Law Professor Jungbluth: "The Chancellor’s verbal request has no legal force whatsoever"
"These are fundamental rights violations in Wild West style, or, to put it in more legal terms, completely arbitrary measures", says Professor Dr. David Jungbluth in an interview with Telepolis. Jungbluth, professor of law at the Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, sharply criticizes the federal government’s massive encroachment on basic rights (In times of crisis, basic rights have no off switch).
In particular, the former prosecutor considers Chancellor Angela Merkel’s statement that short trips over Easter are not allowed to be highly problematic. He sees an overstepping of the Chancellor’s competence. Jungbluth is equally harsh in his criticism of the Federal Constitutional Court, which has so far refrained from the possibility of a "Preliminary ruling" did not make use of the right of appeal against the restriction of basic rights (judicial criticism). The Federal Interception Court "ducks away", says Jungbluth.
Mr. Jungbluth, Chancellor Merkel in her speech on 3. April said the following about burgers in Germany: "And one more thing, and please take this seriously: Even short trips within Germany, to the sea or to the mountains or to relatives, cannot take place this year during Easter." How do you evaluate this statement as a lawyer?? Has the chancellor exceeded her authority? David Jungbluth: Even if, after the experiences of the last weeks in dealing with this crisis, only little surprises me, I must say that this statement, to put it mildly, irritated me somewhat in its generality. Why? Where does your criticism start? David Jungbluth: First of all, the question has to be asked, where the sense of this statement should lie in medical terms. I am not a medical doctor, but I have, at least I hope, a rational mind. If a person goes to the door at Easter and drives alone in his car to the Black Forest, i.e. in an area completely protected from the danger of infection for himself and others, and goes for a walk at the destination, this is not an inadmissible undertaking. This is true even if the person driving alone does not follow the bizarre tendency to get behind the wheel wearing a respirator mask. On the contrary, a bike ride through the local city forest following the Chancellor’s appeal would be associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, depending on how often one cannot always avoid closer contact with friends, acquaintances and strangers there – in contrast, for example, to a lonely hike on deserted Black Forest heights. The only argument in favor of a walk in the city park at home, in comparison to a car ride, is the environmental aspect – but the Chancellor probably thought less of this at this point, too. The federal government could object that according to the current state laws and regulations, hotels and boarding houses are closed, so overnight stays there are legally excluded. David Jungbluth: It could, but by now word must have got around – even without a reminder from the Chancellor’s office – that hotels, guesthouses and the like were not allowed to accommodate tourists. In addition: In numerous state regulations, exceptions are provided for the personal sphere, for example, for visits of spouses and partners as well as for visits of separated children to family members. At least in part, visits between relatives in a straight line (i.e., parents, children, grandparents, etc.) are probably also short trips.) permissible. The Chancellor’s statement was, as you said, very sweeping. David Jungbluth: That’s how it is. The chancellor apparently did not give any differentiated thought to the question of how people would feel at an Easter party "Short trip" The question is, how high the probability could be that they violated orders at their destination, which they had observed in their home environment. This factual and legal situation alone does not in any case result in a mandatory categorical "excursion prohibition" on holidays, as the chancellor suggested with her once again very cloudy formulations. The most serious problem with the chancellor’s statements, however, is not so much the inadequate legal classification as the obvious paternalism of the population, which the head of government obviously distrusts from the bottom up and which she is now trying to deal with by means of paternalism. A population that brought her into office in the first place and has regularly reconfirmed her for almost 15 years. The chancellor seems to have forgotten this, or she simply doesn’t care. What are the other problems with this statement from a legal point of view?? David Jungbluth: From a legal point of view, I think there is primarily a twofold competence problem here. Such untechnical as "Exit restrictions" The rules of conduct described above were ied by the individual federal states, but also by individual municipalities, initially in divergent forms of action as general constitutions and legal ordinances. That sounds unwieldy, complicated. David Jungbluth: In the present constellation, it is a matter of state law regulations resulting from the federal structure of the Federal Republic of Germany. Notwithstanding this, important competences have now been transferred to the federal level in a jerky process, thus weakening the federalist principles of a federal state – a dangerous tendency, which some actors presumably want to push even further.