| 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 |
| November 15. 2023. | 2 BvF 1/22 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Public finances | The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany held that the reallocation from unused Covid-19-related state loans to cover the expenses of climate-related energy investments was unconstitutional, therefore, the reallocation was freezed. | The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany heard a challenge of conservative parliamentarians against the reallocation of 60 milliard euros from unused Covid-19 related loans to the fund financing climate and energy investments including the climate-friendly adaptation of the transportation system. During the emergency period the maximum limit of engaging new state dept amounts to 0,35% of the annual GDP, however, this was lifted during the public health emergency to cover the expenses of special economic measures. Due to the amelioration of the public health situation, the two chambers of the German Parliament agreed to reallocate unused Covid-related loans for climate purposes, however, this was challenged by conservative parliamentarians due to the alleged violation of constitutional principles. The Federal Constitutional Court agreed with the applicants and freezed the reallocation because the public health emergency terminated, and the parliamentary decision mixed short-term emergency needs with long-term policy goals, when allocated the fund concerned. Nevertheless, the Bundesverfassungsgericht underlined the importance of climate-related investments and called the Parliament to look for other financial sources to fund the planned investments. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2023/bvg23-091.html | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=15.11.2023&Aktenzeichen=2%20BvF%201%2F22 |
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/qa-what-german-top-courts-debt-brake-ruling-means-climate-policy; https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/court-ruling-forces-german-government-reshuffle-climate-policy-funds-worth-60-billion-euros; https://www.squirepattonboggs.com/de/insights/publications/2023/11/2021-60-billion-budget-for-climate-and-transformation-fund-declared-unconstitutional-by-german-constitutional-court |
|
| 06.12.2022 | 2 BvR 547/21, 2 BvR 798/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | EU recovery fund; economic recovery; rights of future generations; competence transfer; public finances | Germany's constitutional court threw out a legal challenge to the European Union's 750-billion-euro ($786 billion) recovery fund, which saw the EU take on joint debt to help member states overcome the COVID-19 crisis. | The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany found that EU's plan to receive a 786 billion loan to establish a recovery fund is in compliance with the German Constitution. The Commission may take on a dept up to 786 billion euros to provide financial aid for member states partly as grants, partly as loans; the respective amounts should be paid back during the following decades. This mechanism would impose uncomparably the largest burden on Germany amongst the member states. The Constitutional Court highlighted, that the joint loan should be authorized only in the light of the exceptional circumstances which entail a compelling need to tackle such measures. Therefore, the ruling left the question opened, whether joint borrowing may be constitutional also for the support of Ukraine during its war against Russia; moreover, it was explicitely stated by the Court, that joint dept is not allowed to finance ordinary political tasks. |
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/12/rs20221206_2bvr054721.html
|
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2022/bvg22-103.html | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=06.12.2022&Aktenzeichen=2%20BvR%20547%2F21 |
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/german-top-court-dismisses-challenge-eu-recovery-fund-2022-12-06/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/german-finance-minister-welcomes-court-ruling-eu-recovery-fund-2022-12-06/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-court-dismiss-eu-recovery-fund-challenge/ https://euobserver.com/rule-of-law/156511 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-06/court-clears-germany-s-role-in-800-billion-covid-recovery-fund https://www.dw.com/en/top-court-rules-germany-can-participate-in-eu-covid-fund/a-63999738 https://www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2022/kw49-verfassungsgericht-transferunion-925230 https://www.astrid-online.it/dossier/dossier--l4/index.html |
| 18.10.2022 | BVerfG 1 BvN 1/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Separation of powers; rule of law | The First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court declared a referral made by the Thuringian Constitutional Court. | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected to hear a referral made by the Thuringian Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of an emergency decree issued in Thuringia. The main question was, whether the Thuringian Parliament had the competence to authorize the executive power to enact emergency measures, or these should have been rendered by parliamentary decisions directly. The Federal Constitutional Court argued, that the motion concerned the concrete application of the challenged act, rather than an abstract point of law, therefore, the motion should not have been accepted under article 103. of the German Federal Basic Law. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/10/ns20221019_1bvn000121.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/10/ns20221019_1bvn000121.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-bverfg-1-bvn-121-2022-10-18 | |
