[ad_1]
Violent debate between lawyers. The Supreme Court handles numerous complaints in June.
“There are only four reasons for leaving the house, namely …” We all know how the prayer continues. Since March 16, the government these reasons like a prayer wheel – in every Camera, in each microphone.
These reasons are established in a regulation based on the Covid Measures Law 19. A closer look reveals a suspicion among lawyers: the applicable ones. Exit restrictions could not be covered by law.
This was followed by a lawyer and a former deputy Alfred Noll attention recently in a standard guest comment. Constitutional expert says about KURIER Heinz Mayer now: “Noll you’re absolutely right. “Dude Bernd-Christian Funk at least consider the question of whether the bans are “too undifferentiated” to be justified.
“Certain places”, not all
The point is this: In Covid Act 19, the legislature has the competent minister of health Rudolf Anschober authorized to prohibit entry “from certain places” (!) by ordinance.
Fisherman Subsequently, entry into “public places” was prohibited. So they are not “specific places”, but practically the entire republic. Then the exceptions that were last adapted are mentioned as the country is now rebooting.
The horse had been raised from behind: the executive had too much margin to impose sanctions, the Viennese lawyer criticized Christoph Völk, who sees this as a violation of the law: “A minister can only act within the framework of the laws, otherwise not only the regulation itself, but also his actions are illegal.”
In such a case, there would be a ministerial office, but a majority would be needed in parliament and the minister must have acted guilty. Constitutional experts interviewed by KURIER consider this to be “possible, but very unlikely.”
Another legal expert argues if the regulation is beyond the legal framework. Theo Öhlinger: “Perhaps after the strict interpretation of the word. However, lawyers must also consider the intention behind the law.” From the beginning, it was clear to everyone that comprehensive restrictions would eventually contain the coronavirus. , including the deputies who passed the law unanimously in the National Council.
Second wave crown?
So, a “legal wit”? The Constitutional Court should judge that. By Friday, 20 requests had been received, which VfGH wants to address at its June session. The law expires at the end of the year, and the current restrictions already apply on April 30. A greater scope would have been repealed by the Supreme Courtif he government he wanted to reissue such regulations, for example, when the dreaded “second crown wave” arrives. It is conceivable that the minister has to list exactly where not to go instead of naming exceptions.
How it ends can be an expert Funk The only thing that is certain for him is: “The VfGH will not be impressed by the fact that legal errors could have happened quickly due to the crisis.” The rule of law and its high standards are resistant to viruses.
