The role of courts has been rather significant in the COVID-19 pandemic, weakening the theory that the judiciary is not equipped to contribute to governing crisis management. Although differences exist across countries, depending on institutional varieties and political contexts, the analysis shows that, even in times of emergency, courts can provide the necessary balance to the power shift towards the executives. Both action and inaction affecting fundamental rights have been scrutinised, taking into account fundamental freedoms and the rule of law. Deference to political decision-making has varied across jurisdictions and across the multiple phases of the health crisis. Differences in the balancing have emerged compared to during ordinary times. Uncertainty has played a major role, calling for new strategies in regulatory, administrative and judicial decision-making and new balances between precaution and evidence-based approaches. The role of scientific evidence has been at the core of judicial review to ensure transparency and procedural accountability. Proportionality and reasonableness with multiple conceptual variants across countries have been used to scrutinise the legality of measures. Courts are likely to continue playing a significant but different role in the years to come, when liability issues and recovery measures will likely become the core of litigation.

中文翻译：

---

不确定性、行政决策和司法审查：法院的观点

法院在 COVID-19 大流行中的作用相当重要，削弱了司法机构没有能力为管理危机管理做出贡献的理论。尽管各国之间存在差异，但取决于制度种类和政治背景，但分析表明，即使在紧急情况下，法院也可以为权力转移到高管提供必要的平衡。考虑到基本自由和法治，对影响基本权利的作为和不作为都进行了审查。对政治决策的尊重因司法管辖区和健康危机的多个阶段而异。与平时相比，平衡出现了差异。不确定性发挥了重要作用，要求制定新的监管策略，行政和司法决策以及预防和循证方法之间的新平衡。科学证据的作用一直是司法审查的核心，以确保透明度和程序问责制。各国使用多种概念变体的比例性和合理性来审查措施的合法性。未来几年，法院可能会继续发挥重要但不同的作用，届时责任问题和追偿措施可能会成为诉讼的核心。各国使用多种概念变体的比例性和合理性来审查措施的合法性。未来几年，法院可能会继续发挥重要但不同的作用，届时责任问题和追偿措施可能会成为诉讼的核心。各国使用多种概念变体的比例性和合理性来审查措施的合法性。未来几年，法院可能会继续发挥重要但不同的作用，届时责任问题和追偿措施可能会成为诉讼的核心。