Urgent decisions always have only a limited meaning.

Rarely, however, do they fall into a political debate as punctually as they did on Friday.

Since the Federal Constitutional Court published its decision on institution-related vaccination.

So it will remain, at least when it comes to Karlsruhe.

The judges rejected an application to temporarily suspend the obligation that will apply from March 15.

A partial obligation to vaccinate has so far not encountered any “serious constitutional concerns”.

Marlene Grunert

Editor in Politics.

  • Follow I follow

The law stipulates that people who work in healthcare or care must be vaccinated or recovered in the future.

You are obliged to provide your employer with proof of this.

If someone cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, they must also document this.

Several people who work in the healthcare system and do not want to be vaccinated have therefore turned to the Federal Constitutional Court in an urgent procedure.

However, the First Senate decided that the issues raised should be clarified in the main.

Out of respect for the jurisdiction of the legislature, the court only rejects a regulation by way of summary proceedings after careful consideration.

It must not be reasonable for those affected to wait for the main proceedings.

In the current case, from the Senate's point of view, the disadvantages that could be expected if the partial vaccination obligation were temporarily suspended outweighed the disadvantages.

"The very low probability of serious consequences of vaccination is offset by the significantly higher probability of damage to the life and limb of vulnerable people," says the decision.

Until the decision on the constitutional complaint is made, old people and people with previous illnesses or disabilities would be “exposed to a significantly greater risk of becoming infected with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and therefore becoming seriously or even fatally ill.”

The pandemic is still characterized by a special infection dynamic.

Also with regard to the Omicron variant, it can be assumed that vulnerable groups are still particularly at risk.

From the point of view of the Constitutional Court, it should also be taken into account that patients in hospitals and nursing homes are only able to protect themselves to a limited extent.

They cannot escape unvaccinated staff because they are dependent on their help for “essential human basic needs”.

In view of all this, the interest of the complainants in being able to work without being vaccinated until the decision on the constitutional complaint has been made must take a back seat.

Express doubts about a "double dynamic reference"

In summary proceedings, it is particularly important whether disadvantages that would be associated with a law that could later turn out to be unconstitutional are irreversible.

This is precisely what the complainants in Karlsruhe referred to.

If they comply with their legal obligation and get vaccinated, it cannot be reversed.

This is confirmed by the judges, who add to their decision that a vaccination triggers a physical reaction and can at least temporarily impair physical well-being.

In individual cases, serious vaccination side effects could also occur, which could also be fatal in extreme exceptional cases.

With a view to the partial vaccination requirement, however, the Senate points out that the law “not inevitably” requires those affected to be vaccinated.

Temporarily, those who did not want to be vaccinated would have to accept a change in their job, possibly even their profession.

That is not unreasonable.

The judges make it clear that "economic disadvantages" are generally not suitable "to justify the suspension of the application of standards".

The Senate also addresses what is regularly discussed in the debate about vaccination requirements: the decreasing effect of vaccines.

According to the "largely unanimous assessment of the expert third parties consulted" it can be assumed that vaccinations continue to offer "relevant" protection, also against infections with omicron.

The judges express doubts about a "double dynamic reference" in paragraph 20a of the Infection Protection Act.

When it comes to the requirements that the vaccination or proof of recovery must meet, reference is made there to a regulation, which in turn is based on the websites of the Paul Ehrlich Institute and the Robert Koch Institute.

It is questionable whether the information provided by the institutes could be binding under the current legal situation.