key measures of Royal Decree 463\/2020 was the restriction on the movement of people on public roads and in public spaces. The regulation permitted certain justified trips related to basic needs, work, health, care, financial matters, or force majeure. <\/p>\n\n

Among the permitted reasons were the purchase of food, pharmaceuticals, and essential goods; visits to healthcare facilities; travel to the workplace; returning to one\u2019s usual place of residence; providing assistance and care to the elderly, minors, dependent persons, or those who are particularly vulnerable; traveling to financial or insurance institutions; and travel due to force majeure or a situation of necessity.<\/p>\n\n

The possibility of making similar trips was also considered, provided they were for individual travel, except when accompanying people with disabilities or for another justified reason.<\/p>\n\n

As for vehicle traffic, it was limited to permitted travel and refueling at gas stations, without prejudice to any additional measures that the competent authorities might agree upon.<\/p>\n\n

Temporary Seizures and Mandatory Personal Payments<\/h2>\n\n

The Royal Decree also provided for the possibility of temporarily requisitioning<\/strong> property necessary to achieve the objectives of the state of emergency.<\/p>\n\n

It also allowed for the imposition of mandatory personal obligations<\/strong> when necessary to ensure the protection of public health, the functioning of essential services, or the effectiveness of the measures adopted.<\/p>\n\n

These powers were of an exceptional nature and had to be interpreted in light of the purpose of the regulation: to address an extraordinary public health emergency.<\/p>\n\n

COVID-19 Mitigation Measures<\/h2>\n\n

The Royal Decree established various containment measures in particularly sensitive areas, such as education, commercial activity, the hospitality industry, entertainment, places of worship, transportation, and the healthcare system.<\/p>\n\n

In the field of education and training, in-person instruction was suspended at all levels, in both public and private schools, and was gradually replaced by distance learning whenever possible.<\/p>\n\n

With regard to commercial activity, it was agreed to close non-essential businesses, while allowing the operation of businesses related to food, essential goods, pharmacies, health services, optical stores, orthopedic products, hygiene products, newsstands, fuel, telecommunications, pet food, dry cleaners, laundromats, and other authorized services.<\/p>\n\n

E-commerce, telephone sales, and mail-order sales were also permitted as alternative means of continuing certain economic activities without compromising public health measures.<\/p>\n\n

Public Health Measures and Strengthening the Health Care System<\/h2>\n\n

One of the main focuses of the state of emergency was strengthening the healthcare system. Although the autonomous communities continued to manage their own health services, the Ministry of Health assumed a more active coordinating role. <\/p>\n\n

Health authorities could take measures to ensure the proper distribution of technical resources, personnel, and supplies throughout the country.<\/p>\n\n

In addition, the Ministry of Health could issue orders regarding public and private healthcare facilities, healthcare personnel, the supply of medications and medical devices, the temporary requisition of industrial facilities, and measures necessary to prevent shortages.<\/p>\n\n

Transportation, Supply, and Essential Services<\/h2>\n\n

The state of emergency also affected public transportation, freight transport, customs operations, the electricity supply, gas, fuel, and other essential services.<\/p>\n\n

The Ministry of Transportation, Mobility, and Urban Development could issue the necessary measures to ensure minimum conditions of mobility and safety, particularly with regard to essential services and the transport of essential goods.<\/p>\n\n

Similarly, measures were taken to ensure the supply of basic goods, medicines, energy, fuel, and other resources essential to the country\u2019s normal functioning during the health crisis.<\/p>\n\n

Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Public Communication<\/h2>\n\n

The Royal Decree provided for the protection of critical infrastructure and of those facilities that, even without formally holding that designation, were considered necessary for the provision of essential services.<\/p>\n\n

It also established obligations for public and private media outlets, which were required to broadcast the messages, announcements, and communications that the competent authorities deemed necessary to inform the public.<\/p>\n\n

The purpose of these measures was to ensure the dissemination of official information and to guarantee the operation of essential services during the emergency.<\/p>\n\n

Penalty System During the State of Emergency<\/h2>\n\n

Failure to comply with orders issued by the competent authority during the state of emergency could result in penalties in accordance with the applicable regulations in each sector.<\/p>\n\n

In that context, various laws were invoked, including legislation on public safety, public health, civil protection, and, in the most serious cases, the Penal Code.<\/p>\n\n

In any case, the imposition of sanctions required the initiation of the corresponding administrative or judicial proceedings, the identification of the alleged facts, the application of a sanctioning provision, and respect for procedural safeguards.<\/p>\n\n

Suspension of Administrative and Judicial Deadlines<\/h2>\n\n

Royal Decree 463\/2020 provided for the suspension of administrative and procedural deadlines, except in certain particularly urgent cases or those related to fundamental rights.<\/p>\n\n

In the criminal justice system, certain essential proceedings continued, such as on-call services, habeas corpus proceedings, proceedings involving detainees or pretrial detainees, protection orders, and urgent proceedings involving minors.<\/p>\n\n

In other jurisdictions, proceedings related to fundamental rights, the protection of minors, involuntary commitments, and other cases that, by their nature, could not be suspended continued.<\/p>\n\n

Statutes of limitations and expiration periods were also suspended in accordance with the provisions of the emergency regulations adopted during that period.<\/p>\n\n

Subsequent Significance of Constitutional Court Ruling No. 148\/2021<\/h2>\n\n

The legal interpretation of the first state of emergency was particularly influenced by Constitutional Court Ruling 148\/2021, dated July 14<\/strong><\/a>, which declared certain sections of Article 7 of Royal Decree 463\/2020\u2014relating to restrictions on freedom of movement\u2014to be unconstitutional and null and void.<\/p>\n\n

For this reason, any case file, sanction, claim, financial liability, or dispute related to the measures adopted during the first state of emergency must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the timing of the events, the applicable law, the status of the proceedings, and subsequent case law.<\/p>\n\n

Legal Advice During and After the State of Emergency<\/h2>\n\n

The state of emergency posed numerous legal challenges for individuals, businesses, self-employed workers, employees, government agencies, and professionals. Mobility restrictions, the suspension of activities, temporary closures, temporary layoffs (ERTE), penalties, suspended deadlines, and public health measures gave rise to many legal questions. <\/p>\n\n

IN DIEM Abogados<\/strong> provided legal advice on matters related to administrative sanctions, mobility, searches, financial liability, contracts, leases, ERTE, dismissals, business operations, judicial proceedings, and administrative procedures affected by the exceptional circumstances.<\/p>\n\n

Currently, matters related to the state of emergency must be reviewed with particular attention to the applicable legal framework at any given time and to subsequent case law, especially when there are final penalties, pending appeals, financial claims, or doubts regarding the legality of certain measures.<\/p>\n\n

\n\n