Court: The obligation to leave the country in the MV lockdown was legal

Created: 2022-12-06Updated: 2022-12-06, 7:07 p.m

Justitia can be seen on a pane at the entrance to the Higher Regional Court.

© Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa/symbol picture

At the beginning of the corona pandemic, there was a particularly strict lockdown in the north-east.

People without a primary residence in the country had to leave the country at times.

Whether the rule made sense remains a matter of debate.

But she was legal.

Greifswald - The Higher Administrative Court of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania has dismissed a lawsuit against an ordinance issued during the corona lockdown for an entry ban and an associated obligation to leave the country.

After a hearing lasting several hours on Tuesday evening, the Senate followed the arguments of the state government, which considered the corresponding paragraphs in two Corona regulations from 2020 and 2021 to be lawful.

The court did not allow an appeal, as the applicant and the respondent unanimously announced.

The applicant, who has his primary residence in Leipzig and a secondary residence in Groß Schwansee (Northwest Mecklenburg district), was affected with his family by the obligation to leave the country in spring 2020, although he had “legally” traveled to the country before the corresponding regulation came into force.

During the oral hearing on Tuesday, he described the regulations, which have long since been suspended, as illegal and disproportionate.

At that time, his property rights were restricted and at times he was not able to use his property in full.

He has a lot of understanding for the corona protection measures.

"I have no understanding of the fact that you have to leave your own home," said the plaintiff.

His lawyer Tobias Meiser made it clear during the hearing that it was a serious encroachment on fundamental rights.

“It was a first in legal history.

You had to leave the property and the federal state.” At the time, it was completely unclear how long the regulation would apply.

The norm control suit was directed against the state government.

At the hearing, their legal representative Wolfgang Ewer pointed out that the measures were important in order to control the corona pandemic and to promote protection for people.

It was also a measure of hazard prevention law for which no one could seriously demand a fully documented assessment.

There is also no serious encroachment on fundamental rights, according to Ewer.

According to the general legal opinion, the classification as serious is reserved for rights that are particularly important for the constitution, such as freedom of assembly or freedom of the press.

But the point here is whether the owner and his family were unable to use his second home for a “very limited period of time”.

This is not a serious intervention.

The Senate of the Higher Administrative Court had already communicated some preliminary opinions during the oral hearing, which tended to point to a rejection.

Judge Klaus Sperlich said that the Senate could not understand the plaintiff's statement that the use of his property had been "completely and largely withdrawn".

The risk of a repetition of an entry ban or exit order cited by the plaintiff is also rather unlikely.

Sperling recalled the situation in April 2020. "The pandemic was just beginning then." Because of the limited knowledge about the disease and the uncertain development, the entry and exit regulations served a legitimate goal.

In addition, she was basically suitable for avoiding contacts as part of infection protection.

Specifically, the lawsuit was directed against individual paragraphs of the Sars-CoV-2 Control Ordinance of April 3, 2020 and the Corona State Ordinance of April 23, 2021 in the version of May 4, 2021. A norm control procedure primarily serves an objective legal control, However, in a secondary aspect, it also aims at individual legal protection.

dpa