Corona regulations put to the test: These rules have been overturned by the courts

Exploding numbers of infections are forcing politicians to keep tightening corona regulations.

But some rules are incompatible with the law.

These are the most important court rulings.

• A large number of lawsuits have been filed

  against the

  federal and state

  corona *

  regulations

• Few

  courts

  rule in favor of the plaintiff

• Depending on the federal state, the courts sometimes judge differently

Kassel - Germany has a firm grip on the corona crisis.

In autumn 2020, the number of infections will explode everywhere.

The federal, state and local governments are trying to

contain

the spread of the virus with increasingly drastic

regulations.

But the past shows that the legislators have often overshot the mark.

A large number of

and measures to contain the

been judged by the courts to be inconsistent with the law.

Invalid corona rules: Courts are bombarded with lawsuits

Administrative courts in particular are

covered with a large number of lawsuits against ordinances and

that were decided as a result of the Corona crisis

across

.

Many courts have to rule in so-called norm review suits.

So decide whether a regulation is compatible with the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Because many

interfere with basic rights, such as freedom of movement and freedom of assembly.

 "We have received a large wave of incoming proceedings, especially in the urgent proceedings that have to be processed quickly," said a spokesman for the Hesse Administrative Court at the request of dpa.

Corona regulations put to the test: many lawsuits are dismissed

Many

related to

revolve around the mask requirement.

The plaintiffs see their basic right to general freedom of action restricted by the forced wearing of a mask.

Some plaintiffs argue that wearing a mask is also said to be harmful to health.

However, many judges do not follow this line of argument.

As reported by tagesschau.de, the vast majority of such lawsuits have been dismissed by German courts.

In one case, however, it worked.

A student in Jena (Thuringia) complained in April against the mask requirement in school lessons.

The judges of the Jena Administrative Court followed the plaintiff's argument that the corona infection figures at the time did not justify the requirement to wear a mask in class.

The court ruling overturned the order.

Corona regulations on the test stand: curfew in Lower Saxony overturned

One of the most recent court rulings concerned the tightened

for

that were adopted in autumn

.

If the 7-day incidence value of the number of cases rose in a circle over 35, a curfew from 11 p.m. applied in Lower Saxony.

With an incidence value of over 50, catering establishments were not allowed to sell alcohol outside the home.

Innkeepers from Osnabrück and Delmenhorst have submitted two urgent requests against this regulation.

The Lower Administrative Court of Lower Saxony ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and overturned the general curfew and the ban on the sale of alcohol.

The justification of the judges: The blocking period and the ban on alcohol out-of-home sales in their specific form do not represent necessary protective measures under infection protection law.

The judges generally saw curfew and alcohol bans as suitable means of containing the pandemic.

But from their point of view, the

does not adequately explain why such a ban is necessary at 11 p.m.

In addition, the regulation discriminates gastronomy, because other shops are allowed to sell alcohol.

In the justification, the judges emphasized that a reference to the incidence value alone was insufficient as a basis for the rules.

Corona regulations put to the test: court overturns ban on meetings

Due to the risk of infection, cities and municipalities have often

banned

and public rallies in

2020

.

Many demo organizers sued the ban.

One of the best-known cases is the legal dispute in the run-up to the lateral thinker demo in Berlin in August.

The assembly authority banned the demonstration on August 26th because they assumed that the participants would violate the

Protection Ordinance.

But the Berlin administrative court overturned the decision two days later.

The court saw an immediate danger to public safety as insufficiently justified.

If the organizers meet certain hygiene requirements, the demo can take place, they judged.

The state of Berlin and the organizer of the lateral thinker demo moved to the next instance before the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg.

The organizer did not accept the requirements for the demo.

The country wanted to prevent the demo.

Both failed.

The Higher Administrative Court upheld the judgment of the Administrative Court.

The full text of the judgment can be read on openjur.de.

The demo could take place under the required conditions.

However, the police arrested a large number of participants who did not adhere to the

.

Around 300 right-wing demonstrators posed on the stairs of the Reichstag with national flags and caused a national scandal.

Corona rules put to the test: Constitutional Court ruled on the ban on assemblies

A lawsuit against the ban on assembly even made it to the Federal Constitutional Court.

In the Gießen case, the competent authority prohibited the demonstration “Strengthening health instead of

weakening

”, although the organizers had presented a hygiene concept.

The administrative court in Giessen initially rejected the organizers' action.

The organizers went through the courts to the administrative court.

That proved the plaintiffs right.

