Weimar judge fails: Constitutional complaint for mask obligation rejected

Weimar judge fails: Constitutional complaint for mask obligation rejected

Weimar, Deutschland - The dispute over the legal foundations of the Corona protection measures takes a new turn in Germany. A family judge from Weimar has lost his constitutional complaint against the conviction for lawsuit in Karlsruhe. This maintains the decision of the Erfurt Regional Court, which sentenced the judge to a two -year suspended sentence. Most recently, this development was reported on July 4, 2025 in the program of Deutschlandfunk.

In 2021, the judge caused a sensation when he issued an interim order that prohibited two local schools to enforce certain corona infection protection measures such as mask obligation. This decision was withdrawn by the Jena Higher Regional Court after a few weeks. However, the judge acted in an area for which he was not responsible. As the Tagesschau , the district court of Erfurt found that he acted previously and was actively looking for a family to initiate a child protection procedure. Thereupon there was a procedure due to law.

because the court decided

The judgment of the Erfurt district court was confirmed in November 2023 by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), with the revisions of the judge and the public prosecutor rejected. The Federal Constitutional Court rated the judge's constitutional complaint as inadmissible. In this context, the court emphasized that the interpretation of the criminal law falls into the area of ​​responsibility of the ordinary courts. An intervention by the Federal Constitutional Court is only necessary in special exceptions, explains The Federal Constitutional Court .

The events again underline how explosive the legal discussions about COVID-19 protection measures were. Courts of the validity and application of such measures have decided uphill and downhill. In particular, the provision of Section 20a of the Infection Protection Act (IFSG), which regulated the detection of a COVID-19-protective vaccination or recovery for access to certain institutions, was increasingly questioned. This applies above all to the period from November 7 to December 31, 2022, as the Federal Constitutional Court stated.

The pandemic has left traces

The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to reject the constitutional complaint on § 20a IFSG shows how complex the legal framework during the pandemic was. The judges rejected the concerns of a presentation report that considered the paragraph as unconstitutional because there were new scientific knowledge. The official decision showed that the conviction of the unconstitutionality in the reasoning was not sufficient.

The decisions resulting from this situation and the role of judges in the period of pandemic continue to raise questions. The Weimar judge has been suspended from service since January 2023 and is faced with the opportunity to be released from the civil servant relationship. It remains to be seen how the legal framework will develop in the future in order to protect the balance between health protection and legal certainty.