That means the corona shutdown for the judiciary

Icon: enlarge

Criminal Court in Berlin-Moabit

Photo: Ulrich Baumgarten / Getty Images

Normally up to 2000 people visit the Berlin-Moabit Criminal Court, the largest criminal court in Europe, every day.

But since March school and other groups of visitors have not been allowed into the courtrooms.

The number of spectators is very limited and depends on the size of the respective hall.

In the first acute corona phase in spring, operations were shut down more and more.

Most of the main trial dates were canceled, the offices of the criminal and civil chambers remained closed to the public, and the cafeteria was closed.

Only negotiations that could not be postponed followed.

That had consequences.

"Since March we've been pushing a small bow wave in front of us," says Lisa Jani, spokeswoman for the Berlin criminal courts.

In addition, the judiciary also had to create time-consuming concepts for protection against infection - which is particularly crucial in their case because the public has to be protected in processes.

In Berlin-Moabit, for example, it has been mandatory to wear a mask in the entire building since the beginning of October.

Presiding judges regularly interrupt the sessions to air and keep attendance lists to inform visitors about the risk of infection in the event of a problem.

Could the criminal court handle an extensive shutdown of operations a second time?

"We have to," says Jani.

"Of course, this must not come at the expense of the rule of law."

Proceedings cannot simply be discontinued to get rid of them.

"We can't just shut down court operations."

She is optimistic that the criminal court is up to the challenge, "even if it means more effort for everyone".

Even before the pandemic, many courts were working to their limit, a second shutdown would probably bring them a lot of new proceedings in addition to the organizational tasks: There should be a number of lawsuits against the ordered closure of restaurants, cinemas and bars.

Discussions about whether curfew, travel and contact restrictions are proportionate are already ongoing.

The SPD health expert Karl Lauterbach also started a debate about how celebrations in private homes can be avoided and controlled.

45,000 proceedings in ten local courts

"There is a lot to suggest that the numerous disputes on the occasion of the corona crisis will continue to occupy the courts, especially in urgent legal protection," says Sven Rebehn, Federal Managing Director of the German Association of Judges (DRB), the SPIEGEL: The administrative courts would have to judge whether fundamental rights encroachments for reasons of Protection against infection are proportionate.

As a result, the labor courts could face numerous dismissal protection and payment processes, while the civil courts would expect additional lawsuits due to the economic consequences of Corona requirements.

Already in the summer there had been a veritable flood of lawsuits about the government's infection control measures.

The administrative courts in Bavaria alone said they had passed judgments in several hundred proceedings by the beginning of July.

In addition, because of the travel restrictions, according to the Association of Judges, there were around 45,000 proceedings in ten local courts, which are responsible for the major German airports, by late summer.

However, the Judges' Association sees the judiciary well prepared this autumn.

"Partitions and disinfectants, face masks and wide seating spaces are now routine in the courts," says DRB managing director Rebehn.

Nobody has to fear a standstill in the administration of justice.

The aim is to continue operations for as long and as far as possible: "Where conference rooms are too small, the judiciary sometimes also moves to exhibition halls or concert halls."

"In civil proceedings, switching to video conferences and online negotiations still fails too often due to missing and outdated technology"

Sven Rebehn, Federal Director of the German Association of Judges

As a result, the judiciary proved in the spring that it can still act in an extreme situation.

"For example, despite the acute pandemic, the courts were able to conclude important criminal cases such as the one against the neo-Nazi group 'Revolution Chemnitz', deal with urgent detention cases, hold urgent hearings in cases of care or intervene in urgent legal protection in the event of domestic violence," said Rebhehn.

In addition, the situation in the spring led to at least the "first small digitization push in the judiciary".

However, there is still a lot of catching up to do: "For example, switching to video conferences and online negotiations in civil proceedings all too often fails due to a lack of outdated technology or poorly developed data networks. The federal and state governments should join forces with the digital upheaval in the judiciary Accelerate the digital pact. "

Rebehn also warns of a fundamental problem this fall: "Should there be temporary conditions according to which generally - in private as well as in professional context - only a smaller number of people may come together, the court operations would also be more affected - and trial dates would have to be be postponed in greater numbers. "

Icon: The mirror