Abstract
The principle of proportionality is rightly referred to as a key argument in constitutional review in case of an interference with fundamental rights. Recent events related to the COVID-19 pandemic have shown that those interferences may be long-lasting, substantial, and severely limiting in comparison with the previous practice.
The basic thesis of this contribution is to illustrate that proportionality is the proper test of constitutional review of measures adopted in emergencies. Among other things, it is argued that the requirement of proportionality as a universal criterion for constitutional review strengthens the coherence of law, and thus the foreseeability of requirements to limit rights, which is equally important in times of emergency as it is under normal circumstances.
The article suggests the specificities of the application of the principle of proportionality in the emergencies, especially the higher degree of uncertainty, the need for a judicial restraint and the issue of the burden of argumentation.