Designated subpoena for protection of rights, freedoms and guarantees, the action was filed in the Administrative and Fiscal Court of Braga by the association Plantel Peculiar, the Directorate General of Health, the Ministry of Health and the Portuguese State.

It requested that those entities withdraw, within 24 hours, all mandatory use of masks, whether for adults or children and in closed spaces or not, and that the guidelines and legislation on the subject be considered null and inoperative in Portugal, illegal and unconstitutional.

The association claims, first of all, that the imposition of the wearing of masks is unconstitutional, as it is made by decree-law, without the prior authorisation of the Assembly of the Republic, but the court says that it is only the Constitutional Court's responsibility to declare the unconstitutionality of rules with general mandatory force.

In the action, the association invokes the opinion of several constitutionalists, as well as reproducing opinions about the inexistence of any scientific support that proves the effectiveness of the use of masks or visors in the fight against Covid-19.

It even says that, in view of the number of deaths registered by Covid-19, there can be no talk of any pandemic in Portugal.

"Independent studies say that the mandatory use of masks does not protect us from anything, on the contrary, they point to harmful effects on health resulting from their use throughout the day," Paulo Oliveira, leader of Plantel Peculiar, told Lusa on 16 September.

For Paulo Oliveira, the imposition of the use of masks "has to do only with economic interests".

For the association, the imposition of the wearing of masks or visors calls into question several fundamental rights, freedoms and guarantees, for violation of the dignity of the human person, of the free and just society, of the democratic rule of law, of social and cultural democracy, of democratic legality and of the Constitution.

It also undermines the moral and physical integrity of persons, the prohibition of cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment, the right to personal identity, personality development, family life, a human and healthy living environment and legal protection against any form of discrimination.

The court rejected the action outright, through an order of 8 September, to which Lusa had access, in which it stressed that "the mere imposition of the obligation to wear a mask does not constitute the violation of any fundamental right, freedom or guarantee".

"It corresponds, in fact, to the simple imposition of a duty of social order, emerging from reasons of public health, which are of general knowledge," says the court.

For the court, the association is limited to "debiting" rights, principles and assertions from the constitutional text, without even concretising them, as well as without specifying to what extent they have been, or can be, undermined by the imposition of the wearing of a mask or visor in compliance with the law.

In other cases, the order of the court also states that the association invokes rights and principles in relation to which "no injury or threat of injury is to be seen in the face of the alleged imposition of the wearing of masks or visors".

Paulo Oliveira said that the court's decision will be "duly analysed", after which the association will decide whether or not to appeal.