Start page Austria

Austria

Basic information Substance of the ruling  Accessibility of the case and further relevant links
Date Name of the case (or case number)   The body delivering the decision  Keywords, topic Executive part Brief summary Full text Page at the website of the issuing court Page in other databases Unofficial materials, press communications 
June 30. 2022. VfGH V 312/2021 Federal Constitutional Court of Austria Freedom of the arts; right to equality; discrimination The Constitutional Court of Austria held that the exclusion of non-vaccinated persons from certain cultural activities was unconstitutional. A ministerial decree ordered that non-vaccinated persons should not attend cultural events except from educational and religious purposes. The claimants held that this rule was discriminatory and made an irrational differentiation amongst cultural activities, thus excluded several persons from several cultural events without compelling reasons. The Constitutional Court upheld the claim and considered that the differentiation lacked objective grounds, therefore, it was unconstitutional. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH-Erkenntnis_V_312_2021_vom_30._Juni_2022.pdf      
29. 04. 2022 V23/2022 Constitutional Court Private and family life, Freedom of movement of people, Principle of equal treatment  Claim rejected. According to an ordinance, customers were allowed to enter in shops only if they had recovered or had been vaccinated. The Claimant could only enter places with provided for basic needs because she was neither vaccinated nor recovered. According to the Claimant, her freedom of movement was violated because she was prohibited to take part in social and cultural life. Finally, the Claimant alleged an infringement on the principle of equal treatment by the law because the provided for a different treatment between recovered/vaccinated and non-vaccinated/non-recovered persons. The Court has not recognized an unequal treatment about the difference between recovered or vaccinated and non-recovered nor non-vaccinated. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20220429_22V00023_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v232022-2022-04-29  
29.04.2022 V35/2022‎  Constitutional Court  Freedom of movement of people, Private life, Principle of Equal treatment  Claim rejected.‎ The Claimant claimed that the freedom of movement ‎and the principle of equal treatment were violated because the challenged measure ‎had introduced differences among the low-risk group, ‎vaccinated/recovered people, and those who tested with high level of ‎antibodies. The ‎purpose of this measure was to tackle the specific risk posed by ‎persons, who were neither vaccinated nor recovered, but who had a ‎high level of antibodies. Court stated that the principle of equal treatment was not violated, because the differentiation ‎between vaccinated or recovered persons was based on the available scientific data and scientific ‎knowledge. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20220429_22V00035_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v352022-2022-04-29  
17.03.2022 No. V294/2021 Constitutional Court  Private life, Principle of equality Claim partially rejected. An unvaccinated claimant submitted a claim against the rules which contained within the 5th COVID-19 protection regulation. According to this regulation all persons without a 2G certification could only leave their home for purposes linked to basic personal needs or for work purposes. The Claimant required a declaration that the contested provision is unlawful and stated that there were four infringements: the principe of legality, private and family life; the right of self-determination; the principle of equality were violated. The Court has found that health reasons prevail, and that there was no discrimination between recovered or vaccinated people and non-recovered or non-vaccinated people because according to the scientific data there was lower potential for Covid-19 spread in the vaccinated category. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20220317_21V00294_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-no-v2942021-2022-03-17  
03.03.2022 V231/2021-15 Constitutional Court Scope of powers of public authorities; Private and family life; Principle of equality Claim rejected. An unvaccinated plaintiff tried to enter a discotheque by ‎showing a neutralizing antibodies certificate but the security guard ‎denied the access.‎ The Plaintiff claimed that the principle of equality was violated because the challenged ordinance differentiated between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated people. Additionally the Plainfiff claimed that the principle of legality was violated because the Minister’s opening ordinance could be met by complying ‎with the requirements set by the COVID-19 Measure law.‎ So the Plaintiff sought a finding that the ordinance was unlawful. Court stated that the (challenged) ordinance was based on ‎records and documents, which justified the precautionary measures in ‎the view of the rising rate of infection. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20220303_21V00231_00    https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v2312021-15-2022-03-03  
