Judges in Germany in the top court announced in Press Release No. 42/2022 of May 19, 2022, Resolution of April 27, 2022, German Federal Court ruled mandatory “vaccination” is justified for healthcare workers.

Decision is made but it does not seem like judges looked at data produced in so many countries showing how Covid jabs cause so many side effects and deaths and how unsafe they are.

Mandates for healthcare workers were implemented back in March where workers had an option but to be either Covid jabbed, to have proof of recovery of “Covid” and small number with medical exemption were accepted – if not health department would be notified, and healthcare workers would be banned from entering workplace.

Behind success of pushing this mandate is that more importance is given to protect vulnerable than give importance to one’s fundamental right.

They also claim in judgment that while “Covid” is mild for most people but can be fatal for elderly and vulnerable and at the time law was passed scientific majority ASSUMED that jabbed and recovered people were less likely to become “infected” and “transmit virus” including that jabbed people are less “infectious” and for shorter time.

In the judgment it also is states that there is no justification for mandatory jabs by the state, but that it is up to individual – he/she decides to give up their job or consent to impairment of their physical integrity which is absolutely unconstitutional and inhuman.

Sadly, judges also concluded that Covid jabs side effects are very rare and that is ok to breach individual fundamental rights

 Worst of all the science clearly doesn’t back up what they are saying. Evidence produced so for show clear proof of damage that they cause and no benefits.

Below is an online translated judgment from German to English :

Unsuccessful constitutional complaint against the obligation to provide evidence of a vaccination against COVID-19 (so-called “facility and company-related obligation to provide evidence”)

Press Release No. 42/2022 of May 19, 2022

 

Resolution of April 27, 2022

1 BvR 2649/21

 

Proof of vaccination (COVID-19)

 

With a decision published today, the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint directed against Section 20a, Section 22a and Section 73 (1a) Nos. 7e to 7h of the Act on the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases in Humans (Infection Protection Act – IfSG). This regulates the obligation for certain healthcare and care institutions and companies to provide evidence of a COVID-19 vaccination, recovery from COVID-19 disease or a medical contraindication for vaccination (so-called "facility and company-related obligation to provide evidence"). ).

 

The contested provisions do not infringe the complainants' rights, in particular under Article 2.2 sentence 1 of the Basic Law and Article 12.1 of the Basic Law. Insofar as the regulations interfere with the fundamental rights mentioned, these interferences are constitutionally justified. Within the scope of the assessment to which it is entitled, the legislature has found an appropriate balance between the protection of vulnerable people from infection with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which is pursued with the obligation to provide proof, and the violations of fundamental rights. Despite the high intensity of the intervention, the constitutionally protected interests of the complainants working in the health and care sector must ultimately take a back seat.

 

Facts:

 

According to Section 20a Paragraph 1 Clause 1, Paragraph 2 Clause 1 IfSG, people who work in certain facilities or companies in the healthcare and nursing sectors must, since March 15, 2022, provide the management of the respective facility or company with proof that be fully vaccinated against or have recovered from COVID-19. The only exceptions are people with a medical contraindication. If no proper proof is presented, the facility or company management must notify the health department immediately. This can then issue a ban on entry or activity against the persons concerned in accordance with Section 20a (5) sentence 3 IfSG.

 

Persons who are only to work in the institutions or companies mentioned in § 20a IfSG after March 16, 2022 must submit corresponding proof before starting their work. Otherwise, they may not be employed or active there. Various individual provisions of § 20a IfSG are subject to fines (compare § 73 Para. 1a No. 7e to 7h IfSG). Section 20a IfSG and the associated fine regulations will expire on January 1, 2023.

 

For the definition of a vaccinated or recovered person and the proof of vaccination or recovery to be submitted, Section 20a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 IfSG in the version of December 10, 2021 initially referred to Section 2 Nos. 2 to 5 of the COVID- 19 Protection Measures Exception Ordinance (SchAusnahmeV) in its currently valid version. In order to specify the requirements, they referred to the websites of the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Robert Koch Institute. During the constitutional complaint proceedings, the legislature amended Section 20a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 and Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 IfSG with effect from March 19, 2022. For the definition of proof of vaccination and recovery, reference is now made to Section 22a (1) and (2) IfSG, which was newly added at the same time.

 

The complainants are mainly active in the health and care sector. A number of complainants (also) in their capacity as an institution or company in the health care or nursing sector oppose the provisions challenged here. Other complainants complain that they cannot continue their treatment with unvaccinated doctors, dentists or other medical service providers.

