Constitutional Judge on Corona Crisis: Harbarth Urges Parliamentary Participation

For months, representatives of the opposition have criticized the less influence of parliaments in the Crown crisis. They are supported by the President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Harbarth. The accusations of dictatorship are “absurd”.

The President of the Federal Constitutional Court, Stephan Harbarth, highlighted the role of the Bundestag in the Corona crisis. “The main decisions would have to be made by the parliament,” he told the “Rheinische Post”. While crises are executive time in their early stages, after a certain point in time “the legislature has to give the executive more precise instructions.” The more important the legal interests in question, the more the legislature is asked to make a decision.

For months, members of the opposition at the federal and state levels have criticized the fact that parliaments do not play an important role in key decisions in the fight against pandemics.

“Absurd and vicious” accusations of dictatorship

Harbarth criticized the dictatorship accusations by radical opponents of Corona’s policy as “absurd and malicious slogans.” “Anyone who describes the present as a ‘dictatorship’ relativizes Nazi rule and defames the best republic in our history.” Sometimes he wonders if those who shouted “dictatorship” would also do so if Germany were a dictatorship.

The Basic Law grants the right to resistance when trying to eliminate the basic order of free democracy and no other remedies are possible, Harbarth said. “It cannot be seriously argued that this should be the case today.” An attempt is made to counteract a situation of very great threat through the rule of law. If the executive or legislative power, that is, the executive and the legislative power, exceeded the limits, they would be corrected by the judicial power, that is, the judicial power.

According to Harbath, the Federal Constitutional Court has registered more than 880 proceedings related to the crown pandemic, and more are expected, for example, on the question of the sequence of vaccinations. Many of the judgments handed down so far are mere provisional urgent decisions. “The judiciary in Germany is also working on the pandemic,” emphasized the highest constitutional judge. The courts faced an additional avalanche of proceedings and performed very well under difficult conditions.