The Constitutional Court of Saxony: Drawing Lines in the Sand During the Coronavirus Pandemic
Constitutional Validity of Coronavirus Measures Granted with Appropriate Exceptions - Constitutionality of Corona Measures: Exemptions Affirmed by Court
You know the drill, the coronavirus pandemic hit us hard in early 2021, and our government took swift action. The state of Saxony, a hotspot for the virus, enacted a slew of measures, but the Constitutional Court of Leipzig had some issues with two of them.
Two steps over the line
Matthias Grünberg, the president of the Constitutional Court in Leipzig, said that the coronavirus protection regulations of January 26, 2021, and February 12, 2021, were largely constitutional with two major exceptions. The restrictions on the number of participants at weddings and funerals, along with the nighttime curfew, were deemed unconstitutional by the court.
Why the fuss? The court argued that the restrictions on wedding and funeral guest lists were not linked to the infection rate and lacked a proper balance between protecting life and health and family life’s special significance. As for the curfew, it wasn't based on a thorough risk assessment, according to the constitutional guardians.
But hey, don't freak out! The judges didn't bat an eye at the other measures, like restrictions on contact and curfews in public spaces, the ban on public alcohol consumption, and limitations on assembly numbers. The Constitutional Court also didn't allow appeals against other measures, such as the closure of hospitality businesses and close-contact providers.
Infected like hell back in early ’21
In the early days of 2021, Saxony was Germany's COVID-leader, with an alarmingly high number of new cases. The seven-day incidence rate, a fancy way of saying the number of new infections per 100,000 inhabitants within a week, was above 300 for several days straight. It was a gruesome time, with more than 100 deaths daily due to or with the virus.
Time for some chides
AfD state parliamentarians, a bunch of grumps with political differences, took it upon themselves to challenge the two unconstitutional measures through a process called norm control. Their representative argued that the government imposed harsh restrictions on the population without a solid scientific foundation. The measures were excessive and lacked a clear connection to the then-infection situation.
The government's response, essentially, was "yeah, but we were trying to protect life!" They acknowledged that the measures were annoying and sometimes extreme, but the goal was to keep everyone as healthy as possible. Additionally, they claimed there just wasn't time for a comprehensive scientific approach during the crisis.
- Coronavirus
- Pandemic Control
- Curfew
- Public Alcohol Ban
- Participant Number
- Constitutional Court
- State Government
- Gathering
Insights:
In similar cases throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, courts generally deemed unconstitutional any restrictions that lacked a clear link to the actual risk posed by the pandemic. Critics argued that these measures often lasted longer than necessary or were not adequately tailored to constitutional standards. If you're curious about the specific reasoning of the Saxon Constitutional Court, you might want to check out their official documents or press releases.
- The Constitutional Court in Leipzig deemed unconstitutional the restrictions on the number of participants at weddings and funerals due to a lack of link between the restrictions and the infection rate.
- In the process of norm control, AfD state parliamentarians questioned the scientific foundation and the excessive measures imposed by the government during the pandemic, arguing that they lacked a clear connection to the then-infection situation.
- During the coronavirus pandemic, courts have generally considered any restrictions that are not adequately tailored to constitutional standards and lack a clear link to the actual risk posed by the pandemic as unconstitutional.