 

With their constitutional complaint, the complainants directly challenge Section 20a, Section 22a and Section 73 (1a) No. 7e to 7h IfSG and complain about the violation of various fundamental rights and rights that are equivalent to fundamental rights.

 

Key Considerations of the Senate:

 

A. The constitutional complaint is partially inadmissible. Several of the complainants have not adequately demonstrated that their own fundamental rights may have been violated by the contested provisions. Insofar as the complainants object to the constitutionality of Section 20a Paragraph 1 Sentence 1, Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 IfSG in the version of December 10, 2021, an interest in legal protection no longer exists. In particular, the regulation no longer has any legal effects on the complainants.

 

B. Insofar as the constitutional complaint has been raised admissibly, it is unsuccessful on the merits.

 

I. The obligation to provide evidence regulated in § 20a IfSG intervenes in the physical integrity protected by Art. 2 Para. 2 Sentence 1 GG. However, the intervention is constitutionally justified.

 

1. The warranty content of Art. 2 Para. 2 Sentence 1 GG is reduced by the institution- and company-related obligation, in particular to prove a vaccination. As a right of defense, Art. 2 (2) sentence 1 GG also protects the individual from state measures that only indirectly lead to an impairment of physical integrity and the related right to self-determination. This can be the case in particular if a law ties a disadvantageous consequence to the exercise of a freedom protected by fundamental rights in order to counteract this exercise of fundamental rights.

 

According to this, there is a targeted indirect interference with physical integrity. The COVID-19 vaccination requires prior informed consent from a doctor. However, a decision against vaccination is associated with disadvantageous consequences, which is why the self-determined vaccination decision is determined by external, factual and legal constraints. If you wish to remain unvaccinated, you must expect to be required to provide proof of this, subject to a fine, and to be banned from entering or working in the facilities and companies specified in Section 20a IfSG if you continue to work. The only alternative is to give up the job you have been doing, change your job or at least the job you have been doing up to now.

 

2. The interference with the right to physical integrity is constitutionally justified.

 

a) The legislator pursues the legitimate purpose of protecting vulnerable people from infection with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. While COVID-19 disease is mild for most people, certain people not only have an increased risk of a severe or even fatal course of the disease due to their state of health and/or their age. Elderly and immunocompromised people in particular also have an increased risk of infection because they respond less well to vaccination. The legislature's assumption that there is a considerable risk for important objects of protection, which requires legislative action, is based on sufficiently reliable factual knowledge. At the time the law was passed, the legislature could assume that the pandemic situation would worsen and that older and previously ill people would be particularly at risk. The assumption that these vulnerable people are at particular risk is still valid.

 

b) The obligation to provide proof of a COVID-19 vaccination is also appropriate in the constitutional sense. The legislator could have assumed that the obligation to provide proof of vaccination or recovery for all persons who work in certain institutions or companies can contribute to protecting the life and health of vulnerable people. At the time the law was passed, a clear scientific majority assumed that vaccinated and recovered people were less likely to become infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and therefore less likely to transmit the virus. It was also assumed that vaccinated people are infectious less and for a shorter period of time than unvaccinated people. The justifiability of this legislative suitability prognosis is not shaken by the further development of the pandemic in connection with the spread of the omicron variant of the virus, according to the statements of the specialist societies that were heard as expert third parties in the current proceedings. They largely agree that the relevant vaccine effectiveness will continue to exist, albeit at a reduced level compared to the previous variants.

 

c) The obligation to provide proof is also necessary in the constitutional sense to protect vulnerable people. In this respect, the legislature had a wide scope for assessment, because the pandemic is characterized by dangerous but difficult to predict dynamics, so the situation is complex. Based on the knowledge available at the time the law was passed on the transmissibility of the virus and on the possibilities of countering its spread, there is no constitutional objection to the fact that the legislature assumed that no means of were available.

 

d) The obligation to provide proof of vaccination is also proportionate in the strict sense on the basis of the information available at the relevant time when the law was passed. According to this, the legislature had to take into account that the vaccination required to fulfill the obligation to provide evidence represents a significant interference with physical integrity. In this respect, it must be taken into account, among other things, that § 20a IfSG does not justify a compulsory vaccination that may be enforceable by sovereignty, but rather leaves the decision to the persons working in the institutions and companies to provide the necessary proof. However, the regulation de facto gives those affected the choice of either giving up their previous job or consenting to the impairment of their physical integrity.

