Weimar judge fails: constitutional complaint about mask requirement rejected

Weimar judge fails: constitutional complaint about mask requirement rejected

The dispute over the legal basis of the Corona protective measures is taking a new turn in Germany. A family judge from Weimar has lost his constitutional complaint against the conviction for perverting the course of justice in Karlsruhe. This upholds the decision of the Erfurt Regional Court, which sentenced the judge to a two-year suspended sentence. This development was last reported on July 4, 2025 in the Deutschlandfunk program.

In 2021, the judge caused a stir when he issued an interim order prohibiting two local schools from enforcing certain coronavirus infection protection measures such as mask requirements. This decision was reversed after a few weeks by the Jena Higher Regional Court. However, the judge acted in an area over which he had no jurisdiction. As the daily news reported, the Erfurt regional court found that he acted biasedly and was actively looking for a family in order to initiate child protection proceedings. This resulted in proceedings for perverting the course of justice.

Because the court decided that way

The judge's conviction by the Erfurt Regional Court was confirmed by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in November 2023, with the appeals of the judge and the public prosecutor's office being rejected. The Federal Constitutional Court rated the judge's constitutional complaint as inadmissible. In this context, the court emphasized that the interpretation of criminal laws falls within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. Intervention by the Federal Constitutional Court is only necessary in special exceptions, explained the Federal Constitutional Court.

The events once again underline how explosive the legal discussions about Covid-19 protective measures were. Up and down, courts have ruled on the validity and application of such measures. In particular, regulation § 20a of the Infection Protection Act (IfSG), which regulated proof of a COVID-19 vaccination or recovery for access to certain facilities, was increasingly questioned. This particularly applies to the period from November 7th to December 31st, 2022, as the Federal Constitutional Court determined.

The pandemic has left its mark

The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court to reject the constitutional complaint regarding Section 20a IfSG shows how complex the legal framework was during the pandemic. The judges rejected the concerns of a referring court that viewed the paragraph as unconstitutional because new scientific findings were available. The official decision showed that the conviction of unconstitutionality in the justification was not sufficient.

The decisions resulting from this situation and the role of judges during the pandemic continue to raise questions. The Weimar judge has been suspended from duty since January 2023 and faces the possibility of being dismissed from his position as a civil servant. It remains to be seen how the legal framework will develop in the future in order to maintain the balance between health protection and legal certainty.