03.03.2022 V319/2021‎  Constitutional Court  Freedom to conduct a business, Scope of powers of public authorities, Principle of legality  Claim rejected. The Claimants were a group of owners of ‎accommodation services and cableway businesses. They had to close their businesses by an ordinance of the local authority and therefore they wanted to get compensation for the ‎loss of earnings. The Claimants submitted a claim to the administrative ‎Court of Salzburg, which considered that ‎the challenged ordinance was not based on sufficient ‎documentation because it did not record the circumstances, ‎which guided the ordinance’s issuer in the decision to order ‎the businesses’ closure. The Administrative Court of Salzburg‎ argued that the principle of legality was violated. The Administrative Court filed an application with the Constitutional Court and requested review ‎of the constitutionally of the challenged ordinance. No infringement to the principle ‎of legality has been found.‎ https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20220303_21V00319_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v3192021-2022-03-03  
26.01.2022  No. ‎7Ob200/21v Federal Supreme Court  Freedom of movement of people  The claim partially upheld.  The Claimant was in the care of a healthcare facility, because he was suffering from schizophrenia. The healthcare institution prescribed medicines to the Claimant which, according to the Claimant, restricted his freedom of movement. The claimant therefore filed an action against that measure. Due to the Covid-19 restrictions, the Court held the hearing via Skype during the First Instance Proceeding. furthermore, the expert did not speak to the applicant in person, so the expert opinion was drawn up on the basis of the medical institution's file on the Claimant. The application was dismissed by the court of first instance, and then the Court of Appelas also rejected the claim, because they were of the view that the medicines were administered to treat the patient's illness. The Claimant appealed to the highest Court, claiming that two constitutional rights had been violated, namely that the plaintiff had not been heard in person during the first instance proceedings and that his freedom of movement had been violated because of the medication he had been given. The first reason of appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, but the second reason of appeal was upheld. Finally the case was ‎referred again to the Court of First Instance.‎ https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=6b44de65-1842-4b76-99ac-   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-supreme-court-no-7ob20021v-2022-01-26  
15.12.2021  G233/2021‎  Constitutional Court  Scope of powers, Freedom to conduct a business, Principle of equality, Property  Claim rejected. The Constitutional Court has been asked to review several provisions on financial support for businesses in financial difficulties. A financial support was provided through COFAC, which is a private company owned by the federal government. The granting of aid was a recognised, non-administrative activity. The activities of financial support itself were subject to private law. The applicants allege infringement of the principle of equal treatment in that undertakings whose applications for financial assistance are rejected have no right of appeal. The applicants alleged a breach of the principle of legality on two grounds: the Ministry of Finance acts in a dual role, as an expert and as a decision-making authority. In addition, the competence of the Ministry of Finance to enact secondary legislation on compensation for COVID-19 losses is not sufficiently detailed. The Court dismissed the action as no breach of the principle of legality had been established. According to the Court, the mitigation of the negative effects of pandemic COVID-19 required swift action, so that the legislator's use of this legal constuct  toforce financial support was not constitutionally impermissible. The legislature has a discretion to grant financial measures, taking into account the principle of equal treatment and objective criteria. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20211215_21G00233_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-g2332021-2021-12-15

https://www.rechnungshof.gv.at/rh/home/news/news/aktuelles/Rechnungshof_zeigt_-betraechtliches_Ueberfoerderungspoten.html#     

https://www.schoenherr.eu/content/financing-in-times-of-crisis-austrian-chapter/   

https://www.fwp.at/en/news/blog/covid-19-finance-update
