In total, the Constitutional Court has received over 700 cases relating to the pandemic since April 2020. Almost 500 of them have already been completed. Since the COVID-19 compulsory vaccination law came into force on February 5, the Constitutional Court has received several applications for this law, according to the court. In many of the COVID-19 cases, the Constitutional Court is now initiating preliminary proceedings.
This means that the court asks – depending on the contested law or ordinance – the federal government, the competent federal ministry, state governors or district authorities for an opinion on the arguments of the applicants. The period for such statements is usually around six weeks. The Constitutional Court also transmits each statement to the applicant, and its essential content is also reproduced in the decision of the Constitutional Court.
Lockdown for the unvaccinated legal?
Several applications deal with the restrictions for people who do not have 2G proof (“lockdown for the unvaccinated”). According to the Constitutional Court, the applicants assert, among other things, that the contested provisions of the 5th and 6th COVID-19 Protection Measures Ordinance are illegal. According to the COVID-19 Measures Act, a lockdown may only be imposed if this measure to contain the pandemic is “essential” “to prevent an imminent collapse of medical care or similar emergency situations” – and other, less drastic restrictions are not sufficient , so the argument goes. The applicants also claim that exceptions to the 2G rule would violate the principle of equality. For example, they are of the opinion that clothing and shoes are also part of their daily needs.
Blocking of cultural institutions legally?
The cabaret artist Alfred Dorfer and other cultural workers submitted an application for an ordinance to be examined that provided for the closure of cultural institutions. It claims that the strict measures are disproportionate to successfully implemented prevention concepts and the general availability of PCR tests and vaccinations against COVID-19. The applicants also see the principle of equality violated – with reference to other rules for gatherings to practice religion and assemblies.
Mask requirement in schools right?
According to the VfGH, an individual application from a fourth-grade student at a middle school in Styria is directed against the obligation to wear masks and tests in schools. It essentially argues that the contested provisions are objectively unjustified and disproportionate. The measures therefore violate, inter alia, the principle of equality, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to education and the right to the best possible development and development of every child.
Source: Nachrichten
