Hoyerswerda. While the Hoyerswerda District Court had to deal with proceedings for violations of the restrictions to contain Covid-19 from around the beginning of the year, the number of negotiations scheduled for this has recently dropped noticeably. That’s how judge Ines Lettau assesses it. On a single day, she now had to decide on three objections to the administrative fines sent by the Bautzen District Office for administrative offenses under the Infection Protection Act.
The first case was decided quickly. A woman from Hoyerswerda, who was found at a snack bar by law enforcement officers without mouth and nose protection and was fined 60 euros, did not appear in court. Although she called to say she was sick, she did not send a medical certificate. The judge had no choice but to act in accordance with Section 74 of the Administrative Offenses Act: “If the person concerned fails to appear without sufficient excuse, […], the court has to reject the objection without hearing the matter by judgment. ”However, the evidence in such a context can be submitted within a week, which would result in a so-called reinstatement of the proceedings.
There is also a 60 euro fine in the notification that a 51-year-old was sent for violating the nocturnal curfew. In December last year, shortly before Christmas, he was caught on the street after midnight by police officers in WWII. The officers described as witnesses that the man had behaved very uncooperatively. He therefore gave, for example, a fantasy name and a date of birth from the 19th century, so that he was taken to the Revier in Frentzelstraße to determine his identity. The man also stayed away from the hearing, but was represented by lawyer Frank Durda.
On the one hand, the lawyer argued that the state ordinance, which came into force a week before the incident and sanctioned nighttime travel, had not been properly made public. On the other hand, he complained that a group of young people who ran past the police operation in WK II remained unmolested: “This is all inconclusive, not sensible and partly not constitutional.” Judge Lettau dismissed the objection to the fine. “I consider the Corona Protection Ordinance, which was in force at the time, to be legally effective and binding,” she justified her decision with reference to a publication in the Saxon Law and Ordinance Gazette. With regard to young people, the principle of equality was not violated. It is understandable that the two police officers could not attend to a second before the matter was closed.
“My client is not a refuser,” said lawyer Thomas Dils in the third case. He represents an entrepreneur who operates several petrol stations in the region. According to the allegation, there was no hygiene protection concept on one of them during a control in November. In addition, according to the district office, there was a lack of notices and customer information. The businessman should not only pay 300 euros. Rather, he should also be punished with an entry in the central trade register, in which, among other things, administrative offenses are noted, for which the fine is more than 200 euros. Lawyer Dils basically told the court that his client had made every effort to adhere to all the rules: “But there was a new regulation every 14 days. He was just trying to chase after everyone. That is a barbaric effort. ”The petrol station operator himself said that he had even wanted to submit his hygiene concept to the district administration for examination, which they did not do. The matter has not yet been decided. Because during the negotiation it turned out that a second procedure is pending because of another petrol station. Judge Lettau now wants to bring the two together.
–
