Hendrik Schmidt / dpa-Zentralbild / dpa +++ dpa-Bildfunk +++
Mnchen
The Bavarian Administrative Court has temporarily suspended the 15-kilometer rule for residents of so-called Corona hotspots. The court granted an urgent application from Passau on Tuesday. The authority of the municipalities affected by high numbers of infections to order an entry ban for tourist day trips remains in place according to the decision. At the same time, the judges provisionally confirmed the Bavaria-wide FFP2 mask requirement. People in Bavaria have to continue to wear FFP2 masks on buses, trains and in shops.
The top Bavarian administrative judges had already temporarily overturned a Corona measure of the Free State the previous week: The court saw no basis for a nationwide ban on alcohol in public spaces.
Since January 11, according to the Corona ordinance of the Free State, excursions have only been allowed within a radius of no more than 15 kilometers from the place of residence if the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in the district or city in question has more than 200 new infections per 100,000 Resident reports within a week. Among other things, three SPD members of the state parliament, including the parliamentary group chairman Horst Arnold, had submitted urgent applications against the regulation.
The highest Bavarian administrative court has now argued that the ban on excursions in all probability violates the principle of clarity of norms. For those affected, the spatial scope of the ban on tourist day trips beyond a radius of 15 kilometers from the municipality of residence is not sufficiently recognizable. The textual definition of a 15-kilometer radius is not clear and descriptive enough. The question of proportionality was therefore no longer relevant in the urgent proceedings. The decision of the Senate is valid until a decision on the main issue.
At the same time, the 20th Senate, which is responsible for infection protection law, rejected an urgent application by a private person from the Swabian administrative district against the FFP2 mask requirement. The judges argued that these masks are likely to offer increased self-protection and protection from others compared to medical or so-called community masks. Therefore, there are no concerns about their suitability and necessity for combating the corona pandemic. Health risks are not to be expected, especially because of the limited wearing time. In principle, the expenses for purchasing the masks are reasonable. dpa
–
