German Court Declares COVID Lockdown Was Disproportionate and ‘a Serious Interference with Fundamental Rights’

German Court Declares COVID Lockdown Was Disproportionate and ‘a Serious Interference with Fundamental Rights’


ER Editor: It is incredible to believe we went along with this.

********

German court declares COVID lockdown was disproportionate and ‘a serious interference with fundamental rights’

The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig ruled that restrictions on movement during the coronavirus crisis were ‘not compatible with the principle of proportionality.’

ANDREAS WAILZER for LIFESITE NEWS

(LifeSiteNews) — A German court ruled on Tuesday that the restrictions on leaving your home during the first lockdown in March 2020 in the German state of Bavaria were disproportionate and “a serious interference with fundamental rights.” 

The Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig ruled that “[t]he regulations of the Bavarian ‘Infection Protection Measures Ordinance’ of March 27, 2020, as amended by the ordinance of March 31, 2020 (BayIfSMV), on leaving one’s own home was not compatible with the principle of proportionality.” 

In its ruling, the court also stated that “[t]he prohibition to leave one’s home to spend time outdoors” was “a serious interference with the fundamental rights of the aggrieved party.” 

According to the lockdown regulation that was put in place in Bavaria in March of 2022, leaving one’s home was only allowed if there were “valid reasons” to do so. Acceptable reasons included “sports and exercise.” 

It was not permitted, however, to “spend time outdoors alone or exclusively with members of one’s household,” meaning that it was also forbidden to sit outside alone on a park bench and read a book, for example. 

Since the “valid reasons” imposed on leaving the home were so “narrowly defined,” the court decided that they were disproportionate, as it determined that spending time alone outside or with members of your household would not contribute to the spread of the novel coronavirus. 

According to the court’s ruling, a measure that is “less burdensome” to the exercise of individuals’ fundamental rights ought to have been implemented. 

The court added that the ban on leaving one’s home would have been proportionate if it “would not have prohibited spending time outdoors alone or exclusively with members of one’s household.” 

This latest ruling is part of a long list of court decisions regarding the illegality of restrictive COVID-related measures. A court in Spain, for instance, ruled that the lockdown in March 2020 was “unconstitutional,” and the Austrian Constitutional Court also declared that multiple COVID ordinances violated the country’s constitution. 

************

Source

Featured image: Federal Administrative Court, Leipzig, Germany Robert Kuehne/Shutterstock

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Visit Original Source

error

Please help truthPeep spread the word :)