| 18.08.2022 | 1 BvR 469/20, 1 BvR 472/20, 1 BvR 471/20, 1 BvR 470/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Vaccination mandate; rights of children; human dignity; right to conscience | The German constitutional court upheld the country's measles vaccine mandate for children, ruling against a challenge brought by parents. | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected several constitutional challenges against the mandatory measle vaccination of children. According to the claims, the vaccination mandate and the consequences envisaged (exclusion from certain child care services) means a too severe interference into the rights of parents under art. 6. (2) of the Basic Law, and the rights of children under art. 2. (2) of the Basic Law. The Constitutional Court considered, that the precedence of protecting children as a vulnerable group over the fundamental rights of parents and children concerned should be constitutionally acceptable, therefore, the challenges should be rejected. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/07/rs20220721_1bvr046920.html;
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2022/07/rs20220721_1bvr046920en.html;jsessionid=B8840A50209BE0EE301785A11A3983F5.2_cid354 |
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2022/bvg22-072.html | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=21.07.2022&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%20469%2F20 | https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/germanys-constitutional-court-upholds-measles-vaccine-mandate-children-2022-08-18/;
https://www.brak.de/newsroom/news/verfassungsbeschwerden-gegen-masernimpfpflicht-erfolglos/; https://www.dw.com/en/germany-mandatory-measles-vaccination-is-constitutional-top-court-rules/a-62844750;
https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/09/germany-federal-constitutional-court-rejects-challenge-against-mandate-requiring;
https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/masern-impfpflicht-bundesverfassungsgericht-urteil-101.html;
https://nemetorszagi-magyarok.de/hirek/gyerekek-oltasa-nemetorszagban |
| 08.03.2022 | No. 2 BvE 1/22 -, Rn. 1-66, | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Covid and Parliament; separation of powers; rule of law | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for preliminary injunction concerning a parliamentary order to restrict the participation of non-vaccinated an not-recovered members of the parliament to participate effectively at plenary and committee meetings. | The lower chamber of the German Parliament (Bundestag) adopted a general order which allowed only for vaccinated or recovered parliamentarians to attend plenary meetings and committee sittings after producing negative tests; non-vaccinated or non-recovered persons could attend such debates only from the designated seats in the tribunes, very distant from other attendees. Some parliamentarians requested preliminary injunction to suspend the application of this order, they argued, that it restricted considerably their effective participation in the parliamentary work. Non-vaccinated or non-recovered members were not admitted in smaller rooms, where designated places were not at their disposal, while the parliamentarians concerned also complained due to the lack of necessary facilities at the gallery (mycrophones, tables). The Federal Constitutional Court rejected the claim. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/03/es20220308_2bve000122.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/03/es20220308_2bve000122.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-constitutional-court-no-2-bve-122-rn-1-66-2022-03-08 | |
| 10.02.2022 | 1 BvR 2649/21. | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Mandatory vaccination; human dignity; right to conscience; right to exercise the chosen profession | On 27 April 2022, the German Constitutional Court rejected challenges to the vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. | The appellant submitted a complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, since a federal law ordered, that all employees should be removed from the public health sector unless they could prove vaccination against Covid-19; recovery from this illness; or exemption from the scope of mandatory vaccination. The claymant alleged, that this measure violates several fundamental rights, and requested a preliminary injunction to suspend the application of these provisions, however, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected the claim. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/04/rs20220427_1bvr264921.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/04/rs20220427_1bvr264921.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-264921-rn-1-23-2022-02-10;
|
https://www.covid19litigation.org/news/2022/05/germany-healthcare-workers-vaccine-mandates-justified-constitutional-court-holds;
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvR%202649/21; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=10.02.2022&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%202649%2F21 |
