Germany's constitutional court ruled Tuesday that sweeping restrictions to stem coronavirus infections such as curfews, school closures and contact restrictions were lawful, in a decision that could pave the way for further curbs.
The verdict came hours before Chancellor Angela Merkel was due to meet with her designated successor, Olaf Scholz, as well as regional leaders of Germany’s 16 states on whether to toughen up restrictions to tame raging infections.
Helge Braun, Merkel’s chief of staff, told the RTL broadcaster the court decision would show “which of two paths we should go down”.
The meeting, due to be held remotely, comes amid a record wave of infections in Germany.
The country recorded 45,753 new infections on Tuesday and 388 deaths, according to the Robert Koch Institute health agency.
Hospitals have long been sounding the alarm, with many already over capacity and sending patients to other parts of Germany.
To tame the surge, Europe’s biggest economy has over the last weeks began requiring people to prove they are vaccinated, have recovered from Covid 19 or have recently tested negative before they can travel on public transport or enter workplaces.
Several of the worst-hit areas have gone further, cancelling large events like Christmas markets and barring the unvaccinated from bars, gyms and leisure facilities.
But with infections shooting to new records day after day, calls have grown louder for further curbs.
‘Lockdown for the unvaccinated’
Germany’s vice-chancellor-in-waiting Robert Habeck on Tuesday called for tougher restrictions to slow the spread of the disease.
“What has to happen is absolutely clear: contacts must be reduced,” the co-leader of the Green party said, also calling for unvaccinated people to be banned from “all public facilities” apart from essential shops.
“We will need new uniform measures to get through the winter,” Habeck said, also urging Germany’s federal states to apply the “range of options” they already have, such as cancelling Christmas markets.
“This is then – it must be said so harshly – a lockdown for the unvaccinated,” he said.
Article
Archive
The German government's "emergency brake" measures have been deemed constitutional by a top court. The restrictions, imposed automatically if infection rates passed certain levels, included school closures and curfews.
Restrictions imposed by the German government on the populations of individual federal states to curb the spread of the coronavirus were fundamentally in line with the constitution, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday.
The so-called emergency brake, which was in force in Germany from April to the end of June, obliged states or districts to put in place curfews and other restrictive measures if the seven-day incidence rate per 100,000 people rose above 100 on three consecutive days. The measures included school closures if the rate surpassed 165 on three consecutive days.
The court handed down two rulings on Tuesday, one regarding curfews and contact restrictions, the other regarding school closures. Both rulings dismissed complaints against the measures that had been lodged with the court.
Several of the complaints were made by parliamentarians from the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP), one of the three parties in the incoming coalition government. FDP leader Christian Lindner was among the complainants.
It said the ban on in-person school attendance did not violate the right to schooling enshrined in the German constitution, with schools implementing online lessons when school closures were ordered. It also cited the fact that the closures were temporary in nature as being conducive to their compatibility with the constitution.
While conceding that the measures did infringe on some fundamental rights, they were in line with the constitution "amid the extremely dangerous situation of the pandemic," the court said.
The rulings give a framework defining how much scope the national government has with regard to future measures taken to combat the pandemic.
Acting Chancellor Angela Merkel and her designated successor, Olaf Scholz, have said they will hold an online meeting with state premiers on Tuesday afternoon to discuss anti-COVID strategies in light of the court's decisions.
Acting Interior Minister Horst Seehofer welcomed the rulings by the court.
"The federal emergency brake entailed grave restrictions, but it enabled us to reduce infection numbers," he wrote onTwitter, adding: "I am sure that this will also be the aim of the future German government. The federal government and states must do all that is necessary to save lives."
Top FDP politician Marco Buschmann, who has been designated as the new justice minister, however, expressed disappointment at the rulings, particularly regarding curfews. But he said his party believed in the rule of law and respected the court's decision.
The Constitutional Court is to hand down a ruling at a later date on some 100 individual complaints regarding restrictions on the retail sector, cultural events and hotel industry, among other things.
The "emergency brake" was put in place as the country fought a third wave of the pandemic. There have been calls from some state premiers for the brake to be reimposed as a fourth wave rages in the country but so far nothing has been decided as the new coalition government prepares to take power.
Article
Archive
The verdict came hours before Chancellor Angela Merkel was due to meet with her designated successor, Olaf Scholz, as well as regional leaders of Germany’s 16 states on whether to toughen up restrictions to tame raging infections.
