From April 8th 2021 - apologies if already posted. R.
On April 8, 2021, the Weimar Family Court ruled that, effective immediately, two Weimar schools are prohibited from requiring students to wear mouth-to-nose coverings of any kind (especially qualified masks such as N95 masks), impose minimum distances on them, and/or participate in SARS-CoV-2 rapid testing. At the same time, the court determined that classroom instruction must be maintained.
For the first time, evidence has now been presented before a German court regarding the scientific reasonableness and necessity of the prescribed anti-Corona measures. The expert witnesses that were heard: the hygienist Prof. Dr. med Ines Kappstein, the psychologist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner and the biologist Prof. Dr. rer. biol. hum. Ulrike Kämmerer.
The court case is a so-called “child protection case pursuant to § 1666 (1) and (4) of the German Civil Code (BGB)”, which a mother had initiated for her two sons, aged 14 and 8 respectively, at the Local Court - Family Court. She had argued that her children were being physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged without any benefit for the children or third parties. At the same time, this would violate numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions.
Proceedings under Section 1666 of the Civil Code may be initiated ex officio both at the suggestion of any person and without such suggestion if the court considers intervention to be necessary for reasons of the best interests of the child, Section 1697a of the Civil Code.
After examining the factual and legal situation and evaluating the expert opinions, the Weimar Family Court has come to the conclusion that the measures now prohibited represent a present danger to the mental, physical or psychological well-being of the child to such an extent that, if they continue to develop without intervention, considerable harm can be foreseen with a high degree of certainty.
The judge states, "Such a danger is present here. Because the children are not only endangered in their mental, physical and psychological well-being in particular by the obligation to wear face masks during the school time and to keep distances among themselves and to further persons, but beyond that already presently damaged. At the same time, this violates numerous rights of the children and their parents under the law, the constitution and international conventions. This applies in particular to the right to free development of the personality and to physical integrity from Article 2 of the “Grundgesetz” [Constitution] as well as to the right from Article 6 of the “Grundgesetz” to upbringing and care by the parents (also with regard to measures for health care and “objects” to be carried by children)…
The judge states: "The children are physically, psychologically and pedagogically damaged and their rights are violated without any benefit for the children themselves or third parties.
According to the court’s conviction, the school administrators, teachers and others cannot invoke the state-law regulations on which the measures are based, because they are unconstitutional and thus void. Reason: they violate the principle of proportionality rooted in the rule of law (Articles 20, 28 of the “Grundgesetz”).
“According to this principle, also referred to as the prohibition of excessiveness, measures intended to achieve a legitimate purpose must be suitable, necessary and proportionate in the narrower sense - that is, when the advantages and disadvantages they achieve are weighed against each other. The measures that are not evidence-based, contrary to Section 1 (2) IfSG [Infection Protection Act], are already unsuitable to achieve the fundamentally legitimate purpose pursued with them, to avoid overloading the healthcare system or to reduce the incidence of infection with the SARS-CoV- 2 virus. In any case, however, they are disproportionate in the narrower sense, because the significant disadvantages/collateral damage caused by them are not offset by any recognizable benefit for the children themselves or third parties,” the judge said.
He clarifies: “Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that it is not the parties involved who would have to justify the unconstitutionality of the encroachments on their rights, but conversely the Free State of Thuringia, which encroaches on the rights of the parties involved with its state law regulations, would have to prove with the necessary scientific evidence that the measures it prescribes are suitable for achieving the intended purposes and that they are proportionate, if necessary. So far, this has not been done to any degree.”
Continues:
https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/13tlF0vUYQBYba7_d-tam3cSt0dUDqlI1MeQvO0TbM_E/mobilebasic