| 10.02.2022 | 1 BvR 2649/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Right to human dignity; right to bodily integrity; right to exercise the choosen profession; vaccination mandate | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a claim to block the application of a statute, which obliged employees in certain sectors including the public health sector to be vaccinated until a certain date. The non-compliance with this requirement resulted in the ban on continuing that activity. | During the Autumn of 2021, a law was adopted in Germany to impose the duty on certain employees including public health workers to be vaccinated until a specific date. Those, who denied to comply with this requirement were banned to continue their professional activities unless they would be vaccinated. Some employees from the public health sector challenged this measure and requested a preliminary injunction against its application, however, this request was rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court. The body considered, that the social interest of vaccinating public health workers should prevail over their right to human dignity, right to bodily integrity, and their right to exercise their chosen profession. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2022/02/rs20220210_1bvr264921.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2022/bvg22-012.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-264921-rn-1-23-2022-02-10;
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvR%202649/21; https://rewis.io/urteile/aktenzeichen/RCNM5BMV4J63T4J47B/ |
|
| 16.12.2021 | No. 1 BvR 1541/20 -, Rn. 1-131 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Equality; discrimination; rights of disabled persons | The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled, that proper safeguards should be provided for disabled persons to have equal access to medical services especially during Covid-19 pandemic; Parliament should regulate on this issue. | Some severely disabled persons subject to ventillation terapies brought a challenge before the Federal Constitutional Court due to the lack of proper access to medical services during the public health emergency. Since there were not sufficient medical services during this time, doctors should decide the order of priority between patients, and the law did not provide objective criteria for this prioritization. Claymants looked for safeguards to avoid discriminatory access to medical services, and the Constitutional Court accepted their argumentation. The Parliament was obliged to enact new regulation on this issue to comply with art. 3. (3) of the Basic Law. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/12/rs20211216_1bvr154120.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/EN/2021/bvg21-109.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-154120-rn-1-131-2021-12-16 | https://www.dw.com/en/covid-germany-must-protect-disabled-people-in-triage-cases-court-rules/a-60271619;
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/28/german-court-disabled-people-covid-triage; https://taz.de/BVerfG-zu-Menschen-mit-Behinderung/!5824484/ |
| 06.12.2021 | No. 2 BvR 2164/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Separation of powers; rule of law; Covid and parliament | The Federal Constitutional Court found, that the exclusion of non-vaccinated and non-recovered persons from all accommodation services in Berlin, including those of parliamentarians does not violate the political and representational rights of those persons under art. 38. of the Basic Law. | As part of the third regulatory package for combatting the Covid-19 pandemic, all persons were excluded from accommodation services in Berlin unless he/she has been vaccinated, or recovered from the illness. This regulation was also applicable to parliamentarians who could not meet with these criterion, therefore, it caused significant difficulties for some members of the parliament to attend legislative sessions, including the election of the new chancellor. The parliamentarians concerned argued, that this measure infringed their political and representational rights provided at art. 38. of the Basic Law. The Federal Constitutional Court rejected these urgent complaints as unfounded. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/12/rk20211206_2bvr216421.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2021/12/rk20211206_2bvr216421en.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-2-bvr-216421-2021-12-06;
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=2021-12-06&Aktenzeichen=2%20BvR%202164/21 |
https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/bverfg-2bvr2164-21-verfassungsbeschwerde-afd-2g-hotels-berlin-unzulaessig/ |
| 19.11.2021 | 1 BvR 781/21, 1 BvR 889/21, 1 BvR 860/21, 1 BvR 854/21, 1 BvR 820/21, 1 BvR 805/21, 1 BvR 798/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of movement; education; night curfew | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected several complaints regarding the night curfew and mandatory school closure to be ordered when the incidence rate of the illness is very high on three consecutive days. | Several complaints have been lodged to the Federal Constitutional Court by parliamentarians and other individuals to challenge the anti Covid-19 measures ordered by the Federal Government between April-June 2023. The regulatory package included, that when the incidence rate of the epidemic oversteps certain level on three consecutive days, night curfew should be rendered between 10 PM-5 AM, and schools should be mandatorily closed. The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutionality of the restrictions as proportionate interferences during an extra-ordinary period, and provided a framework to outline the scope of governmental margin of movement during public health emergency. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/11/rs20211119_1bvr078121.html;jsessionid=69A0EB3CB2AE23E77CA182C30BBFD366.1_cid344 | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2021/bvg21-101.html | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=19.11.2021&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%20781%2F21 |
https://www.dw.com/en/covid-german-constitutional-court-rules-emergency-brake-measures-were-legal/a-59975212; https://lexatlas-c19.org/final-decisions-on-the-federal-emergency-brake/; https://www.lto.de/recht/nachrichten/n/bverfg-1bvr78121-1bvr97121-bundesnotbremse-coronavirus-covid19-verfassungsbeschwerden-ausgangssperre-schulschliessungen-grundrechte/ |