Helge Braun, Merkel’s chief of staff, told the RTL broadcaster the court decision would show “which of two paths we should go down”.
The meeting, due to be held remotely, comes amid a record wave of infections in Germany.
The country recorded 45,753 new infections on Tuesday and 388 deaths, according to the Robert Koch Institute health agency.
Hospitals have long been sounding the alarm, with many already over capacity and sending patients to other parts of Germany.
To tame the surge, Europe’s biggest economy has over the last weeks began requiring people to prove they are vaccinated, have recovered from Covid 19 or have recently tested negative before they can travel on public transport or enter workplaces.
Several of the worst-hit areas have gone further, cancelling large events like Christmas markets and barring the unvaccinated from bars, gyms and leisure facilities.
But with infections shooting to new records day after day, calls have grown louder for further curbs.
‘Lockdown for the unvaccinated’
Germany’s vice-chancellor-in-waiting Robert Habeck on Tuesday called for tougher restrictions to slow the spread of the disease.
“What has to happen is absolutely clear: contacts must be reduced,” the co-leader of the Green party said, also calling for unvaccinated people to be banned from “all public facilities” apart from essential shops.
“We will need new uniform measures to get through the winter,” Habeck said, also urging Germany’s federal states to apply the “range of options” they already have, such as cancelling Christmas markets.
“This is then – it must be said so harshly – a lockdown for the unvaccinated,” he said.
Article
Archive
COVID: German Constitutional Court rules 'emergency brake' measures were legal
The German government's "emergency brake" measures have been deemed constitutional by a top court. The restrictions, imposed automatically if infection rates passed certain levels, included school closures and curfews.
Restrictions imposed by the German government on the populations of individual federal states to curb the spread of the coronavirus were fundamentally in line with the constitution, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on Tuesday.
The so-called emergency brake, which was in force in Germany from April to the end of June, obliged states or districts to put in place curfews and other restrictive measures if the seven-day incidence rate per 100,000 people rose above 100 on three consecutive days. The measures included school closures if the rate surpassed 165 on three consecutive days.
The court handed down two rulings on Tuesday, one regarding curfews and contact restrictions, the other regarding school closures. Both rulings dismissed complaints against the measures that had been lodged with the court.
Several of the complaints were made by parliamentarians from the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP), one of the three parties in the incoming coalition government. FDP leader Christian Lindner was among the complainants.
What did the court say?
In its ruling, the court said the restrictions on the number of people allowed to meet up and the curfews from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. were proportionate to the situation.It said the ban on in-person school attendance did not violate the right to schooling enshrined in the German constitution, with schools implementing online lessons when school closures were ordered. It also cited the fact that the closures were temporary in nature as being conducive to their compatibility with the constitution.
While conceding that the measures did infringe on some fundamental rights, they were in line with the constitution "amid the extremely dangerous situation of the pandemic," the court said.
The rulings give a framework defining how much scope the national government has with regard to future measures taken to combat the pandemic.
Acting Chancellor Angela Merkel and her designated successor, Olaf Scholz, have said they will hold an online meeting with state premiers on Tuesday afternoon to discuss anti-COVID strategies in light of the court's decisions.
Acting Interior Minister Horst Seehofer welcomed the rulings by the court.
"The federal emergency brake entailed grave restrictions, but it enabled us to reduce infection numbers," he wrote onTwitter, adding: "I am sure that this will also be the aim of the future German government. The federal government and states must do all that is necessary to save lives."
Top FDP politician Marco Buschmann, who has been designated as the new justice minister, however, expressed disappointment at the rulings, particularly regarding curfews. But he said his party believed in the rule of law and respected the court's decision.
Why was the 'emergency brake' controversial?
The "emergency brake" agreed by the federal government in April proved controversial, as under the current version of the Infection Protection Act, Germany's 16 states usually enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy with regard to enacting and enforcing pandemic protection measures.The Constitutional Court is to hand down a ruling at a later date on some 100 individual complaints regarding restrictions on the retail sector, cultural events and hotel industry, among other things.
The "emergency brake" was put in place as the country fought a third wave of the pandemic. There have been calls from some state premiers for the brake to be reimposed as a fourth wave rages in the country but so far nothing has been decided as the new coalition government prepares to take power.
Article
Archive
