The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Unvaccinated employee in nursing home escapes penalty payment


Despite the corona vaccination obligation, a nursing home employee did not allow herself to be immunized - an authority imposed a fine due to the lack of proof. Wrongly so, as the Higher Administrative Court in Lüneburg ruled.

Enlarge image

Corona vaccination: Giving up work is also an alternative

Photo: Moritz Frankenberg / dpa

According to a decision by the Lüneburg Higher Administrative Court (OVG), the obligation to provide evidence of a corona vaccination in care cannot be enforced by means of a penalty payment.

An employee of a retirement home in Lower Saxony who is not vaccinated against Corona therefore does not have to pay a fine for the time being.

The Higher Administrative Court rejected an appeal by the district of Diepholz against a previous urgent decision by the administrative court in Hanover.

This had granted the woman urgent legal protection against the decision of the district.

The employer had informed the district that the employee was not vaccinated.

The district then ordered that proof of vaccination be submitted, otherwise there would be a fine.

The woman complained in Hanover and filed an urgent application, whereupon the administrative court ordered the suspensive effect of the lawsuit.

Woman is indirectly forced to be vaccinated by the authorities

Almost nationwide, nursing and health workers have to prove that they have been fully vaccinated against Corona or have recovered - or present a certificate that they cannot be vaccinated.

If there is no proof, the health department must be informed.

It can issue a ban on entry or activity, but has discretion.

This also corresponds to the sense of the obligation to provide evidence, "to protect extremely vulnerable groups of people from infection with the corona virus promptly and to a particular extent," explained the OVG.

However, imposing a fine because of the lack of proof would go too far.

The administrative court already saw it that way - and justified its decision with the fact that the district's actions are likely to be illegal.

The Higher Administrative Court has now confirmed this view.

The district not only demands proof of vaccination - as required by law, but rather indirectly obliges the woman to be vaccinated.

The Infection Protection Act is unlikely to provide a basis for this.

According to the court, this does not justify an obligation to vaccinate, but instead puts those affected before the choice of vaccination or giving up their work.

The health department can issue an immediate ban on activities.

The decision of the 14th Senate is not contestable.

File number: 14 ME 258/22


Source: spiegel

All business articles on 2022-06-22

You may like

Life/Entertain 2022-05-12T07:36:40.958Z
Life/Entertain 2022-05-16T06:32:02.771Z
Life/Entertain 2022-05-13T10:26:23.001Z
Life/Entertain 2022-05-23T07:11:22.157Z

Trends 24h


© Communities 2019 - Privacy