Saar administrative judges overturn 2G rule in retail

Created: 2022-01-21Updated: 2022-01-21, 5:47 p.m

"Vaccinated!

Get well!” reads a sign at a bar. © Robert Michael/dpa-Zentralbild/dpa/Symbolbild

The OVG in Saarland decides that the exceptions to the 2G rule for certain shops are ambiguous.

As a result, the regulation is no longer applicable to retail in the federal state.

Saarlouis - The 2G rule no longer applies in the Saarland retail trade for the time being.

The Saarland Higher Administrative Court (OVG) suspended the access restriction.

The judges in Saarlouis thus granted an urgent application from several electronics retailers in the Saarland.

The OVG announced on Friday that the decision means that in Saarland the 2G regulation is generally no longer applicable in retail until further notice.

The decision is final (reference number 2 B 295/21).

more on the subject

Bavarian court overturns 2G rule in retail

According to the verdict: the government completely suspends 2G for trade

Government sticks to 2G in retail: economy pushes

The federal and state governments had agreed nationwide on the 2G rules for retail at the beginning of December. For Lower Saxony, the Higher Administrative Court in Lüneburg overturned the rules in mid-December. The Bavarian Administrative Court suspended the 2G rule for retail in Bavaria this week.

According to the Saarland regulation, those businesses were excluded from 2G whose range of goods or services serves to cover daily needs. This wording is substantiated by a non-exhaustive list of examples of shops and facilities. However, the court complained that the shops mentioned there allowed the conclusion that the term "everyday needs" was not the only distinguishing feature for exemption from the access restriction. However, it remains unclear according to which specific criteria other retail businesses are to be covered by the exemption.

However, according to the OVG, there are further concerns regarding the contested regulation.

The text of the ordinance itself does not contain any regulation as to how so-called mixed farms are to be classified.

Only in the official justification were statements made on this - consequently it ultimately depends on the "overall impression" of the company.

The specific classification is the responsibility of the local authorities.

In the opinion of the Higher Administrative Court, this ultimately leads to inconsistent enforcement practice.

According to the Higher Administrative Court, the challenged regulation violates the "principle of certainty of standards" derived from the rule of law principle.

However, the judges emphasize, other regulations must be observed to prevent the corona pandemic from spreading further.

This applies regardless of the provisional suspension of access restrictions under the 2G rule in retail.

Distance rules and the obligation to wear masks are examples.

dpa