The essay reviews a selection of case law from non-constitutional, mostly administrative courts, in disputes in which the legality of pandemic control activities and measures has been the subject of principal or preliminary cognition. Some general features of this jurisprudence and litigation are highlighted, from an eminently procedural perspective. This has been a widespread, intense litigation, strongly conditioned by the time factor. On the whole, the system of judicial guarantees seems to have withstood the test of the emergency, albeit leaving a legacy of some critical, still open questions: in particular, whether it is possible to conduct the entire adversarial process in written form; and what margins of judicial review exist, in individual disputes, with respect to the technicalevaluations advocated by the national scientific institutions responsible for health and pharmaceutical matters.