25.11.2021 No. ‎9ObA99/21f‎  Federal Supreme Court  Labor law; Rule of law Claim upheld. The applicant was an employee of an administrative body and claimed that the right infringed is the right of labor protections.‎ The applicant encountered a person infected with the COVID-19 virus while working at the regional hospital and the competent health authority imposed a 14-day quarantine on the Claimant. During this period, the Defendant ceased to pay the infection and radiation risk allowance. Furthermore, the 1950 Epidemics Act entitled the applicant to receive regular remuneration. However, the Defendant objected that the allowances did not form part of the regular remuneration. The Court of First Instance shared the Defendant's argument. The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance decision. The claim for remuneration under the Epidemic Act is to be assessed on the basis of the regular remuneration under the Act on Continuous Remuneration. Thus, the aggravation, infection and radiation risk allowances are included in the remuneration. The Supreme Court shared the conclusion of the Court of Appeal.  https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=9ObA99/21f&VonDatum=&BisDatum=03.02.2022&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=e16802e9-d83a-409c-992d-a6bc321eee99&Dokumentnummer=JJT_20211125_OGH0002_009OBA00099_21F0000_000   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-supreme-court-no-9oba9921f-2021-11-25  
16.11.2021 No. ‎10ObS1125/m‎  Federal Supreme Court Right to health  Claim rejected. The Claimant needed surgery for an acute spinal problem. The surgery was scheduled for a few days later, under the condition that the Claimant provided a negative PCR test. This test was ‎carried out by a private clinic and its costs had been ‎supported by the Claimants.‎ The applicant claimed compensation for the additional costs from the insurer. However, the insuance company refused to pay compensation to the Claimant, who brought an action in the court of first instance on the grounds that the PCR test was a condition for access to necessary medical treatment. The Claimant applied to the Supreme Court for the refund for the PCR test. The Supreme Court dismissed the action. The basis of the court's reasoning was that the PCR test was a condition of medical care, but was not related to the spinal surgery. The purpose of the PCR test was to protect hospital admission and to protect clinic staff and patients. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=6b44de65-1842-4b76-99ac-0a109dfec7a7&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=True&Abfrage=Justiz&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=True&GZ=&VonDatum=20.10.2021&BisDatum=16.03.2022&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=Covid-19&Dokumentnummer=JJT_20211116_OGH0002_010OBS00125_21M0000_000   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-supreme-court-no-10obs1125m-2021-11-16  
06.10. 2021 V86/2021-19 Federal Constitutional Court of Austria  Health, right to information and freedom of expression Claim rejected. Different artists filed a claim against a precautionary anti-Covid-19 measures, because it banned concerts, tours , art exhibitions and performances. The Claimants alleged that that the challenged provision infringes the freedom of expression and the freedom of arts. The Constitutional Court dismissed the action because the legislator had struck a balance between the conflicting interests of monitoring the epidemic and ensuring the functioning of the health system. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH-Erkenntnis_V_86_2021_vom_6._Oktober_2021.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-v862021-19-2021-10-06  
 29. 09.2021 V155/2021-8 Constitutional Court  Right to bodily integrity; Right to education; Principle of equality  Claim rejected. A Ministry of Education decree introduced a colour-based system (green, yellow, orange and red) to regulate personal attendance at school. The Claimant was a student who filed a complaint against this measure. The claimant’s school had to comply with the red system. The students were divided into groups, which could attend classes on different days. The students also had to undergo a rapid test (on the first day of the week) and wear a face-mask. The Claimant alleged the infringement of the right to education, because the shift system restricted the students’ right to a full education. In addition, the applicant claimed that her right to psychological integrity had been infringed, because the restrictions hinder the development of social competences. The Constitutional Court considered the measure to be proportionate and reasonable because its aim is to control the virus. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210923_21V00155_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-v1552021-8-2021-09-29  
 23. 09. 2021 V5/2021-7 Federal Constitutional Court  Right to conduct business, Economic freedoms, Principle of equality Claim upheld. The applicant was the operator of a ski lodge that was not accessible by road. A regulation prohibited ski huts from opening to guests or from selling their products through take-away. But restaurants and other catering establishments were able to sell their products by take-away. According to the applicant, this provision is useless, as ski resorts are crowded even when the ski huts are closed. The applicant claimed the infringement of the principle of equality and of the right to conduct a business, and also also requested a declaration that the provision is unlawful. According to the Constitutional Court, there was no objective justification for different treatment between ski lodges and other accommodations therefore the provision infringed the principle of equality https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_Erkentnis_V_7_2021_vom_6._Oktober_2021.pdf https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210923_21V00005_00 https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-v52021-7-2021-09-23  
