Jump to content

Austrian Court Rules: Citizens do not have to obey Decrees only Laws and Fines are Illegal


Recommended Posts










Dear All,
An Edinburgh Court has overturned a  decree ordering a wine café One20 to close ruling that councils do not have the power to close a business on the basis of a decree or guidance.


It has been implied that Angela Merkel has the power to shut down hotels, cafes, theatres, businesses by decree and the requirement to follow that decree is a legal obligation.

It is not.

The emergency legislation, enacted by the German parliament has set up a regime which Rheinland Pflaz top judge Lars Brocker has called a police state and  Sonderregime. *”polizeirechtliche Sonderregime von Verordnungen”)


But a police state and polizeirechtliche Sonderregime von Verordnungen interfering with fundamental rights is not possible under the German Constitution or Grundgesetz.
The Austrian Constitutional Court has just overturned key covid decrees as unconstitutional and also the decrees were empty shells and drained of all facts, arguments and evidence necessary to justify the infringement of basic rights.
A commentary by an Austrian lawyer explaining why the decision makes the entire lockdown illegal and opens the door to compensation here.
As a result of this negligence on the side of the government,  businesses can claim compensation for damages they suffered because of these restrictions.
The same arguments apply to Germany. The logical consequence is that the entire lockdown has been unconstitutional and  illegal too and that every single person can claim compensation in Germany too for infringements of their basic rights which have not been justified by the government.
The German Constitution was designed precisely to stop a repeat of 1933 and prevent the establishment of a police state stop  rule by decree and stop invasion of rights.
The argument that covid is an emergency and rule by decree is necessary has no force in Germany s Grundgesetz.
Ein Gutachten der Wissenschaftlichen Dienste des Deutschen Bundestages made it clear that the invasion of fundamental rights cannot be justified by a "Generalklausel wie § 28 Abs. 1 S. 1 IfSG" prompting Wolfgang Schauble to try to recall parliament.
Angela Merkel has ignored these warnings and proceeded with a a de facto police state and dictatorship.
This argument was ruled illegal and invalid during the Nuremberg Trials  of politicians, industrialists, judges, doctors and soldiers who followed the decrees of the Nazi dictatorship.
Judges who helped abolish democracy and the rule of law in 1933 to allow the Nazi dictatorship to carry out massive infringements of human rights claiming an emergency and necessity to rule by decree were condemned at the Nuremberg trials in 1947 for doing just that under due process.
When the Bundesrepublik Deutschland was founded after WW2, it received a new Constitution and law, Grundgesetz. It is a  requirement under German law, EU law and the European Convention on Human Rights that parliamentary democracy is not suspended, illegal obligations should not be placed on individuals and that their rights should not be infringed.
The emergency legislation which has de facto and in practice set up a police state and rule by decree and so abolished the Constitution and rights is, therefore, a priori invalid. The legislation was a failure of the Bundestag to perform its control function.
It is a grave failure of the German army chiefs especially Martin Schelleis to allow troops to be used in unconstitutional and unjustified covid operations which involve a massive infringement of rights because each German soldiers swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, parliamentary democracy, "Recht und Freiheit."
The shutting of businesses, the requirement to wear masks, restrictions on movement, all the decrees, guidance and restrictions flowing from the police state authority which has been set up illegally in violation of the Grundgesetz which makes parliament the law maker, and rights are without exception illegal under the Constitution which continues to be only reference point.
If shutting down shops,businesses,theaters, wearing masks are important enough to fight covid to be made compulsory, then they should be made law following the regular procedure. 
Lawmakers should weigh, debate, consult, scrutinize evidence, consider the necessity and proportionality of covid measures and debate how far medical considerations (and of a select view experts) should be allowed to outweigh the many other economic and social and other factors that make human life flourish in a free and open society like Germany.
The political response to covid has been extreme precisely because it involves decrees and a police state, which does not see itself obliged to weigh evidence and other important economic and societal and human rights issues.
Australian public health commander Michelle Giles told the Supreme Court of Victoria trial challenging the legality of the curfew that there was “not evidence” for the effectiveness of Victoria’s curfew before it was implemented.
In 2014, Ebola broke out in West Africa with a fatality rate of about 73% in its early stages in Liberia.
Yet even with a disease with such a high fatality rate, lockdowns of parts of the capital of Liberia, Monrovia, were considered disproportionate and an extreme measure excluding other factors such as the need to earn a living, to eat, educational needs.  
Five soldiers who shot a teenage protester were court martialled.
Yet, Angela Merkel and Markus Soeder locked down all of Germany in spring for a disease which has a fatality rate of about 1 or 2 % (statistics vary) of all those who test positive.
The UK Office of National Statistics reports no sign of more deaths due to covid than the five year average.
It is clear the covid lockdown did not meet the human rights test, the necessity, proportionality or legality test in spring which epidemic laws require. The new restrictions do not meet those tests now either.
WHO has said that a lockdown is the last resort.
The police state which has been set up has used police or health officials with police powers to ensure people comply with health guidance.
Former UK Supreme Court judge Johnathan Sumption has said that police have no legal power to enforce a ministers wishes, decrees or guidance issued.

