When is an execution regulation unconstitutional?

Is the Corona Regulation unconstitutional?

In the meantime, the judiciary is no longer simply nodding off the pandemic regulations. That could become a problem for politicians if they plan a new lockdown

If you click on the homepage of the Ludwigsburg district court, you will find a meadow of bees and flowers. The verdict of a judge from the end of January, which has only now become known, is not mentioned. The judge had decided on a very unspectacular case that is currently being tried thousands of times in courts in Germany.

At the end of January, a man was charged with allegedly violating the country's Corona regulation last May. Instead of just one person who does not come from his own household - which was allowed at the time - he is said to have been out and about in downtown Ludwigsburg with two. In addition, he should not have paid attention to the safety distances.

The judge not only acquitted the man, but also used the reasons for the judgment for a kind of general settlement with the country's Corona ordinance. This is unconstitutional. The judge immediately lists a whole range of problems that she sees in the regulation, which has been changed several times.

On the one hand, no parliament had decided on it, on the other hand, the bans were formulated far too broadly without naming specific places where they apply. In addition, the Corona regulations were changed so quickly that you could not expect anyone to know which rules applied on a particular day. "This has nothing in common with the principles of security," quotes the Ludwigsburg newspaper the verdict of the judge.

She also sees a far too strong encroachment on fundamental rights in the set of rules. It is not the first judgment to call into question the pandemic measures. But seldom has the criticism been so fundamental. The State Court of Lower Saxony recently decided that the Lower Saxony state government violated the state constitution because it did not inform parliament early on about the corona protective measures.

A few days ago, the Berlin Administrative Court also classified the regulations there for school lessons under pandemic conditions as illegal. The court ruled that in future the 7th and 9th grade classes must also receive face-to-face tuition.

What is special about the above-mentioned judgment by the Ludwigsburg district court is that not only the procedure of the corona measures or some details, but the ordinances themselves were picked up.

Comment: "You constantly refer to the Basic Law. Do you say you are a lateral thinker?"

The judge has taken up arguments that have been expressed by critics of the Corona measures for a year. But these people were very quickly put in the corner of irrationalism. Then it did not take long and rights, which stand for state authority and the suppression of opposition, posed as defenders of fundamental rights.

Conversely, some leftists acted according to the motto "open your mask and shut up". People who revert to basic rights like the publicist Rolf Gössner quickly found themselves under pressure to justify themselves. The chansonnier Franz Josef Degenhardt wrote in the 1970s song: Questioning a conscientious objector: "You constantly refer to the Basic Law. Tell me, are you actually a communist?"

He put these words in the mouths of Commission officials who were supposed to check the consciences of young men who wanted to refuse military service. Updated today, the sentence could be varied as follows: "You constantly refer to the Basic Law. Do you say you are a lateral thinker?"

It is therefore pleasing if the judiciary is now paying more attention to whether the Corona measures could collide with fundamental rights. This is especially important now that there is talk of a new lockdown. So far the judiciary has not been a big brake. This could change now. (Peter Nowak)

Read comments (546 posts) https://heise.de/-5991693Report an errorDrucken