With the federal emergency brake, the corona measures are standardized from an incidence of 100. An SPD politician, on the other hand, wants to take it to court.
Berlin – The Munich Bundestag member Florian Post does not want to accept the federal emergency brake. If there are no further changes to the planned law, the SPD legal expert wants to take action before the Federal Constitutional Court. He had already announced this step last week. Florian Post now wants to translate his words into deeds: “If the Federal Council approves the law tomorrow and the Federal President signs it in its current form, I will file a constitutional complaint against it,” said the SPD politician Focus Online. A corresponding draft should already be ready and available Focus Online in front.
“I am convinced that there are smaller options for intervention in order to achieve the goal of containing the pandemic,” says Post. “For a year now we’ve only heard two options: lockdown yes or no, curfew yes or no. There are interim solutions. You can save lives with other, less serious means. ”
The complaint was written by the Freiburg constitutional law professor Dietrich Murswiek. The renowned lawyer has already brought several lawsuits before the Federal Constitutional Court and helped some parties, including the Greens, the Left and the ÖDP. In addition, he has also repeatedly worked for the AfD. In 2018 he wrote an expert opinion for the AfD parliamentary group in which he analyzed the conditions under which the protection of the constitution is allowed to observe the AfD. From this he derived advice for their public behavior and made various recommendations, reports the time.
Merkel’s federal lockdown is “disproportionate” and “unconstitutional”
In the constitutional complaint, Dietrich Murswiek comes to the conclusion that both the contact restrictions within the family and the planned curfew between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. are “disproportionate” and “unconstitutional”. In addition, the closings of the retail and outdoor restaurants would violate the fundamental rights of the citizens: inside. The main argument of the lawyer is that the legislature does not sufficiently prove that the federal lockdown is absolutely necessary and that there is no alternative. With regard to the topic of outdoor catering, Murswiek argues that it is possible to “limit tables for several people to people from one household or to groups” who are even allowed to meet in closed rooms according to the current contact restrictions. “If a negative test is also required, the remaining risk of complete insignificance should be minimized,” says the draft Focus Online.
In addition, the lawyer considers the curfew to be a “shot in the dark” or “a draconian measure” that is ordered in the hope that it will bring something to the pandemic fight. “That is not enough to justify the encroachment on fundamental rights.” “The risk of infection when walking through the city, which is almost deserted at night, tends towards zero,” argues Murswiek. “In the country, after 10 p.m. and especially after midnight, you won’t get into a dense crowd outside, you will meet practically no people.”
The SPD health expert Karl Lauterbach, for example, sees the exit restriction as an important means in combating pandemics. After all, it is not about preventing walks, but rather: “This means that fewer meetings take place in the rooms in the evenings, because somehow you have to go to the neighbors, to the friends where you are going to spend the evening.” , so Lauterbach to ntv.
Constitutional action against the federal emergency brake – “The consideration of a rural or urban district can fall short”
Murswiek also criticizes the incidence values, as they are not a suitable means of orientation to trigger a general lockdown for an entire district. “The consideration of a rural or urban district can be too short,” he writes. If the incidences are much lower in the neighboring districts, the entire situation must be assessed differently and is less dangerous. This assumption also applies the other way round. If the incidences are higher in the neighboring districts, a higher infection dynamic is more likely than the incidence value suggests. The constitutional lawyer therefore draws the conclusion: “This control of the corona measures solely on the basis of the incidence values is incompatible with the principle of proportionality and therefore unconstitutional,” said Muswiek in his draft, the Focus Online is present.
In addition, the lawyer criticizes the orientation towards the figures from the Robert Koch Institute as the “trigger” of the federal lockdown: “The incidence determined by the RKI is (…) very dependent on the test strategy being followed.” Tests were carried out, the more positive results in absolute numbers and also in relation to the population one would find. “Conversely, if one were to test significantly less, the incidence determined by the RKI would automatically decrease,” argues Murswiek and calls for the situation in the intensive care units and the number of ventilated patients to be included in the assessment of the situation.
Charité virologist Christian Drosten tweeted last week: “It is not true that significantly more is being tested.” It is also not true that fewer patients are admitted to hospital despite higher incidences. “This effect will occur in a few weeks, but it is not there yet.” Whether the constitutional complaint has really been submitted to the Federal Constitutional Court and if it will be successful remains to be seen.
FDP wants to take action against the Infection Protection Act before the Federal Constitutional Court
But the FDP party and its boss Christian Lindner have also announced a constitutional complaint against the amendment to the Infection Protection Act before the Federal Constitutional Court. “We see the curfew rules constitutionally unchanged as highly problematic,” he said on Wednesday Editorial network Germany. The regulation on the curfew is “not necessary to fight the pandemic, but an encroachment on fundamental rights”.
The domestic policy spokesman for the FDP parliamentary group, Konstantin Kuhle, said the RND– Newspapers, a large number of FDP MPs will lodge a constitutional complaint for themselves “in the next few weeks”. The parliamentary group as a whole is not allowed to do this because a quarter of the MPs are required for a norm review complaint. The FDP missed the quorum. (dp / AFP)
#Disproportionate #SPD #prevent #federal #lockdown #constitutional #complaint