| 20.05.2021 | No. 1 BvR 928/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of art; freedom of assembly | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected to hear the request of musicians and concert performers for preliminary injunction to block the application of bans on opening theaters, concert halls and museums, when the rate incidence of the epidemic oversteps a specific limit. | Musicians and concert performers challenged the measure ordered as part of the so-called emergency brake during Spring 2021. to combat Covid-19 pandemic. The regulation ordered, that when the rate incidence of the pandemic oversteps a specific limit, theatres, concert halls and museums should be closed. Claymants argued, that this infringes their right to artistic freedom under art. 5. of the German Federal Basic Law, since they could not perform their arts for the public. The Constitutional Court rejected to hear this claim, and held, that in this specific case, in the light of the extra-ordinary circumstances, public health shall prevail over artistic freedom. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/05/rk20210520_1bvr092821.html | http://www.europeanrights.eu/public/sentenze/GERMANIA-Bundesverfassungsgericht_20.5.pdf | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-92821-2021-05-20;
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=20.05.2021&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%20928/21 |
|
| 20.05.2021 | No. 1 BvR 900/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Right to privacy, contact restrictions | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for blocking the application of the federal emergency brake, which implemented heavy contact restrictions. The Constitutional Court considered, that public health shall prevail over right to privacy. | More individuals challenged a provision of the federal emergency brake ordered during Spring 2021, which allowed only the visit of one person from outside in a household, including children up to 14 when the rate intensity of the pandemic oversteps a specific limit. This was not applicable to vaccinated and immunized persons. The Constitutional Court rejected to block the implementation of this provision, since the body held, that in the light of the extra-ordinary circumstances, public health should prevail over right to privacy. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/05/rk20210520_1bvr090021.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-90021-2021-05-20 | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=2021-05-20&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%20900/21 | |
| 20.05.2021 | No. 1 BvR 968/21. | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Right to conduct a business | The German Constitutional Court rejected to block the application those provisions of the federal emergency brake ordered in April 2021, which obliged most of the stores to limit their operation or to be closed, when the intensity rate of the epidemic increases. | Several complaints have been lodged against certain provisions of the federal emergency brake ordered in April 2021, which - amongst other restrictions - provided, that the opening hours of stores should be limited, or these businesses should be even closed, when the public health situation is more disadvantageous. The law made certain exemptions from this duty such as flower shops, libraries, and mixed assortment stores. The owners of several businesses argued, that these measures cause significant damages to them; moreover, clients would prefer those stores, which would remain open. The Constitutional Court rejected to freeze the implementation of these rules since the protection of public health should prevail over right to conduct a business in the light of the extra-ordinary circumstances. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/05/rk20210520_1bvr096821.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-96821-2021-05-20; No. 1 BvR 968/21. | https://www.corodok.de/mehrere-eilantraege-verfassungsbeschwerde/ | |
| 05.05.2021 | No. 1 BvR 781/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of movement | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected applications to freeze a federal order, which envisaged night curfew between 22.00 PM-5.00 AM, when the infection went beyond a specific limit for three consecutive days. | The claymants challenged the constitutionality of a federal order, which envisaged night curfew, once the infection rate of the epidemic would go beyond a specific limit for three consecutive days. The appellants held, that this restriction should have been imposed by a law rather than a decree based on statutory authorization; it was disproportionate, and its reasoning lacked convincing scientific evidence. The Constitutional Court rejected these contests. The claymants then questioned the independence of two judges taking part in the decision-making process, but these claims were also unfounded. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/05/rs20210505_1bvr078121.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-78121-2021-05-05; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvR%20781/21 |
||
| 09.04.2021 | No. 1 BvQ 39/21 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of movement | The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a claim against an order of a member state to prohibit short-term camping not exceeding a five month period. | The claymant sought for preliminary injunction against an ordinance of Schleswig-Holstein to prohibit short-term stays on a campsite in Schleswig-Holstein. The ordinance allowed rental only for periods exceeding five months due to the public health emergency. The ordinance was later repealed, therefore, lower courts rejected the claims as inadmissible, which was also upheld by the Federal Constitutional Court. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2021/04/qk20210409_1bvq003921.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvq-3921-2021-04-09 | ||
