Traditionally and
historically, any state of emergency has always had a widespread impact on
fundamental rights. Specifically, the health emergency caused by Covid-19
engendered the greatest world constitutional emergency in the human history.
According to this line of reasoning, the restriction of the right of freedom,
in its subspecies of freedom of movement, may be regarded as a serious
violation of human rights. Not only does the issue constitute an academic
topic, but also it becomes ‘food for thought’ for both jurists and Courts.
Consequently, this research paper aims to discuss and analyse, also from the
standpoint of a UK comparative analysis (the Anglo-Welsh legal system and
Scotland), the legislation and outcome in the Courts of the restrictions put in
place during the pandemic. At least, it will emphasize that the harshest version
of lockdown was experienced in Italy. This is a paradox, since the latter is a
country that, formally, should rely on the toughest constitutional safeguards,
including the existence of a Constitutional Court.