According to The Local (ES):
The reasoning of [Spanish] judges, both regional and national, is that having to prove Covid vaccination, testing or recovery status to enter a bar or visit a museum breaches fundamental rights without having enough of a positive impact on public health.
In the case of the Supreme Court’s latest decision, there wasn’t enough “substantial justification” for the requirement of a health pass in bars and nightclubs across the entire region of Andalusia, seeing it more as a “preventative measure” rather than a necessary action.
This clashes with the stance of judges in neighbouring France, where the top national court approved the government’s Covid health passports for locals and tourists to enter a variety of establishments, only tweaking the initial conditions. [...]
The special powers that come with a state of emergency may explain why in countries such as Germany and Italy, both of which have extended their state of alarm, authorities haven’t had to jump through too many legal loopholes for Covid pass legislation to be green-lighted.
But as things stand in Spain, judges have the final word on Covid restrictions, something for which two of the main associations representing them consider that the Spanish government has acted “irresponsibly” and not legislated correctly by just ‘passing the buck’ to them.
This is all rather confusing to me, not knowing much about the constitutional system in Spain. Would legislation not be subject to basically the same judicial review? And if it wouldn't be (or if the standard would be different for laws than for executive actions), is there no political will or working majority to pass such legislation?