| 05.12.2020 | 1 BvQ 145/20 - | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The German Constitutional Court upheld the ban on holding an anti-lockdown gathering in Bremen. | The petitioner intended to organise an anti-lockdown protest in the city centre of Bremen, but the permission was not given by the competent authorities. The organisers submitted court appeals against these decisions, but these were also rejected. Then, a request was brought before the Constitutional Court to block the ban on holding the assembly. The Bundesverfassungsgericht considered, that in the light of the specific context, right to public health and bodily integrity should prevail over freedom of assembly, therefore, the constitutional complaint should be unsuccesful, so the preliminary injunction was not provided. Despite the court decisions, hundreds of protesters gathered in Bremen to express their disagreement with the public health restrictions. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/12/qk20201205_1bvq014520.html |
https://vlex.de/vid/beschluss-vom-05-dezember-852931683; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=05.12.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvQ%20145/20; https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvq-14520-2020-12-05 |
https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/cuk-05-12-2020-1-bvq-14520/ | |
| 16.11.2020 | 2 BvQ 87/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Right to life; right to fair trial | The German Constitutional Court argued, that in case of public health emergency the continuation of a trial may threaten the life or the bodily integrity of the accused. In this case, the court has broad discretion to implement protective measures for minimizing these risks; or amongst very exceptional circumstances, the proceeding shall be discontinued. | An accused person submitted a request to the criminal court to postpone his next scheduled trials, since he is a member of a vulnerable group during the public health emergency, and the holding of these trials may endanger his life and bodily integrity under art. 2. (2) of the Basic Law. His request was rejected, therefore, he turned to the Constitutional Court. The Bundesverfassungsgericht highlighted, that the applicant failed to exhaust all available remedies before the lower courts, where a more contextual assessment of the case may take place, therefore, the complaint was rejected. Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court argued, that during a public health emergency, there might be a conflict between the public interest to continue criminal proceedings, and the right to life and bodily integrity of the accused persons. When this is the case, the court shall carefully assess all the circumstances, and implement necessary protective measures to safeguard the life and bodily integrity of the accused persons especially from high risk groups. When the holding of trials and other procedural acts would mean a significant risk for the accused, the proceeding might be discontinued, but only in case of sufficiently strong prognosis of a serious health damage. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/11/qk20201116_2bvq008720.html | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/EN/2020/11/qk20201116_2bvq008720en.html | https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=16.11.2020&Aktenzeichen=2%20BvQ%2087%2F20;
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-2-bvq-8720-2020-11-16; |
|
| 11.11.2020 | 1 BvR 2530/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom to conduct a business | The Constitutional Court found inadmissible a claim of an entepreneur from Bavaria against mandatory close of cinemas and restaurants in Bavaria during the public health emergency. | In the Autumn of 2020, Bavaria rendered to close all movies, cinemas, and restaurants due to the public health risks caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. The appellant was the owner of a cinema and a restaurant in Bavaria, and requested a preliminary injunction against these restrictions, which was rejected by the German Federal Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court argued, that public health should prevail over right to conduct businesses; moreover, the economic difficulties demonstrated by the applicant were not sufficiently serious especialy vis a vis the huge public health concerns. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/rk20201111_1bvr253020.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-1-bvr-253020-2020-11-11; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=11.11.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%202530/20; 1 BvR 2530/20 |
||
| 30.08.2020 | 1 BvQ 94/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The Germany Federal Constitutional Court rejected to provide preliminary injunction against the ban of a permanent vigil to be planned in Berlin during August 2020. | The competent authorities in Berlin rejected two permission requests in Berlin either to hold an assembly on August 29. 2020. and to organise a vigil camp between August 30-September 14. 2020. respectively. The administrative court permitted to hold the assembly on 29 August, however the ban on the vigil camp was upheld. The initiators submitted a request for preliminary injunction before the Constitutional Court to block the ban, however, this was rejected since publich health should prevail over right to assembly. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/08/qk20200830_1bvq009420.html |
