The topic of this paper is the analysis of the compatibility of the restrictions of human rights with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. There exist two options for the restrictions to be deemed compatible with the Convention. On the one hand, it is possible to justify interference with certain human rights when that is explicitly determined by the Convention and if all the conditions are met. On the other hand, the Convention contains a derogation clause that enables the derogation of some rights protected therein in time of emergency. The comparison of these two options portrays both their advantages and disadvantages. After looking at the compatibility of the restrictions of human rights with the Convention, the analysis of the situation in the Republic of Croatia will be presented. The reason for this stems from the discussion that has been ongoing since the beginning of the pandemic on the topic of the proper response to it. The constitutional framework gives the possibility of declaring a state of emergency due to a natural disaster. In this paper, the constitutional norms as well as their interpretation will be presented. However, the Croatian Parliament did not act in accordance with those constitutional norms and a state of emergency was not declared. The solution was instead found in the amendments to the special legislation that had already existed prior to the pandemic, which resulted in a different model of crisis management. One of the most important questions of this paper is why such a decision was made. Both solutions will be compared through various aspects and the interpretation of the Constitution according to the experts and the Constitutional Court of Croatia will be taken into account as well.