As soon as the new Infection Protection Act is in place, it may be shaking again – Andrea Kießling from the Ruhr University in Bochum expresses doubts about the legality of the current regulations.
Bochum – Andrea Kießling, as an expert on infection protection law, is regularly invited to hearings in the Bundestag. In an interview with the mirror the university lecturer is critical of the new regulations on the corona pandemic – and indicates that certain regulations may not stand up to judicial review.
Infection Protection Act: Expert speaks of “responsibility ping-pong” in politics
“How can it be that Lauterbach and others from the federal government see the mask requirement as a necessity, but do not prescribe it? Politicians transfer these conflicts into the private sphere.” Andrea Kießling’s verdict on the “responsibility ping-pong” with regard to the most heated point of contention in terms of the Infection Protection Act is clear.
According to the expert, the fact that the regulations relating to the obligation to wear masks are now basically the responsibility of the federal states and are linked to stricter requirements is in paradoxical contrast to the Federal Minister of Health’s request to retailers to require customers to wear mouth and nose protection by domiciliary rights . Is it about giving up responsibility? “Somehow one hopes that enough people will be cautious on their own for a while,” the expert speculates.
Infection protection law expert: “I actually see three uncertainties”
With regard to the hotspot regulation, the expert is not very enthusiastic – she sees “three uncertainties”, according to Kießling. The current legal situation requires proof of a concrete risk of a dynamically spreading infection situation, i.e. a malignant virus variant of the coronavirus must be spreading and/or the hospitals must be at risk of being overloaded. “Both are very general and harbor uncertainties,” says the expert with regard to the vaguely defined terminology; much is a matter of “interpretation”.
The generally possible decision to declare an entire federal state a hotspot must also be able to be legally justified, which entails high requirements. Furthermore, the expert sees difficulties in actually implementing the law: “Does the state parliament really not only have to assess the situation in the individual districts, but also decide on the measures there?” She considers this procedure “not practicable”, according to Kießling.
Expert: Infection Protection Act as a State Constitutional Violation?
Another interesting statement made by the expert in the interview is the following: In the fact that a test requirement for children is easily possible – there is explosive news on this in Bavaria – but a mask requirement is subject to strict requirements, she sees “a clear contradiction. A test always only prevents the subsequent infection. A mask requirement, on the other hand, can prevent the first infection.”
Personally, Kießling does not think it is disproportionate to maintain the general obligation to wear masks, for example in supermarkets, especially to protect children from the corona virus. “Another question is whether, conversely, the state is violating the constitution if it does not protect children.” This suggestion by the infection protection lawyer could properly provide social explosives – a law contrary to the Basic Law is not eo ipso obsolete, but such a law would be Political faux pas Water on the mills of all argumentative people on the subject of mask requirements. “In any case, it would be advisable to really discuss the relevant political decisions,” advises Kießling, at least urgently. (askl)
#state #violate #constitution #Infection #Protection #Act #Experts #express #great #concern