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=30.08.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvQ%2094/20; https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-1-bvq-9420-2020-08-30; https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/zi1-30-08-2020-1-bvq-9420/ |
https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2020/bvg20-082.html | |
| 29.08.2020 | 1 BvR 2038/20 -, Rn. 1-5 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for preliminary injunction against an administrative decision banning an anti-lockdown assembly in Berlin. | The German Federal Constitutional Court held, that an administrative ruling in Berlin banning an anti-lockdown protest was reasonable, and it implemented well the applicable publich health restrictions. Public health shall prevail over freedom of assembly. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/qk20200829_1bvq009320.html | https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-1-bvr-203820-rn-1-5-2020-08-29 | ||
| 15.07.2020 | 1 BvR 1630/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of education | The Federal Constitutional Court refused to hear a Bavarian constitutional complaint against an order allowing alternative school schedule and a maximum class size to adapt the circumstances to the publich health emergency. | Two teachers from Bavaria challenged a Bavarian ordinance allowing alternative school schedule, mandatory distance in classrooms, and the reduction of class sizes during the public health emergency. The claim was rejected by the Bavarian Administrative Court, then, the complainants filed a constitutional complaint. The Federal Constitutional Court refused to hear the complaint, since not all other remedies have been exhausted; the request for preliminary injunction was also rejected, hence the balance of competing rights and interests would result a decision against the claymants. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/07/rk20200715_1bvr163020.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-1-bvr-163020-2020-07-15; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=15.07.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%201630/20 |
https://perma.cc/2X5Q-5HKE; https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/germany-constitutional-court-declines-to-hear-complaint-challenging-alternating-schedules-in-schools/ |
|
|
27.06.2020
|
1 BvQ 74/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The German Federal Constitutional Court ruled, that the obligation to wear a mask in an anti lockdown demonstration did not mean an infringement of a constitutional right. | A woman organised an anti-lockdown demonstration in Germany, and the local assembly gave permission to the assembly, however, all participants had to wear mask during the demonstration. This was clearly against the intention of the participants, therefore, the organiser requested a preliminary injunction from the Constitutional Court against the decision of the competent local authority. The Constitutional Court upheld the administrative decision and declared, that the measure did not mean a significant risk of any fundamental right violation. Mask mandate in an anti-lockdown demonstration is constitutional. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/qk20200627_1bvq007420.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-1-bvq-7420-2020-06-27; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=27.06.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvQ%2074/20; https://rechtsanwalt-krau.de/bundesverfassungsgericht-1-bvq-74-20/; https://rewis.io/urteile/aktenzeichen/RCNZN74SGD2MS7LZ9T/ |
||
| 18.06.2020 | No. 1 BvQ 69/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of movement | The Federal Constitutional Court refused to provide preliminary injunction against the implementation of a Hamburg order to quarantine all persons arriving from non-EU countries for two weeks. | The city of Hamburg ordered to quarantine all persons arriving from outside the EU for two weeks. The claimants arrived from the United States, but when they arrived, the application of this rule was blocked by a lower administrative court. As a consequence, the claimants were allowed to move without any restriction around the city. However, the decision of the lower administrative court was appealed, and the court of appeal overturned the lower judgements and ordered again the implementation of the quarantine measures against persons arriving from third countries. The claimants submitted a request to the Federal Constitutional Court for preliminary injunction against the Hamburg rule, but this was rejected since freedom of movement should be outweighed by public healt concerns. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/06/qk20200618_1bvq006920.html | https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/zgb-18-06-2020-1-bvq-6920/ | ||
| 16.05.2020 | 1 BvQ 55/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for preliminary injunction against a Brandenburg decision to dissolve an assembly, where public health requirements have been not complied. | The petitioner was the organiser of assembiles in Brandenburg, and during one of his demonstrations, Covid-19 regulations have been violated. Brandenburg limited the number of participants to 975 persons and required a 2 meter distance-keeping, however, mask wear was not compulsory. In one of the assemblies, the authorities considered, that distance was not kept, therefore, the assembly has been dissolved. The petitioner turned to the administrative courts, and then requested a preliminary injunction from the Federal Constitutional Court, but this was rejected since public health should prevail over freedom of assembly. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/05/qk20200516_1bvq005520.html |