The use of policing as a means to ensure compliance with public health guidelines which have no legal force seems to be a strategy to make people think they have a legal obligation to obey.
There can be no fine without a law.

The Austrian Constitutional Court ruled that most of the 40,000 fines issued during the lockdown were illegal and infringed basic human right anchored in the Constitution to leave their homes and to move around places.

One of the basic rights which has been de facto abolished by the emergency decrees and covid measures is the right to due process.
Cafe and restaurant owners and others are being de facto accused and found guilty on presumption, collectively and without evidence of serious criminal offences, and the infectious law 2001  gives the police the power to investigate, arrest and even shoot suspects suspected of spreading a disease.
It is suggested there is no appeal but the infectious diseases laws obliged health officials to investigate the facts before they fine or charge anyone for spreading a dangerous disease. Yet, there is no such fact collection occurring, just a presumption of guilt.
Police also have to follow due process when they charge covid suspects for covid related  crimes. Even in a so called immediate threat to life and emergency “Gefahrenabwehr”, they have to follow a process of weighing evidence.
In Innsbruck, the state prosecutors are investigating the individual role of people in spreading coronavirus in Ischgl under due process. Four people are named as suspects. Evidence is being gathered that the accused posed a significant threat of serious bodily injury or death to themselves or others. They will have the right of appeal and to compensation.
The reality is every single person in Germany has the same due  right to due process and to present evidence that they are not guilty of deliberately threatening others with a dangerous disease and have have a lawful, reasonable excuse for not observing the rules under the Constitution, keeping their businesses open.
Indeed, every single person has a lawful, reasonable excuse for not observing most of the decrees rules because they are not only unlawful, they are also not necessary, not proportionate,not appropriate, and there is no evidence that, even if people were covid positive, even if they were infectious, they present a threat to others.

Thecovid  tests are faulty. In Taufkirchen 58 out of 60 tests were false positives.


Courts have to prove that a specific person who tested covid positive really is positive and the test was callibrated, accurately etc. which they can t.

Furthermore, scientists admit they do not know at what point a person becomes infectious (the CT Wert) . Without such proof, courts can t rule infectious disease laws apply to any specific person.


Merkel s government has tried to justify restrictions by pointing to higher infection covid numbers. But courts have rejected this abstract number and arbitrary new infections per 100,000 as sufficient to justify restrictions on individual people, sectors etc.

The Austrian Constitutional Court said the Health Ministry provided no evidence for restrictions at all, other than a few emails and opinions. I short, they were unable to supply a rationale for the restrictions, which they were enforcing with sanctions, fines and penalties.


"In den diesbezüglichen Unterlagen des Gesundheitsministeriums fanden die Höchstrichter nämlich zwar mehrere Verordnungsentwürfe, eine Anwesenheitsliste sowie mehrere E-Mails „von diversen Stellen außerhalb des Ressorts“, aber „keine die Erlassung der Verordnung begründenden Aspekte“. Die von mehreren Gastronomen angefochtene Abstandsregel wurde daher aufgehoben."

