The obligation to wear a mask during the corona pandemic was compatible with the Saxon constitution. The judges of the responsible constitutional court in Leipzig ruled on Friday that the obligation to wear a mouth and nose covering did not constitute a violation of fundamental rights. A corresponding application by the Saxon AfD faction thus failed before the court.
In 2020, 38 members of the AfD parliamentary group opposed the Corona Protection Ordinance and filed an application for judicial review. They considered the Corona Protection Ordinance of October 30, 2020 as unconstitutional and therefore void.
Wearing a mouth and nose covering appropriately
The Constitutional Court rejected the application in its decision and emphasized that the mask requirement was compatible with both the Saxon Constitution and the Infection Protection Act. In terms of content, the court only dealt with the question of the mask requirement. With regard to the other provisions of the Corona Protection Ordinance, the AfD application was inadmissible “due to a lack of sufficient justification”. The Corona Protection Ordinance also contained provisions on contact restrictions and distance requirements.
According to the ruling, the rule on wearing a mouth and nose covering was appropriate given the pandemic situation at the time. The court referred, for example, to the rapid increase in cases of infection and the number of intensive care patients. There was therefore no objection to the fact that it was considered necessary to reduce contacts in the population in order to avoid an “acute national health emergency”.
The court further explained that the mask requirement was also proportionate because of “the risk of a collapse of the entire health care system due to an unchecked increase in the number of people infected with Covid-19.” In view of this risk, wearing a mouth and nose covering was “a relatively minor inconvenience.” In addition, the requirement was mitigated in exceptional cases, for example when health reasons spoke against the obligation to wear a mask. The court also saw no “formal deficiencies” in the issuing of the regulation. The decision was made last week.
