display
Karlsruhe (dpa) - Shortly before the end of the year, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected several urgent motions against the tightened regulations for the meat industry - now the judges are submitting the reasons.
As they announced in Karlsruhe on Thursday, the plaintiffs could not convince them that they are threatened with such serious disadvantages that immediate action is necessary.
The plaintiff employees, entrepreneurs and companies must therefore live with the bans that came into force on January 1st until a decision in the main proceedings.
(Az. 1 BvQ 152/20 et al.)
In response to massive corona cases in slaughterhouses, the Bundestag and Bundesrat passed the new occupational health and safety control law shortly before Christmas.
Among other things, it prohibits the use of subcontractors with low-wage Eastern European workers.
Temporary work is also to be made more difficult from April 1 and will be prohibited entirely in three years.
Smaller craft businesses are excluded.
The constitutional judges assume that the companies concerned can hire the trained external staff themselves.
Burdens as a result were "not enough in and of themselves to justify the urgency of an urgent decision against a law," says the message.
A threat to existence is not adequately presented.
Nobody is banned from their profession, but only a certain design is declared inadmissible.
display
As a matter of principle, the Federal Constitutional Court does not yet examine a law in detail in the express procedure.
This only happens in the actual main proceedings, when constitutional complaints are also submitted.
On December 29, the judges initially decided on nine purely urgent motions, which could be followed by constitutional complaints.
According to a court spokeswoman, three urgent proceedings are currently pending against the new rules for the meat industry, two of which are linked to a constitutional complaint.
More precise details were not available.
Notice from the court
First decision of December 29th
display
Second decision of December 29th
Brief communication on the decision