Given the rule by arbitrary decree in a police state, I suggest people in Germany launch a campaign of civil disobedience is a useful strategy for ensuring that covid accused given fines on the basis of decrees make use of their right to due process and to show that have lawful and reasonable grounds not to obey covid rules, and get the fines overturned and compensation.
People are being accused of a collective guilt or responsibility for increasing covid numbers or Sippenhaft and being given illegal fines and penalties.
But Sippenhaft is against the Grundgesetz which stresses the individual responsibility, guilt and due process rights to show they have lawful and reasonable excuses not to comply with covid measures.
People are being de facto deprived of the right to appeal because it is implied to them that they have been found under due process of being guilty of spreading a disease and have no right to appeal when they do have a right to due process and to appeal all fines and covid rules also in criminal courts.
Anyone given fines by police or health officials should also ask for their names and go to the court and file charges against them individually for issuing fines illegally and in violation of the Constitution.
I encourage people to stay open on Monday and refuse to go comply with an illegal, unnecessary lockdown decree and go about their business as usual and as the Constitution and Grundgesetz allow.
A campaign of Civil Disobedience as Gandhi launched in India may help restore parliamentary democracy and the rule of law

· Insist the German Constitutional Court rules the police state and decrees are unconstitutional and there is no legal framework for lockdowns
The patch work of rulings is eroding trust in the law. In one city, a covid measure is overruled, in another upheld. In Munich a judge recorded doubts about the legality of a decree but said he assumed a law would be passed and upheld the covid restrictions. What kind of argument is that? Either there is a law or there isn't
· Insist the emergency legislation is repealed
· Insist that lawmakers go through the law making process to ensure laws are proportionate and maintain human rights. Merely meeting to approve the decrees already decided by Angela Merkel ets is not parliamentary process. Lawmakers must scrutinize, weigh, consult their voters, stake holders etc
· Hold information rounds with community stake holders
· Refuse to pay any fines and go instead to the court to present evidence, facts, to have fines declared illegal and claim compensation for the unconstitutional and negligent covid  decrees 
Thank you for your attention!
By the way as you can see from the email forwarded, I am considered a competent journalist investigating this matter by WHO. From the attachment, you can see Dr Sarah Wollaston, then Chair of the UK Parliaments Health Committee invited me to submit evidence to an inquiry on pandemic preparedness in 2016 after I warned that the approach was flawed and dangerous.
I am a graduate from Edinburgh University, Scotland, and have written for the MSM and have dual Irish, Austrian citizenship.
To conclude I think you have every reason to hope for compensation for the damage due to the covid restrictions like Austrian businesses now have after the Constitutional Court ruling yesterday 29th October 2020, determining the governments acted against the law, Constitution in its covid decrees and was negligent and in breach of duty by failing to justify those decrees.
Good luck!
Jane Burgermeister



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's some of her recent tweets
Jane Burgermeister
Larisa, GreeceJoined January 2020

Jane Burgermeister’s Tweets

Pinned Tweet
Are they going to pulling dead bodies of hundreds of thousands of people from their homes who have starved to death over winter like during WW2 in GR?I don t know if local govs like Wien realize what shutting down eco means. Evthg has to reopen immediately
3/Bundestag MPs must end covid emergency rule Wed, return to parliament to scrutinize Merkel decrees to see if each & every 1 is legal,ie proportionate, targetted,local, appropriate, with evidence, minimally invasive.When no representatives scrutinize gov decrees its dictatorship
2/No plan for Bundestag to scrutinize disporportionate #covid vaccination campaign from Dec.Not even in DRCongo at height of Ebola did gov decide to give all ppl risky Ebola jabs,recognized ppl wouldn t accept dangerous experiment. In total 400,000 Ebola jabs given since 2014.
1/New version of Merkel's Enabling Law spells more #coronavirus dictatorship allowing decrees to be issued with a recouse to vague, general statement of a general threat. No plan for Bundestag to scrutinize if measures legal, proportionate, targetted etc https://tagesschau.de/inland/groko-infektionsschutzgesetz-bundestag-101.html
Larisa guy got 300E fine for not wearing a mask from health officials, was told he didn t have to pay cos no code. Phantom fines are being issued cos breaking a covid decree is not the same as breaking law.Fear of phantom fines, which ppl think they have to pay, is destroying eco
Edited by jesuitsdidit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...