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=16.05.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvQ%2055/20; https://rewis.io/urteile/urteil/ps8-04-08-2020-2-bvq-5520/; |
||
| 13.05.2020 | 1 BvR 1021/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of movement; right to personal identity; right to bodily integrity | The complainant challenged several provisions of the Bavarian curfew restrictions as arbitrary ones, but the Federal Constitutional Court upheld the validity of these measures. | The constitutional complaint was lodged against several provisions of the Bavarian curfew regime. The claimant considered, that these restrictions mean a serious and unjustifiable interference into his right to bodily integrity, right to personal identity and freedom of movement. The application also contested, that the measures are applied on an indiscriminatory manner, regardless of the risk factor of each individual. The Constitutional Court argued, that the petition did not take into account properly the extra-ordinary circumstances; moreover, not only the individuals but also third persons should be dully protected. Therefore, the constitutional complaint was unfounded. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/e/rk20200513_1bvr102120.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-1-bvr-102120-2020-05-13; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=13.05.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%201021%2F20; |
https://www.deubner-recht.de/themen/corona-recht/corona-verwaltungsrecht/verfassungsbeschwerde-lockerungen.html | |
| 12.05.2020 | 1 BvR 1027/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Right to life | The complainant, a 65-years-old man, so a member of a high risk group submitted a constitutional complaint against the relaxation of certain public health restrictions during May 2020. The Constitutional Court noted, that the claimant failed to identify a concrete fundamental right, which might be violated; while the state did not breached its duty for the protection of life with the relaxations, since other rights and freedoms should have been also dully considered during the assessment. Therefore, the constitutional complaint was inadmissible, and the request for preliminary injunction was irrelevant. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/05/rk20200512_1bvr102720.html |
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=12.05.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%201027%2F20; https://rewis.io/urteile/aktenzeichen/RCNW2YE2KCKAJNV9TT/ |
https://www.deubner-recht.de/themen/corona-recht/corona-verwaltungsrecht/verfassungsbeschwerde-lockerungen.html | ||
| 29.04.2020 | 1 BvQ 44/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of religion; freedom of assembly | The Constitutional Court held, that it is legitimate during the public health emergency to impose severe restrictions on freedom of religion; however, a general ban on religious ceremonies is not justified, reasonable exceptions may be provided based on objective grounds related to the public health situation. | Lower Saxony as a member state of Germany prohibited the holding of religious ceremonies during first months of the the public health emergency, therefore the mosques were also closed. The petitioners argued, that mosques should be opened with the same conditions as shops, and several safeguards were also provided for minimizing the risk factors during the common worships (limiting the number of participants; wear masks; holding 1,5 meters distance). The administrative courts rejected the claim; while the Constitutional Court also refused to open the mosques, but found, that a general ban on religious ceremonies is a too severe restriction of freedom of religion even during the extra-ordinary circumstances of the pandemic. The Bundesverfassungsgericht highlighted, that reasonable exceptions should be provided from the scope of the general ban based on objective public health grounds depending on the size and the construction of the mosque, the current epidemiological situation, etc. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/04/qk20200429_1bvq004420.html |
https://constitutionnet.org/news/coronavirus-lockdown-measures-german-constitutional-court; https://www.fricore.eu/fc/content/germany-federal-constitutional-court-29-april-2020-1-bvq-4420; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=29.04.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvQ%2044/20; https://lexcorona.de/doku.php?id=gerichtsentscheidungen:rechtsverordnungen:bverfg_1_bvq_44_20 |
https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/13974/index.htm | |
| 17.04.2020 | 1 BvQ 37/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The Constitutional Court ruled, that a ban by the Studgart authorities on a protest violated the Basic Law; the authorities failed to balance the competing rights and interests, which was also their duty based on the Baden-Würtemberg anti-Covid regulation during that period. | The organisers of a planned protest banned by the authorities of Studgart filed a constitutional complaint after having exhausted all other available remedies. The Constitutional Court found the petitions reasonable and held, that the authorities of Stutgart failed to taking into consideration the individual circumstances of the case. The applicable ordinances of Baden-Würtemberg did not prohibit assemblies by general terms, just required prior consultations between the organisers and the competent authorities to secure serious public health safeguards to hold such an event. The Studgart authorities simply rejected the request for permission, therefore, a new proceeding should be conducted by these authorities. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/04/qk20200417_1bvq003720.html |
