Legal opinion: “Unconstitutionality of indirect COVID-19 vaccination requirements“.
Rules indirectly mandating vaccinations in exchange for freedom violates Germany’s Fundamental Constitutional Law, expert legal scholar Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek writes in recently published 111-page legal opinion.
Fundamental rights violated
A number of rules pertaining to restrictions of persons recovered from COVID 19 and especially the unvaccinated tested persons with paid testing who incur a loss of earnings compensation in Germany are incompatible with the Fundamental Constitutional Law and violate the fundamental rights of those affected. That is the result of a legal opinion of the Freiburg constitutional attorney Prof. Dr. Dietrich Murswiek,
“All disadvantages of unvaccinated persons must be abolished immediately – they are simply unconstitutional,” Murswiek said.
The restrictions on freedom imposed by rules for persons recovered from Covid 19 and those unvaccinated but and testing negative can no longer be justified and therefore violate the right to general freedom of action as well as other fundamental rights. The official aim of these measures is to curb covid-19 disease in order to avoid overloading intensive care units.
However, there is no such danger.
Freedom is guaranteed, and not granted authorities by fulfilling criteria
If rules for unvaccinated persons — those recovered from COVID or testing negative — are to be used to minimize serious illnesses and deaths, the aim is not to avert danger but to optimize health protection in the sense of risk prevention. For this purpose, the freedom of people who are not responsible for these risks must not be restricted.
“According to the Fundamental Law, freedom is guaranteed to individuals by virtue of their human dignity,” writes Murswiek. “He or she does not receive it from the authorities only when he can prove that he fulfills criteria defined by the state for his harmlessness.”
Indirect compulsory vaccination “disproportionate”
The indirect compulsory vaccination exercised on the unvaccinated is disproportionate because it drastically restricts the right of self-determination of the persons concerned with regard to their physical integrity and imposes potentially serious life and health risks on them. For their own protection against COVID-19, the state may not force people.
“For the protection of others, there is basically no need to compel vaccination, because those who are vaccinated are already protected by the vaccination.”
Vaccination as “gateway to freedom” is “cynical”
Withholding compensation for loss of earnings for quarantined unvaccinated people restricts freedoms even further. With this measure, the state defines vaccination as the “gateway to freedom” in a particularly clear and cynical way. It becomes a prerequisite for exercising liberties, although there is no constitutionally viable justification for it. This reverses the The German Fundamental Constitutional Law’s understanding of freedom: the individual is no longer free by virtue of his or her human dignity, but is free because he or she submits to a state request – the request to be vaccinated.
Solid legal argument
The expert legal opinion can be accessed on the website of the Initiative freie Impfentscheidung e.V.: https://impfentscheidung.online/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Gutachten-Die-Verfassungswidrigkeit-des-indirekten-Corona-Impfzwangs.pdf. A brief summary of the expert opinion and the chapter summary from the 100-page legal opinion are also available (in German).
Contact: email@example.com Telephone: (+49) 821-742165