AfD fails with urgent applications because of the state parliament session

Created: 2022-01-24Updated: 2022-01-24, 5:20 p.m

Justitia can be seen on a pane at the entrance to a court.

© Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa/symbol image

The state constitutional court rejects urgent applications by the AfD against a state parliament session and its resolutions.

MPs felt limited in the freedom of the mandate.

According to the court, however, the 2G-plus rule in the plenary hall does not obviously violate their rights.

Kiel – The state constitutional court has confirmed the corona rules for state parliament sessions in Schleswig-Holstein.

The judges dismissed urgent requests from AfD MPs against the most recent special session of parliament and the decisions made there (Az. LVerfG 1/22).

A court spokesman announced on Monday that the applications directed against the state parliament and state government were already inadmissible.

It is also not apparent that the 2G-plus regulation ordered by the President of the State Parliament for the plenary hall with the alternative of entering the hall PCR-tested and wearing an FFP2 mask is unconstitutional.

more on the subject

AfD wants to overturn demo restrictions: special session of the state parliament

2G confusion: AfD MP flies out of committee meeting - Bundestag apparently surprised by the problem

MPs: Biden should close Guantánamo

On January 10, parliament determined the epidemic situation in the country in order to be able to close discos with legal certainty, among other things. In the plenary hall, 2G plus (vaccinated, recovered and negative PCR test) applied. MEPs who are either not vaccinated, have recovered or do not want to disclose this information were only allowed to enter the room after being tested, but had to wear a mask there. The AfD criticized this as a public display of the vaccination status. Those who did not meet the requirements had to follow the meeting via video transmission from another room where the 3G rule applied (vaccinated, recovered, tested), but also had the opportunity to speak there, which was transmitted to the plenary room.

The AfD MPs saw themselves restricted in the freedom of their mandate by the rules issued by the President of the State Parliament Klaus Schlie (CDU) by general decree.

With their motions, they wanted the judges to declare the general decree illegal and the state parliament resolutions of January 10 invalid.

The state constitutional court should also temporarily prohibit the state government from deriving rights from state parliamentary decisions and the state parliament from holding further sessions with these access rules.

The next parliamentary session is on Wednesday.

According to the court, the rights of the three MPs are not obviously violated by the general decree. "All MPs can continue to take part in all sessions in the plenary hall." The access requirements are not obviously unconstitutional. “In addition to general protection against infection, they also serve to ensure the functionality of the state parliament. It is reasonable for MPs to have a PCR test done.” It is also reasonable to wear a mask in the plenary hall if MPs are not vaccinated or have recovered or do not want to disclose their vaccination or recovery status. If, under these conditions, they did not attend the Hemicycle, they did so voluntarily.

State President Schlie and State Parliament Director Utz Schliesky expressed their satisfaction with the court's decision.

"Through our actions, the parliamentary functionality was guaranteed in this emergency situation, which confirms today's decision." The measures would not have restricted the participation opportunities of the MPs, but expanded them.

So far, the state constitutional court has only decided on the urgent applications of the deputies, but not on the main issue.

According to the court, it is not yet foreseeable when a decision will be made.

dpa