More than 200 applications against the institution-related vaccination obligation are said to have already been received in Karlsruhe. But the Federal Constitutional Court does not seem to want to deal with the issue: the complaints are rejected in rows. constitutional lawyer Dr. Ulrich Vosgerau sees a systematic denial of justice here.
Vosgerau writes at “young freedom„:
In these days and weeks, the Federal Constitutional Court rejects the acceptance of such constitutional complaints en masse and usually justifies this stereotypically with a single sentence, which amounts to the fact that the complaint was – allegedly – insufficiently justified by the procuratorate. Against this systematic denial of rights – it is after all about that in each individual case Destruction of the professional existence of a professionalwhich the aging society urgently needs – lawyers are increasingly starting to up in arms.
in one Resolution of February 10, 2022 the competent first senate of the Federal Constitutional Court had already explained that it did not see any “reasonable” constitutional concerns with regard to the facility-related vaccination requirement. Side effects are extremely rare and therefore completely improbable, the protection of the “vaccination” against infections is reliable – and anyone who does not want the vaccination should simply give up their job.
However, it is now known that these are – to put it mildly – false assumptions. A protection against infection by the current vaccines is not given – and side effects are by no means as rare as claimed.
Nevertheless, the Constitutional Court apparently does not want to deal with the situation. dr Vosgerau further reports:
A constitutional complaint by two doctors, which I represented myself, was also not accepted for decision; it is “already inadmissible” with reference to Section 23 (1) and Section 92 of the Federal Constitutional Court Act. In plain language, this means that the constitutional complaint was not justified in the matter at all and did not even name a fundamental right that was allegedly violated! Now these allegations by the competent chamber are demonstrably inaccurate, of course the constitutional complaint was justified – particularly complex. (A colleague suspects that the court simply confused my constitutional complaint with another, since it was rejecting large numbers of cases in record time). Be that as it may: because of the demonstrable incorrectness of this reasoning, the accusation of intentional perverting of rights (Section 339 of the Criminal Code) is now also in the air.
Whether the error of the court was intentional or negligent could only be inferred from the opinion of the reporting judge. Interesting now: as a lawyer you can inspect the file at the court, but interestingly, according to the court’s consistent practice, this vote is not part of the file. You can only get at that if the public prosecutor’s office would confiscate the entire case files at the Federal Constitutional Court.
It can be doubted that things are still going well here. dr According to Vosgerau, those affected can still appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, which cannot overturn the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, but could at least condemn the Federal Republic of Germany for violating the fair trial principle from Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If resistance to the facility-related compulsory vaccination does not also increase in the general population, Germany’s aging society is cutting its own flesh here: Sooner or later, many a vaccination fanatic will experience the “joy” of the staff shortage in the clinics firsthand. He shouldn’t complain then: As is well known, you reap what you sow.