This paper examines, in the light of the COVID-19 crisis, the room for judicial oversight of health crisis measures based on the public’s expectations of how governments should act in the interplay with experts. The paper explains how trust theory and procedural rationality review help to address concerns related to legitimacy and expertise. The paper argues that courts should distinguish between two stages. In the initial stage, fear as a driver for government support based on expertise justifies that the proportionality test is limited to the question of whether measures were based on virologist expert advice. In the next stage, people expect the government to take expert-informed decisions, but also require that the government takes into account societal needs. Procedural rationality review in this stage demands that courts examine whether the decision was based on an informed balance of rights and interests.

中文翻译：

---

公平决策的健康危机措施和标准：科学、政治和法院之间相互作用的规范和实证研究

鉴于 COVID-19 危机，本文根据公众对政府应如何与专家互动的期望，研究了对健康危机措施进行司法监督的空间。该论文解释了信任理论和程序合理性审查如何帮助解决与合法性和专业知识相关的问题。该论文认为，法院应区分两个阶段。在初始阶段，作为基于专业知识的政府支持的驱动因素的恐惧证明了相称性测试仅限于措施是否基于病毒学家专家建议的问题。在下一阶段，人们期望政府做出专家知情的决定，但也要求政府考虑社会需求。