Scope of decision-making for the Federation and the Länder in the case of Corona-relaxations
The Federation and the Länder must be on 6. In may 2020, approved relaxations in the course of the COVID-19-pandemic, neither take back nor expand. You have the measures for the protection of the health of the population, a wide “margin of appreciation, Evaluation and design game room”, the Federal constitutional court two on Thursday, 14. May 2020, published decisions clearly (Az: 1 BvR 1027/20 and 1 BvR 1021/20). The judges rejected this constitutional complaints, in which the applicant of the extension of containment measures to COVID-19 pandemic and another further demanded relaxations.
Applicant sought an extension of the measures
In the first method, a nearly 65-year-old man feared that the Federal government and the länder agreed relaxations of the home and contact restrictions violate the right to physical integrity. He was given his old age to a risk group that is at risk for infection with the Virus SARS-CoV-2. He demanded from the Federal constitutional court, a preliminary injunction, that the easing suspended and the Openings of the schools for the time being, be prohibited. The state is obliged to protect his health.
Further, plaintiff objected to Corona-measures
In the second case, the German tribe called the end of the applicant to the contrary. He alleged that the Federation and the Länder provide still much to far-reaching mitigation measures, and its freedom rights are limited. He was younger and do not belong to a risk group. The risks are therefore low, a Corona infection is to compare him with a normal flu. The freedom of younger, not vulnerable people but should not be limited to the protection of at-risk groups. The state could adopt quarantine measures alone against vulnerable persons.
However, with the cases discussed 3. or 1. Chamber of the Federal constitutional court rejected the constitutional complaints with decisions from the 13. In may 2020, as inadmissible. In the first proceedings, the court confirmed the state’s obligation “to protecting and promoting the lives and to protect health impairments”. However, the breach of this duty of Protection that the Federal constitutional court only “if nothing is done, if measures are obviously inappropriate or inadequate, or when they remain significantly behind the protection target”.
This is not the case. The Federal government and the Länder have in easing a wide assessment, Evaluation and design of game room. With the loosening of other fundamental rights and the social acceptance of the pandemic-fighting should be ensured.
In the second procedure, the constitutional court reminded the younger Complainant in mind that the Corona-containment measures serve not only for his own protection, but also the protection of particularly vulnerable persons. To be the protection of the state is in principle entitled and obliged to do.
The Federal government and the countries, freedom restrictions, demand may
The Federal government and the countries are expected to meet regulations, “which is also probably healthier and less vulnerable people, to some extent, freedom of restrictions on demand”. So, the social part could have and freedom of vulnerable people are secured. Here’s a game room to the state in balancing the conflicting fundamental rights. The constitutional requirements of the countries may be misleading account of the fact that they limit the freedom of restrictions, and constantly loosen. (sb)