14.09.2021 No. ‎8ObA42/21s‎  Federal Supreme Court Labour law; Right to bodily integrity  Claim rejected The Defendant was the operator of a nursing home and the Claimant was an employee, a nurse since 2009. In November 2020, the Claimant's employment was terminated. This is because the defendant required its employees to peform an antigen test or a molecular biological test for Covid-19 once a week, and the Claimant refused to do this. According to the Claimant, he was under no legal obligation to tolerate interference with his physical and psychological integrity. The defendant argued that it had to comply with the legal requirements and protect the health of the elderly persons in its care. The Court of Appeals dismissed his appeal for two ‎reasons: the work council had agreed to weekly testing ‎and according to Austrian labor law this council ‎agreement is binding for its employees. The Court of ‎Appeals rejected the argument on the further grounds ‎that the legal provision was unconstitutional: ‎compliance was required until the Constitutional Court ‎provided otherwise. The claimant turned to the Federal Supreme Court to ‎appeal this decision.‎ The constitutional right involved the right to work as well ‎as the right of bodily integrity. The Federal Supreme Court ‎rejected the claim.‎ https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Justiz&Gericht=&Rechtssatznummer=&Rechtssatz=&Fundstelle=&AenderungenSeit=Undefined&SucheNachRechtssatz=False&SucheNachText=True&GZ=8ObA42/21s&VonDatum=&BisDatum=28.09.2021&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=true&ResultFunctionToken=19671fac-9c6c-40a4-b870-5c23ebe66b29&Dokumentnummer=JJT_20210914_OGH0002_008OBA00042_21S0000_000   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-supreme-court-no-8oba4221s-2021-09-14  
24. 06. 2021  Judgements n. V592/2020, V593/2020 Constitutional Court of Austria  Freedom to conduct a business; Freedom of movement of people; Right to health; Principle of equality  Claim rejected. The applicant was a company operating furniture shops. The applicant was prohibited from opening the business premises based on the Covid-19-emergency-regulation. This prohibition restricted the applicant's freedom to offer goods. In the other case, the applicant was a trading company (specialized in stationery). Some 360 of its shops had to be closed because of a ban on customers entering the premises. The Court held in both cases that the prohibition to enter or drive into the customer area of business-premises did not violate the principle of equality. There are other alternatives to selling, such as online webshop. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210624_20V00592_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-austrian-constitutional-court-judgements-n-v5922020-v5932020-2021-06-24  
24. 06. 2021 Judgement n.V2/2021 Constitutional Court of Austria  Right to private and family life; Freedom of religion; Freedom of association; Assembly  Claim partially upheld. The Ministry of Health issued a regulation, in which imposing restrictions on funerals. This meant that a maximum of 50 people could attend a funeral. The Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional the part of the regulation relating to funerals. In view of the importance of funerals (the fundamental right to respect private and family life and the freedom of religion), the Constitutional Court has been “unable to recognize” that a limit of 50 persons meets the requirement of proportionality. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/rechtsprechung/Ausgewaehlte_Entscheidungen.de.html https://www.vfgh.gv.at/rechtsprechung/Ausgewaehlte_Entscheidungen.de.html https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-austrian-constitutional-court-judgement-nv22021-2021-06-24  
23. 06. 2021 E1702/2021‎ Constitutional Court of Austria  Freedom to conduct a business; Principle of equality  Claim rejected The applicant was an energy supply company. It claimed that the entry prohibitions and movement restrictions affected the companies' employees and caused the virtual shutdown of a large part of the Austrian economy. The energy supply company therefore applied for compensation for loss of earnings pursuant to the Epidemic Act. The application for compensation was refused by the district authorities. Then the company's appeal was rejected by the administrative court. The Claimant then turned to the Constitutional Court, alleging a violation of the equality of citizens before the law and the inviolability of property, as well as a violation of rights resulting from the application of an unconstitutional law. In order to seek ‎compensation for a loss of earnings, the Claimant sought annulment of the ‎administrative Court decision. According to the Constitutional Court, the administrative ‎court did not infringe upon the principle of the equal ‎application of law. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210623_21E01702_00 https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-e17022021-2021-06-23    
