The Federal Constitutional Court has published its first fundamental decisions on the restrictions on freedom in the corona pandemic.
(Photo: dpa)
Karlsruhe The federal emergency brake decided in April 2021 with night curfews and contact restrictions as well as school closings were compatible with the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court, however, dismissed the complaints. “The disputed exit and contact restrictions were part of a legislative protection concept,” said the judges. This served “the protection of life and health”.
So far, the Federal Constitutional Court had only decided on urgent applications against the measures of the nationwide emergency brake – and rejected all of them. For the first time, constitutional complaints were examined in the actual main proceedings.
In focus: controversial measures of the federal emergency brake. This had to be drawn automatically nationwide since April 24, if the seven-day incidence exceeded 100 over several days. The value indicates how many new infections there are per 100,000 inhabitants within a week.
It is true that the nationwide requirements expired at the end of June. The decision of the Karlsruhe judges will nevertheless have an important orientation effect. The President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Stephan Harbarth, recently made it clear on ZDF that it was probably about “a certain law at a certain point in time”. On Tuesday lunchtime, the federal and state governments will meet in a conference call and will discuss new measures against the fourth wave based on the judgment.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
However, the detailed justifications for the Karlsruhe decisions would usually result in “indications for follow-up questions that will arise, for example for upcoming pandemics or for measures in the current pandemic for the coming months”.
The future traffic light government of the SPD, Greens and FDP has just completely revised the Infection Protection Act. With the change, the previous regulations on the federal emergency brake have also been replaced by new regulations.
However, Greens co-boss Robert Habeck pointed out at the beginning of the week that the government wanted to await the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court on the federal emergency brake. Then it must be looked “where the law needs to be sharpened,” says Habeck the “Spiegel”.
In total, more than 300 lawsuits and urgent motions were filed in Karlsruhe against the nationwide regulations. Now, in the main proceedings, one case was about exit and contact restrictions, and the other was about school closings. There had been no oral hearing. However, the responsible First Senate under Harbarth requested numerous statements, including from the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Medical Association.
A bias motion against Harbarth caused a stir. The occasion: The president of the court and his fellow judges accepted an invitation from Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) to a dinner in the Chancellery in June. There, Justice Minister Christine Lambrecht (SPD), who is still in office, explained the federal emergency brake.
As a result, an application for bias against Harbarth, who was formerly Vice-President of the Union faction, was received by the Federal Constitutional Court. However, the request was rejected.
The former President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Hans-Jürgen Papier, had recently praised the nationwide emergency brake: “The main aim of the Federal Government may have been to prevent the Prime Ministers from going it alone again and again, thus creating an all-too-colorful federalist patchwork carpet on corona measures taken or easing. ”There is little to criticize about a federal regulation.
However, paper had harshly criticized individual measures. The influence of a night curfew on the infection process is questionable: “Isn’t it more about controlling people more effectively?” Citizen. “
More: This general is supposed to regulate the corona policy – and first of all, it triggers a controversy