Spanish Supreme Court rules on the disclosure of documents relating to COVID

The referred measures essentially consist of displaying one of the following certificates to leisure centres where indoor access is sought, where the individual must show:

In this sense, the display of any of the above-mentioned certificates and its inherent information may only be requested at the time of access, whereas no data may be retained, nor shall any databases be created thereto.

As the measures constitute a limitation or restriction upon fundamental rights, including the right to equality, the right to privacy and the right to data protection, the Supreme Court had to rule over this Order, confirming the legality of the measures to be implemented in this region.

In fact, the Court pointed out that the referred measures do not affect the right to equality, since there is no discrimination between those persons who are vaccinated and those who are not, based upon the possibility to display to the establishment in question another certificate, i.e. a negative test, if one does not wish to prove that he/she has been or has not been vaccinated.

With regard to privacy, the Court argues that privacy is conditioned by individual’s own attitude and the content and scope of the information that may be qualified as “intimate”. However, any infringement of the right to privacy is considered to be outweighed by a public interest in preventing the spread of the pandemic.

On the other hand, with regard to data protection, the Court pointed out that the requested action is the "mere exhibition" of this certificate, and further argues that this exhibition cannot be perceived as the processing of personal data. Moreover, the Court itself argues that the measures taken are proportionate, based on the understanding that there is no better alternative, taking into account a broad criterion for their weighting judgement.

Nevertheless, the judgment in question has a dissenting opinion. Whilst examining issues that are not of a technical nature, the magistrate criticises the basic argument on which the measure has been implemented, arguing that there are other measures that are friendlier to the affected fundamental rights, which have been enacted by other regions, such as capacity limitations of the establishment or the postponement on the opening of leisure premises.