Ban on the import of mink into Latvia to limit the spread of the COVID-19 infection complies with the Constitution
The Constitutional Court concluded that the norm of the Cabinet Regulation which prohibited the import of mink into the territory of Latvia for a certain period of time in order to limit the spread of the COVID-19 infection complied with the right to own property provided for in Article 105 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court emphasised that in circumstances where there was uncertainty, the State had the right, in case of doubt, to choose from among several possible alternatives the solution which would, with a higher degree of probability, ensure the protection of the rights and interests of persons or society.
The case was initiated before the Constitutional Court on the basis of an application submitted by commercial companies. The business activities of the applicants are the import and breeding of mink, the harvesting, processing, and export of mink fur. According to the applicants, the contested norm, which prohibited the import of mink from abroad during the period from 21 December 2021 to 16 December 2022, is incompatible with Article 105 of the Constitution. According to the applicants, the restriction included in the contested norm was not proportionate.
The Constitutional Court concluded that the contested norm restricted the right of applicants to carry out a certain type of commercial activity provided for in Article 105 of the Constitution. The restriction was aimed at safeguarding the right to health and also protecting the well-being of society. In particular, the available data and studies on the prevalence of COVID-19 in mink farms showed that workers and other persons in contact with infected mink are at high risk of contracting the disease. The restriction contained in the contested norm was imposed in order to prevent the rapid spread of the COVID‑19 virus and also the emergence and spread of new variants of the virus that could have endangered human health, overloaded the health sector, and threatened the continuity of health care and medical services.
The Constitutional Court emphasised that such alternative means to limit the spread of the COVID-19 virus as, for example, a ban on the import of mink only from certain countries where mink infections with COVID-19 have been detected during a given period, the quarantine of imported mink, and also a system of import permits cannot ensure that infected mink do not come into contact with humans. However, the prohibition to transport mink between mink farms in Latvia cannot be regarded as an alternative means of achieving the legitimate aims of the restriction contained in the contested norm, since it obviously cannot prevent the risk identified by the Cabinet, i.e. the import of mink infected with COVID-19 from foreign countries.
The Constitutional Court recognised that, given the spread of the COVID-19 virus and the threat it posed to the health system, the legitimate interests of certain merchants could not be placed above the interests of society as a whole. In addition, the applicants had access to support mechanisms to mitigate the effects of the restriction imposed thereon. However, the benefit to society of the restriction contained in the contested norm, in circumstances where it was necessary to reduce the possible transmission of the COVID-19 virus from mink to humans and thereby protect human health and well-being of society, outweighed the adverse consequences for the applicants.
Linked case: 2022-28-03