Due to the many inquiries, we are currently offering free Zoom Conferences for Parents. Please register briefly via our secretariat or the contact form on the right.
*** The Weilheim family court is also involved ***
No masks, no minimum distance and no quick tests - this is how the decision of the family court from Weimar can be summarized. In the specific case, a judge ruled with immediate effect that two schools in Weimar are prohibited from forcing pupils to wear masks during class, to take quick tests or to keep their distance from classmates. The judge based this on Section 1666 (4) of the German Civil Code (BGB). He saw in these measures a child welfare endangerment and therefore ordered the temporary stop of these measures.
(4) In matters of personal care, the court can also take measures with effect against a third party.
The child is the legal holder of the right to protection against the state (BeckOGK / Burghart, 1.2.2021, BGB § 1666 marginal number 55). According to Section 1666 (4) BGB, the court can also order measures with effect against third parties in the area of personal custody. "Third parties" can be many different people, but also "other people who have an impact on the child" (cf. BeckOK BGB / Veit, 57th Ed. November 1.11.2019, 1666, BGB § 12 Rn. XNUMX), thus teachers.
Whether the decision of the single judge will hold and whether this decision can also be transferred to other cities and federal states remains to be proven. The judge justified his decision on about 180 pages. Legally problematic What is part of this decision, however, is that the judge made the decision not only inter partes (i.e. only binding between the plaintiffs and the schools / teachers) but also inter omnes (i.e. binding for all students). This is likely to be a point of attack in the further course of this matter. It is therefore important that every student complains individually (represented by the parents)!
No masks, no quick tests, no minimum distance
Many parents rightly ask themselves this question. How reliable and useful can a quick test be if, in the end, the children wear an FFP2 or another mask and have to keep their distance?
Before we receive the first complaint calls or e-mails, I would like to make it clear that this article has nothing to do with denying (or similar) the corona virus. It's just about ensuring that children can enjoy school and their childhood with a sense of purpose. We all know how stressful - especially for asthmatics - wearing an FFP2 or other mask can be. At the same time, we require our children to wear such masks - despite the express warning on the packaging - for a continuous period of sometimes up to 90 minutes and a total of 8 hours per day. It is obvious that this cannot be healthy. Especially since numerous medical professionals and even the public media have repeatedly emphasized that children are practically not contagious. Many schools also seem to have lost all measure. The consequences for those who refuse masks range from being excluded from lessons to withholding important learning materials. The latter concerns a family member from his own law firm. He refused to endure the constant tests and wearing a mask. As a consequence, he was sent home (as expected). But there was no end to this. It was also explained to him that he would not receive the documents necessary for the Abitur if he did not adhere to the given measures. You may think what you want of the measures - the withholding of important learning documents will not be in the spirit of the inventor and should even meet the criteria of criminally relevant coercion.
So far, I have taken myself out of the entire corona debate and have not appeared publicly in this regard. Such conditions, however, no longer have anything to do with a constitutional state, which otherwise, oh so meticulously, always pays attention to proportionality, the protection of the weak and the minorities. Every law student has been told from the first semester that an administrative act is null and void if it does not comply with proportionality. children despite a negative rapid test Invite them to do one all day Wear an FFP2 or other mask is certainly no longer proportionate - and is highly illogical.
With all this, the question arises as to how much fear or caution is sensible and justified to force a mask on children despite a negative rapid test.
With this article I certainly do not want to “catch clients”. Accordingly, we offer one for all interested parents and students free initial consultation on this subject. Of course, we are happy to represent you before the individual courts and also provide you with legal support. Regardless of that, we will soon be offering you one Also make the application or statement of claim available free of charge. Because, in my opinion, access to justice should not depend on the financial background of the parents or the respective status.
I hope that with this post I was able to encourage you to take legal action against these school measures. At the same time we apologize for this contribution to all those who are behind these (school) measures. The following applies to the latter: I didn't mean to offend you, but I won't remove this post either - calls and e-mails aimed at this will not be answered.