 23. 06. 2021  E 4044/2020‎ Constitutional Court of Austria  Freedom to conduct a business; Right to property; Principle of equality  Claim upheld. The Claimant was a corporation, and the employees of the Claimant could not go to work due to an ordinance. According to this ordinance (issued by the District of B), people living in the cities within the district could not ‎leave or enter B’s district. The Claimant filed an application for compensation ‎due to the loss of earnings. The administrative authority of B. rejected this application. ‎The corporation filed an appeal against the ‎administrative authority’s decision. This appeal was ‎dismissed as unfounded by the Regional Administrative Court. ‎Alleging a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right ‎to the integrity of property and to the equality of all citizens ‎before the law, the Claimant turned to the Constitutional Court. The Claimant sought the annulment of the administrative court's decision. The Constitutional Court found that the Claimant's right to equal application of the law had been infringed. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210623_20E04044_00%20%E2%80%8E https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-e-40442020-2021-06-23 https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-e-40442020-2021-06-23  
16. 06. 2021  V34/2021 ua (V34/2021-12, V136/2021-11)‎ Constitutional Court of Austria  Scope of powers of public authorities; Freedom of movement of persons  Claim upheld The Covid-19 Measures Act empowered the competent federal minister to issue an regulation prohibiting the entry of persons into certain places. The competent federal minister could also provide further ‎conditions to enter specific places. A person did not comply with the regulation and was therefore subject to an administrative sanction. According to the regulation people in open spaces should ‎maintain a distance of at least 1 meter from another ‎person. The applicant was fined. The fines were challenged by the applicant before the competent administrative courts. The administrative Court ‎noticed that the challenged regulation lacked any ‎supporting documentation as to the motivations that ‎had moved the competent Minister to issue certain ‎obligations and prohibitions. Then the administrative court submitted an application to the Constitutional Court asking for a review of the constitutionality of the provision and whether it was unlawful because it exceeded the powers of the legislature. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210616_21V00034_00 https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-v342021-ua-v342021-12-v1362021-11-2021-06-16    
 10. 06. 2021 V35/2021-7‎ Constitutional Court of Austria  Right of bodily integrity; Freedom of movement of people; Scope of powers;  Claim rejected The applicant was not wearing a mask when entering a shop, therefore was fined for failure to comply with this obligation. The applicant filed an appeal to the administrative court. The administrative court asked the competent federal minister for a copy of the documents on which the obligations were based. The Minister did not reply, and the administrative court therefore applied to the Constitutional Court for a review of the regulation. Later found, the ‎challenged regulation was documented, and the regulation was supported by ‎considerations weighing the interests of corporations, ‎employees, and customers. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210610_21V00035_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-v352021-7-2021-06-10  
10. 03. 2021 Judgement n. V574/2020 Constitutional Court of Austria  Right to education; Principle of equality; Freedom of religion; Freedom of movement  Claim rejected The case concerned learning from home(distance learning). The distance learning for all kinds of schools was imposed by the Federal Ministry of Education. The Ministry's aim in imposing distance learning was to control the spread of the Covid-19. Contrary to the applicants' assertion on the right to education, it does not grant, without exception, the right to face-to-face teaching. The Court pointed out that preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the school system is in the public interest. Therefore, no infringement of the right to education has been found by the order of distance learning.  https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?ResultFunctionToken=13382c74-29f9-4c4c-a355-bc1fb1295af8&Position=1&SkipToDocumentPage=True&Abfrage=Vfgh&Entscheidungsart=Undefined&Sammlungsnummer=&Index=&SucheNachRechtssatz=True&SucheNachText=True&GZ=V574/2020&VonDatum=&BisDatum=22.09.2021&Norm=&ImRisSeitVonDatum=&ImRisSeitBisDatum=&ImRisSeit=Undefined&ResultPageSize=100&Suchworte=&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210310_20V00574_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-austrian-constitutional-court-judgement-n-v5742020-2021-03-10  
