Coronavirus Restrictions in Saxony: Court Decision Upholds Most Measures, Disallows Some
Constitutional Validity of Selected Coronavirus Restrictions Upheld by Court - Constitutional Validity of COVID-19 Measures, Allowing for Exceptions Granted
,
The Saxony government's response to the COVID-19 outbreak in early 2021 included strict measures, such as contact and curfew restrictions, a ban on public alcohol consumption, and limits on gatherings. According to the Saxony Constitutional Court in Leipzig, these measures were generally upheld, but not without a few exceptions.
Two regulations deemed unconstitutional
The Saxony Constitutional Court, presided over by Matthias Grünberg, declared that the majority of the coronavirus protection regulations in place from January 26, 2021, and February 12, 2021, were constitutional, except for two specific measures. The restrictions on the number of participants at weddings and funerals, as well as the nighttime curfew, were found to be in violation of the Saxony constitution.
The court argued that the restrictions on wedding and funeral attendees were not tied to the infection rate and failed to acknowledge the special significance of these events for family life. Furthermore, the nighttime curfew was not grounded on a comprehensive risk assessment.
Unopposed measures
Despite criticism, the judges did not object to the remaining measures, including limits on public and private contacts, as well as restrictions on the number of participants at assemblies. Additionally, the court declined to challenge other measures, such as the closure of hospitality businesses and close-contact service providers, as well as the public alcohol ban.
A COVID-19 hotspot
In January 2021, Saxony held the highest seven-day incidence rate among all federal states, with daily deaths from the virus exceeding 100. Since the two restrictive regulations were put into effect, the incidence rate has decreased gradually.
Controversy over scientific basis
38 state parliamentarians from the AfD challenged the constitutionality of the two contentious regulations through a norm control procedure. During the hearing, their representative argued that the state government had imposed measures without a scientific basis, and that the measures were excessive and disconnected from the infection situation at the time.
The state government defended its actions, emphasizing the need to protect citizens' lives and well-being. While these measures may have appeared harsh, they were considered necessary to address the urgent public health crisis. Moreover, the government contends that new knowledge acquired since the regulations were implemented should not be used to invalidate them.
Context:
German courts, including the Federal Constitutional Court, have been involved in numerous cases related to the restrictions on personal freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, courts have upheld measures deemed proportionate and necessary to protect public health but have also struck down measures considered excessive or disproportionate. In one instance, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled on April 16, 2020, that blanket bans on rallies were unconstitutional, allowing certain protests to proceed with conditions. In another instance, a court in Gütersloh ordered a lockdown to be halted, as some measures were deemed too restrictive as the pandemic risks became better understood. To find specific reasons for the Saxony Constitutional Court's rulings, it would be necessary to consult the court's official decisions or relevant legal documents directly related to those cases.
- The Saxony government's COVID-19 measures, including restrictions on contacts, curfews, and public gatherings, were generally upheld by the Saxony Constitutional Court, but regulations limiting the number of attendees at weddings and funerals were found unconstitutional.
- In the context of health-and-wellness and policy-and-legislation, the Saxony Constitutional Court deemed the nighttime curfew unconstitutional as it was not grounded on a comprehensive risk assessment.
- Despite criticism, the court did not object to various measures including limits on public and private contacts, restrictions on the number of participants at assemblies, the closure of hospitality businesses, and the public alcohol ban – all under the umbrella of science and politics.
