The controversial report by the scientific service of the German Bundestag has meanwhile reached the Mainstream done: On December 3rd, on the Bundestag website published a “state of affairs” on “possible sanctions and administrative enforcement” with regard to a general obligation to vaccinate. It states that, after compulsory vaccination has come into force, unvaccinated people are criminals who can be sanctioned accordingly and subjected to compulsory measures.
How to refer to the Infection Protection Act:
§ 73 para. 1a no. 24 IfSG stipulates that anyone who intentionally or negligently violates a statutory order pursuant to § 20 para. 6 sentence 1 or para refers to this fine provision for a specific offence. According to § 73 paragraph 2 IfSG, the violation of the law can be punished with a fine of up to 25,000 euros.
Furthermore, § 74 para. 1 IfSG states:
with shall be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine, Anyone who commits an intentional act referred to in Section 73 subsection 1 or subsection 1a number 1 to 7, 11, 11a, 12 to 20, 22, 22a, 23 or 24 and thereby a disease referred to in Section 6 subsection 1 sentence 1 number 1 pathogens mentioned in § 7 or a disease mentioned in an ordinance according to § 15 paragraph 1 or paragraph 3 or a pathogen mentioned there.
Prerequisites for criminal liability are intentional action and the “general criminal liability requirements such as the lack of justification and excuses”. According to the report, there are no concerns about the constitutionality of these sanction rules. As sanctions and “administrative enforcement” for vaccination refusers, the legislature can fall back on virtually all possible means of “administrative coercion”:
In addition to the specific sanction options, there is the possibility of enforcement by means of administrative coercion both for a vaccination obligation by law and for one by statutory order if the relevant requirements are met.
The administrative act is enforceable if it is final or has been declared immediately enforceable, either on the basis of a corresponding stipulation in the regulations establishing compulsory vaccination (cf. Section 80 (2) sentence 1 no. 3 Administrative Court Code (VwGO)14) or on the basis of the separate Order of the responsible authority within the administrative act (§ 80 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 4 VwGO).
The authority must first threaten the use of the coercive measure in writing (Section 13 (1) sentence 1 VwVG). The threat must specify a deadline for the fulfillment of the obligation within which the fulfillment of the obligation can reasonably be expected (Section 13 (1) sentence 2 VwVG). This is intended to create the possibility for the obligated party to avert enforcement through voluntary compliance.15 The threat can be linked directly to the administrative act (Section 13 (2) sentence 1 VwVG). If the person obligated does not comply with the act within the set period, the enforcement authority shall determine the means of coercion (Section 14 sentence 1 VwVG). The determination is followed by the application of the means of coercion (§ 15 Para. 1 VwVG).
Coercive payment, compulsory vaccination, compulsory replacement
As part of the threat, the authority must determine the respective means of coercion. This must be proportionate to its purpose:
If, as in the case of compulsory vaccination, it is an act which cannot be represented by a third party and which only depends on the will of the person obliged, this can be done by a Penalty payment of up to 25,000 euros be stopped to perform the action
(Section 11 Administrative Administrative Act). This also includes tolerating the performance of an action (§ 11 Para. 2 VwVG). The exact amount of the fine must already be included in the warning and is based on the standard of proportionality. The penalty payment can also be set repeatedly.
The possibility of coercion through the use of force is also in principle very possible:
If the determination of a penalty payment does not lead to the action being taken by the person liable, In principle, this could also be enforced by direct compulsion (§ 12 VwVG) according to the law on administrative enforcement. Direct coercion is the impact on persons or property through physical violence, tools or weapons. If a penalty payment cannot be brought in from the person liable, then one is also possible under other conditions Substitute detention possible (§ 16 VwVG).
There could also be other legal consequences such as bans on visits, activities or care.
The document mercifully refers to the principle of proportionality and the fundamental right to physical integrity, which is why there was “a high hurdle” for the use of direct coercion. Enforcement of the obligation to vaccinate by means of a penalty payment is linked to less stringent requirements and is therefore “priority”. Nevertheless, the decision to use coercive measures is “at the discretion of the authority”.
The current proposal for general vaccinations from the age of 18 refrains from compulsory vaccinations and aims for fines of up to 2,500 euros. The expert opinion of the scientific service makes it abundantly clear to the unvaccinated and unboosted where their place is once a legal obligation to vaccinate has come into force – unless resistance is maintained and the rulers are shown that they have nothing to do but be a servant of the sovereign.
Read the full document here: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/880040/b78aedc909645ad7528bcfcf3fe198b3/WD-3-199-21-pdf-data.pdf