25. 02. 2021 V570/2020-13 Federal Constitutional Court  Scope of powers; Freedom of movement of people Claim upheld The Claimant (a Swiss citizen) was accused of having committed an ‎offense. He stayed within the Tirolean territory ‎without a residence in the Region. An administrative sanction was imposed on the Claimant, because according to the regional regulation citizens who did not have a place of ‎residence in Tyrol, were instructed to leave the ‎territory immediately. This regulation was based on the Covid-19 ‎Measures act. The Claimant challenged the sanction before the administrative court. The administrative court then filed an application to the Constitutional Court. The administrative court asked the Constitutional Court to do two things: 1. review the challenged provision; 2. examine whether there was an exceed of the limits of regulatory power. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the President of Tyrol exceeded his ‎power, so the regulation infringed the allocation of powers and the principle of legality. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20210225_20V00570_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-federal-constitutional-court-v5702020-13-2021-02-25  
February 25. 2021. VfGH W I 14/2020 Federal Constitutional Court of Austria Right to vote The Constitutional Court of Austria held that shortening the deadline set for candidates to collect supporting signatures before the Vienna city elections was constitutional. In October 11. 2020. a city elections was scheduled in Vienna, and due to the expectedly increased number of postal votings, the deadline set for candidates to collect supporting signatures from the citizens to stand as candidate was shortened with one week. The claimant held that this measure was unconstitutional since the additional difficulties caused by the global pandemic were disregarded, as a result, several candidates could not stand in the elections due to the lack of sufficient number of signatures. The Constitutional Court considered that this measure was reasonable and proportionate, since the period available for submitting and collecting signatures was still sufficiently long especially in the light of the relatively favourable public health circumstances, therefore, the elections and the shortened deadline were constitutional. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Vfgh/JFT_20210225_20W_I00014_00/JFT_20210225_20W_I00014_00.pdf      
10. 12. 2020 V 436/2020-15 Constitutional Court of Austria  Right to education; Right to private life; Principle of equality  Claim upheld The Federal Ministry of Education issued an ordinance imposing restrictive measures in schools including alternate attendance and distance learning, compulsory wearing of masks. Two children and their parents appealed to the Constitutional Court against these restrictive provisions. They argued that the challenged provisions violated the principle of equality, the right to private life and the right to education. Their argument that the legislator has not clearly defined the basis for the decision on the regulation. The Ministry of Education failed to state the reasons for its decision, and the Constitutional Court ruled that the contested provision was unconstitutional. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH_10.12.2020_V_436_2020_Covid-Massnahmen_in_Schulen.pdf   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v-4362020-15-2020-12-10 https://www.courthousenews.com/austrian-court-overturns-virus-mask-mandate-in-schools/
 01. 10. 2020  V392/2020 Constitutional Court of Austria Freedom to conduct a business; Right to property; Principle of equality  Claim upheld According to the COVID-19 Measures Act, the Minister of Health is empowered to issue an order prohibiting access to business premises to the extent necessary to combat the spread of the epidemic. The Minister of Health issued a decree prohibiting access to business premises. Exceptions to this were gas-stations and attached carwash facilities. Thereby this ban applies to stand-alone carwash facilities and not to those attached to a gas station. The Constitutional Court pointed out that this ordinance violated the principle of equality. Documents or indications relating to the circumstances of the scheme to be adopted are completely absent from the regulation. The motivation behind the regulation was not clear. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20201001_20V00392_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v3922020-2020-10-01  
 01.10.2020 V428/2020 Constitutional Court of Austria  Freedom to conduct a business; Freedom of movement of people; Right to private and family life Claim upheld. According to the Covid-19 Measure Act, the Ministry of Health is empowered to issue an order prohibiting access, enter to certain premises or areas and the leaving of one’s home other than for permitted reasons. So the Minister of Health issued an ordinance banning events with more than 10 people. Due to the lack of sufficient documentation pertaining determining the need for the ordinance, the Constitutional Court stated that this ordinance was unlawful. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20201001_20V00428_00 https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v4282020-2020-10-01 https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v4282020-2020-10-01  