 

The encroachment on the physical integrity of those affected must, however, be contrasted with constitutional goods of paramount importance. It is incumbent on the legislature to protect life and physical integrity in fulfillment of its obligation to protect, which also follows from Article 2(2) sentence 1 of the Basic Law. This obligation of the legislature to protect vulnerable people intensified at the beginning of December 2021. At that time, after a brief relaxation as part of the fourth wave of infection, the pandemic situation was again characterized by a special infection dynamic, which was accompanied by an increasingly greater probability of infection. This was particularly to the detriment of vulnerable people. In addition to the increased risk of becoming seriously or even fatally ill with COVID-19,

 

It is based on a constitutionally unobjectionable consideration that the legislature has given priority to the protection of vulnerable people over a free vaccination decision in every respect. Despite the high level of intervention that § 20a IfSG causes, the fundamentally protected interests of those working in the health and care sector must ultimately take a back seat. In the context of weighing up the conflicting fundamental rights positions here, it must first be taken into account that the legislature has clearly oriented itself towards not intensifying the intensity of the intervention for those affected by the obligation to provide evidence in an undifferentiated manner and with an exclusive focus on the protection of vulnerable people. The legislature did not make the vaccination decision for those affected itself. Insofar as the extent of the intervention of the obligation to provide evidence is primarily assessed by the type, extent and probability of vaccination risks, Section 20a IfSG was based on a justifiable legislative decision on vaccination safety based on reliable facts. Unacceptable health risks from a constitutional point of view, which could no longer be justified even in the event of an acute risk situation to the detriment of vulnerable persons, are not imposed on the addressees of the norm concerned. Serious side effects or serious consequences beyond the immune response induced by the administration of the vaccine are very rare. They are also continuously monitored and evaluated by the Paul Ehrlich Institute in particular, and the Standing Vaccination Committee uses them as an opportunity to adjust their vaccination recommendations.

 

However, the special need for protection of those whom the legislature intends to protect must also be taken into account. Vulnerable people can often neither protect themselves effectively through vaccination nor avoid contact with people working in the health and care sector, as they are typically dependent on their services. The very low probability of serious consequences of a vaccination contrasts with the significantly higher probability of damage to the life and limb of vulnerable people.

 

The further development of the pandemic after the law was passed does not justify a different assessment. There have been no new developments or better insights that could radically shake up the original assumptions of the legislator. It can also be assumed that vaccination offers relevant protection against infection, even if it decreases over time, even with the currently predominant omicron variant of the virus. The pandemic risk situation has also not eased to such an extent that vulnerable people are significantly less in need of protection and the constitutional balance of interests is correspondingly unfavorable to them. There is a broad consensus among the specialist societies involved in the present proceedings that

 

II. The professional freedom from Art. 12 Para. 1 GG is not violated.

 

1. Insofar as the institution- and company-related obligation to provide evidence is designed as a professional activity requirement, Art. 12.1 GG does not grant any further protection than the fundamental right protecting highly personal legal interests from Art. 2.2 sentence 1 GG.

 

2. Section 20a (5) sentence 3 IfSG, which authorizes the ordering of a ban on entry and activity, constitutes an independent interference with professional freedom that goes beyond this; however, this is justified to protect vulnerable people.

 

The regulation in Section 20a (5) sentence 3 IfSG is particularly appropriate when weighing up its purpose and the severity of the interference. The stress effects it causes differ depending on the type of activity performed. The order of a ban on entry or activity places a particular burden on those people who would always be affected by the need for vaccination or recovery even in the event of a job change and who can therefore only avoid this by exercising a non-professional activity, such as nurses, doctors, psychotherapists or medical specialists . On the other hand, administrative, cleaning and kitchen staff, for example, may be subject to the need for vaccination or recovery at their current workplace.

 

The purpose of protecting vulnerable individuals from serious or even fatal COVID-19 disease is a particularly weighty constitutional concern. In this respect, the different impact effects also reflect the importance of the vaccination or recovery of the respective workers for the achievement of the purpose. Due to the nature of their professional activity, the particularly affected personnel in the medical and nursing professions are regularly in intensive and close contact with vulnerable people, which means that the transmission risk, which is increased due to the lack of vaccination or recovery, becomes acute and the need for protection of vulnerable people increases disproportionately. The affected administrative Cleaning or kitchen staff, on the other hand, regularly have no or only brief direct contact with vulnerable people and thus usually only indirect contact with the people to be protected, through the shared use of premises or through the medical and other nursing and care staff. It should also be taken into account that the particularly affected personnel in the medical and nursing professions have a special responsibility towards the people they treat and care for.

Sources :

https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/german-supreme-court-rules-mandatory?s=r

https://www.bundesverfassungsgericht.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitteilungen/DE/2022/bvg22-042.html