https://constitutionnet.org/news/coronavirus-lockdown-measures-german-constitutional-court; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvQ%2037/20; https://lexcorona.de/doku.php?id=gerichtsentscheidungen:rechtsverordnungen:bverfg_1_bvq_37_20; https://vlex.de/vid/beschluss-vom-17-april-843149458 |
https://constitutionnet.org/news/coronavirus-lockdown-measures-german-constitutional-court | |
| 15.04.2020 | 1 BvR 828/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The German Constitutional Court considered, that the prohibition of an assembly in Gießen without discretion, despite proposed public health safeguards of the organisers violated the Constitution, therefore, the city authorities should issue a new decision on the matter. | The organisers of a planned assembly in Gießen, Hessen prohibited on public health grounds submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court. The authorities in Gießen argued, that assembly should be prohibited based on the regulations of Hessen despite the promises of the organisers to keep distance during the assembly and to implement further public health safeguards. The claymants held, that Hessen's regulation did not prohibit assemblies at all in open air, but their motion was rejected by the administrative courts. The Constitutional Court stated, that Hessen's regulation did not impose a general ban on assemblies, however, city authorities failed to consider the individual circumstances of the case. Therefore, the competent authorities in Gießen should reconsider the matter, and should issue a new decision whether to provide permission for the organisers. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/04/rk20200415_1bvr082820.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-constitutional-court-no-1-bvr-82820-rn-1-19-2020-04-15; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvR%20828/20 |
https://constitutionnet.org/news/coronavirus-lockdown-measures-german-constitutional-court; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-germany-protests-idUSKCN21Y220; https://lexcorona.de/doku.php?id=gerichtsentscheidungen:rechtsverordnungen:bverfg_1_bvr_828_20 |
|
| 10.04.2020 | 1 BvQ 28/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly; freedom of religion | The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for preliminary injunction against the decision of Hessen authorities to prohibit the organisation of a religious ceremony. | The regulations of Hessen banned the holding of religious ceremonies amongst all forms of assemblies during April 2020. due to the public health situation. The claimant applied for permission to hold an assembly, but this was rejected by the Hessen authorities. The appeal was unsuccesful since the administrative courts considered, that the interference was proportionate to the factual situation. The Federal Constitutional Court upheld this assessment and argued, that public health should prevail over freedom of assembly and freedom of religion; moreover, the total ban was limited to the period of very disadvantageous public health situation. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/04/qk20200410_1bvq002820.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvq-2820-2020-04-10; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=10.04.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvQ%2028/20; https://rewis.io/urteile/aktenzeichen/RCNK43FSMSAHS24GWL/ |
||
| 07.04.2020 | BvR 755/20 | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Human dignity | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for preliminary injunction against the public health restrictions of Bavaria: these measures were based on a careful assessment of all the circumstances. | The German Federal Constitutional Court rejected a request for preliminary injunction against the Bavarian curfew measures. The Constitutional Court held, that the damages caused by the relaxation of these restrictions would be significantly larger then the social cost of maintaining these measures, moreover, reasonable exceptions are provided from the scope of these generally applicable laws, therefore, the request for preliminary injunction was unfounded. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/04/rk20200407_1bvr075520.html |
https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Gericht=BVerfG&Datum=07.04.2020&Aktenzeichen=1%20BvR%20755/20; https://rewis.io/urteile/aktenzeichen/RCN6KHRWG393M3RM9A/ |
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32390684/ | |
| 31.03.2020 | No. 1 BvQ 63/20. | Federal Constitutional Court of Germany | Freedom of assembly | The Federal Constitutional Court rejected a claim for preliminary injunction against limiting the number of participants in a demonstration and requiring distance keeping from participants. | The organisator of a demonstration thought, that the limitation of the number of participants to a maximum of 5000 people, and the requirement of distance keeping meant a disproportionate restriction on right to assembly during the public health emergency. He turned to the Federal Constitutional Court for preliminary injunction, however, the Court held, that in the extra-ordinary circumstances, public health should prevail over freedom of assembly. The holding of the demonstration should be permitted, but the public health restrictions should be complied in the assembly. | https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/2020/05/qk20200531_1bvq006320.html |
https://www.covid19litigation.org/case-index/germany-federal-constitutional-court-no-1-bvq-6320-2020-03-31; https://dejure.org/dienste/vernetzung/rechtsprechung?Text=1%20BvQ%2063/20 |
||