July 14. 2020. V411/2020 Federal Constitutional Court of Austria Freedom to conduct a business; right to property; right to equality; discrimination The Federal Constitutional Court of Austria held that the store closure over 400 squaremeters of customer area lacked a reasonable justification and was based on an irrational distinction, therefore, was unconstitutional. An owner of a business challenged a store closure before the Constitutional Court, because the impugned measure provided exemptions from the scope of the mandatory closure on an allegedly arbitral ground, moreover, made an irrational distinction with the order of mandatory closure only for businesses over 400 squaremeters of customer area. The Constitutional Court held that the executive failed to provide adequate justification for this measure, and the distinction was arbitral, therefore, the impugned measure was unconstitutional. https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokument.wxe?Abfrage=Vfgh&Dokumentnummer=JFT_20200714_20V00411_00   https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-g2022020-etal-2020-07-14  
 14.07.2020  AUT-2020-2-002 a) Austria / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 14.07.2020 / e) V 363/2020 / f) / Constitutional Court Right to free movement; Freedom of property; Right to freedom of employment  Claim upheld The Federal Minister of Health issued an ordinance stating that visiting public places is generally prohibited. The applicant - who was an university assistant - claimed that he could only fulfil his professional duties, which include writing a dissertation, to a very limited extent – in particular because he was denied the use of the university's library. So the challenged regulation affected his right to freedom of employment. According to the Constitutional Court the challenged provisions were unlawful, because the limits set to the competent Federal Minister by Covid-19 Measures Act were exceeded. There was no clear legal mandate that explicitly provided for such a far-reaching interference with the right to free movement. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/Bulletin_2020-2_AUT-2020-2-002_V_363_2020.pdf    https://www.fricore.eu/sites/default/files/v_363_2020.pdf https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/Bulletin_2020-2_AUT-2020-2-002_V_363_2020.pdf  

https://www.internationallawoffice.com/Newsletters/Healthcare-Life-Sciences/Austria/Preslmayr-Attorneys-at-Law/Constitutional-Court-overrules-COVID-19-restrictions; https://www.eurotopics.net/en/244599/austria-s-corona-legislation-unconstitutional;     

https://www.fricore.eu/fc/content/austria-constitutional-court-14-july-2020-v-3632020
14.07.2020 AUT-2020-2-003 a) Austria / b) Constitutional Court / c) / d) 14.07.2020 / e) G 202/2020 / f) / Constitutional Court Right to property; Principle of equality  Claim rejected The applicants were business companies, and they filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court claiming the violation of their right to property. The contested regulation prohibited access to customer areas of business premises so the shops had to close. The applicants claimed compensation. The Constitutional Court pointed out that no obligation could be derived from the fundamental right to property to provide an additional claim for compensation and restrictions on property rights were deemed necessary to avoid further spread of Covid-19. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/Bulletin_2020-2-AUT-2020-2-003_G_202_2020.pdf   https://www.venice.coe.int/files/bulletin/Bulletin2020-2-E.htm  
 10. 03. 2020 V 573/2020 Constitutional Court of Austria  Data protection; Freedom to conduct a business Claim partially upheld The owner of a restaurant has raised a constitutional claim against an ordinance issued by the city government of Vienna. This ordinance was introducing new provisions on contact tracing, in connection with suspected cases of COVID-19. The Claimant stated that the contested ordinance violated the right to privacy and data protection, the principle of equality, the principle of legality, and the right to conduct a business. The Constitutional Court has partially upheld the claim and annulled the contested provisions. This is because the city government has not clearly reported on the necessary assessment of the necessity and proportionality of the regulation, as required by the underlying national law. https://www.vfgh.gv.at/downloads/VfGH-Erkenntnis_V_573_2020_vom_10._Maerz_2021.pdf https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/austria-constitutional-court-v-5732020-2021-03-10    

 

https://360.lexisnexis.at/d/entscheidungen-ris/v573_2020/u_verfassung_VfGH_2021_JFT_20210310_20V_cfe60cbd00

   https://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-occ19/law-occ19-e28