This article is continuously updated and updated.
After the Bavarian Administrative Court, the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig also subsequently overturned the particularly strict corona rules in Bavaria in spring 2020. The Bavarian exit restriction in April 2020 was not compatible with the principle of proportionality, said the presiding judge Renate Philipp. The federal judges rejected Bavaria’s appeal as “unfounded”.
A measure is only necessary if no equally effective and less burdensome means are available to achieve the goal. According to the court, a milder measure would have been contact restrictions that would have made it possible to stay outdoors with members of your own household. “They would have burdened the addressees less.” The Federal Administrative Court emphasized that the all-day ban on leaving one’s own apartment to stay outdoors was a serious infringement of fundamental rights.
Leaving the apartment only with “valid reason”
Specifically, the legal dispute was regarding the Bavarian Corona Ordinance of March 31, 2020, which was in force from April 1 to 19, 2020. While contact restrictions applied in other federal states at the time, Prime Minister Markus Söder (CSU) and his state government relied on a stricter method – an exit restriction.
At that time, leaving one’s own apartment in the Free State was only permitted with “valid reasons”. These included professional activities and visits to the doctor, shopping, the way to your life partner as well as sports or exercise in the fresh air, “but only alone or with members of your own household”. The police were required to monitor compliance with the rules. There was an exit restriction in Bavaria before and following – but the current procedure was only regarding the period in the first half of April.
Federal Judge: Not plausibly justified
In their decision today, the federal judges in Leipzig pointed out that the exit restrictions in Bavaria made it illegal, for example, to read a book on a park bench. The state government did not plausibly justify that stricter rules than restricting contact were necessary to prevent the spread of corona.
Holetschek defends Bayern’s approach
Despite the legal defeat, Bavaria’s Health Minister Klaus Holetschek (CSU) once once more defended the state government’s actions: At the time, it was necessary to act quickly to protect people. “In the spring of 2020, there was limited knowledge of the novel and highly contagious coronavirus, no medicines and no vaccine.”
It was important to make decisions quickly and not to hesitate too long. “The infection curve might only be flattened by fewer contacts,” emphasized the minister. The greatest possible reduction in the risk of infection was necessary because of the severe course of the disease and the lack of immune protection in the population: “Protecting people was the benchmark and goal of our actions.”
“Effective and correct means”
According to Holetschek, the state government is still convinced that the exit restrictions from the end of March to the beginning of April 2020 for the well-being and safety of the citizens of Bavaria “were an effective and correct means from the point of view at the time”. Nothing will change if the courts come to a different assessment in retrospect. “We respect the decision and we will carefully analyze the reasons for the verdict and draw the necessary conclusions from it.”
Bavarian Administrative Court: “Disproportionate”
With its decision, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the line of the Bavarian Administrative Court. This had subsequently declared the strict regulation of the Free State to be ineffective a year ago. In its specific form, the exit restriction was so narrow that it was disproportionate.
In addition, the nationwide exit restriction in its specific form was also “inappropriate”, the court said at the time. “Here, regional and local measures would have been the milder means.” The state government however, appealed.
Saxon corona restrictions confirmed
At the same time as the Bavarian regulation, the Federal Administrative Court also examined the effectiveness of several legal provisions of the Saxon Corona Protection Ordinance of April 17, 2020. This involved contact restrictions, the closure of sports facilities and restaurants. The federal judges, like the Saxon Higher Administrative Court before them, classified these measures as proportionate and lawful. “The commandments and prohibitions attacked were suitable and necessary for achieving the goal,” said judge Philipp.