The judges saw a violation of freedom of assembly.

The reason: The competent authority did not make sufficient use of its discretion and did not weigh up correctly whether there might be possibilities to let the demonstration take place.

Corona rules put to the test: the ban on accommodation has a hard time in court

Complaints about the controversial ban on lodging were particularly often successful.

Because not only many hotel owners have a problem with the regulation that people from

not allowed to stay in hotels or guest houses if they cannot show a negative Corona test.

In more and more federal states, the ban on accommodation is about to end despite the Corona crisis.

In Lower Saxony and Baden-Württemberg courts overturned the ban.

The state governments of Saarland and Saxony and also Hesse announced that they would lift the ban on accommodation.

And Bavaria just wants to let the regulation expire.

The Berlin-Brandenburg Higher Administrative Court confirmed two urgent motions against the

Reason: The ban on accommodation is disproportionate, argued the judges.

The benefits are disproportionate to the damage that hotel owners would suffer from the regulation.

In addition, the ban restricts the freedom of movement of vacationers.

Corona rules put to the test: Some countries are sticking to the ban on accommodation.

The Lower Saxony Higher Administrative Court argue very similarly.

There, too, the judges doubt the usefulness and necessity of the

and

granted

an urgent motion.

The ban is "not a necessary protective measure against infection," says the ruling.

This decision is incontestable by the state government.

As a result of the rulings, several federal states announced the suspension of their

.

Most recently, on October 16, 2020, the State Chancellery in

announced that it would abolish the ban.

But not all courts rule against the ban on accommodation.

In these countries, the ban on accommodation was overridden by a court ruling or by the state government:

• Baden-Württemberg

• Brandenburg

• Hesse

• Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

• Lower Saxony

• Saarland

• Saxony

• Schleswig-Holstein

Corona rules put to the test: judgments on the 800 square meter rules led to a patchwork quilt

After the lockdown due to the first

in spring 2020, the federal government decided in April that only shops with a sales area of ​​less than 800 square meters were allowed to reopen.

It

was up to the federal states to

design the

and numerous shopkeepers sued the measure.

The judgments were very different.

While some

such as the OVG Hamburg, confirmed the rule, the Bavarian Administrative Court saw the principle of equality violated by the measure.

The ordinance in

an exception

for bookstores, car and bicycle dealers

.

These shops were also allowed to open with much larger sales areas.

The Bavarian state government changed the rule and from now on shops with larger sales areas were also allowed to open.

However, only 800 square meters of the total area could be used.

The Federal Constitutional Court also dealt with the case.

However, the court dismissed the action brought by a fashion house from Bavaria.

They saw the dangers of

as more serious than the economic interests of the plaintiff.

In the first

in

, the federal government decided in March to ban church services based on the Italian model.

Some believers did not accept that and complained against the

.

The complaint by a Muslim association from Lower Saxony went to the Federal Constitutional Court.

The association had offered to allow only 24 people into its church for Friday prayers, which can hold up to 300 people.

However, the authorities rejected the proposal.

The Federal Constitutional Court ruled the association and in April fell the general ban on worship.

Despite the great dangers posed by the corona pandemic, it is not lawful to restrict the fundamental right to freedom of belief in such a way.

According to the court, the authorities can certainly prohibit individual church services.

But it must be possible for the faith communities to find solutions in cooperation with the health department.

The judgment can be found on the website of the Federal Constitutional Court.

Corona rules put to the test:

A short weekend trip to the sea?

Not

a good idea

in the middle of the first

, thought the state government of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and prohibited such short holidays around Easter.

But vacationers did not give up their trip to the sea that easily.

Several lawsuits have been filed against the

.

Two urgent motions were granted by the state's higher administrative court.

The state government had wanted to prevent violations of the contact restrictions with the regulation.

In addition, the spread of the

over long distances should be avoided.

The judges saw things similarly and agreed that the measure was suitable for slowing down the spread of the virus.

But the state government made a mistake.

The ban only affected short trips to the Baltic Sea islands, but not destinations on the mainland within the state.

The judges could not understand this distinction.

In addition, due to the restrictions at the time, there were no holidaymakers from other federal states on the Baltic Sea islands anyway.

The judges ruled that the likelihood that citizens of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania would be infected there is even lower.

The measure was withdrawn.

In the month of

however, more stringent rules apply: Angela Merkel and the state leaders

decided on

a nationwide partial

at the end of October

, which starts on Monday, November 2nd - again waves of lawsuits against the regulations are expected here. (Philipp Zettler)