Constitutional Court Dismisses AfD Challenge to Brandenburg's Covid-19 2G Rules

The Constitutional Court of Brandenburg has rejected a legal challenge brought by the regional parliamentary group of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party regarding the state's Covid-19 access restrictions, known as the 2G rules. These regulations, implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic, allowed entry to certain venues only for individuals who were either vaccinated against or had recovered from the coronavirus.

The AfD had sought judicial review of these measures, arguing that the access restrictions for unvaccinated individuals were incompatible with existing legal frameworks. The court, however, found no grounds for the complaint and deemed the application unfounded. The ruling centered on the measures outlined in the November 2021 ordinance, which mandated that establishments such as restaurants and event venues grant access exclusively to vaccinated or recovered individuals.

According to the court, the decision to impose the 2G access model was justified by the information available to government officials at the time concerning the spread and risks associated with Covid-19. The court determined that the resulting limitations on individual rights were proportionate and legally permissible, given the public health risks and prevailing scientific knowledge during the pandemic. The restrictions were introduced as part of broader efforts to mitigate the impact of the virus and to safeguard the functioning of the healthcare system.

Government officials welcomed the ruling, noting that it reaffirms the state government's actions as being consistent with constitutional requirements. The court's decision supports the position that public health measures taken during the pandemic were based on the state's constitutional framework and the available scientific evidence.

The Constitutional Court has previously reviewed and ruled on other pandemic-related measures. For example, the court had assessed the legality of mandatory face masks in retail environments in Brandenburg as of March 2021. While the judges found the mask mandate to be generally justified, they criticized the related penalty provisions as overly vague and therefore invalid. Similarly, the court reviewed mask mandates from October 2020, which applied to shops, restaurants, public gatherings, and private events such as weddings, along with regulations for demonstrations.

In its rulings, the court distinguished between various restrictions, upholding some measures while invalidating others. The mask requirements and the related impacts on fundamental rights were considered justified in the context of the public health emergency. However, the court found that some rules regarding the freedom of assembly and social gatherings went too far and infringed upon constitutional protections of assembly rights.

The court continues to examine several measures implemented during the first months of the pandemic, particularly those enacted in May and June 2020. The ongoing judicial review reflects the evolving legal interpretation of government responses during health crises, balancing the protection of public health with the preservation of constitutional rights.

The Brandenburg Constitutional Court's latest decision underscores the complexity of pandemic governance and the importance of judicial oversight in evaluating emergency measures. The ruling highlights that, while certain restrictions on individual freedoms may be warranted in extraordinary circumstances, each measure must be subject to careful legal scrutiny to ensure proportionality and compliance with fundamental rights.