Following an oral hearing today, the Göttingen Administrative Court (VG Göttingen) declared the deprivation of liberty through fencing and police guarding of the building complex at Groner Landstraße 9-9b in Göttingen during the Corona pandemic unlawful in case no. 4 A 212/20. The court stated in its oral reasoning that there was no legal basis for the fencing, which lasted for several days and was ordered by the city of Göttingen, and that the so-called judicial authorization requirement had not been observed.
The plaintiffs were a married couple, then aged 38 and 31, with their children, aged 9 and 3. The lawsuit did not challenge the quarantine order issued by the city of Göttingen on June 18, 2020, which required all persons residing in the building complex to self-isolate for seven days due to an outbreak of infection there. Rather, the point of contention was the police fencing off of the complex, carried out in an official capacity on behalf of the city of Göttingen, and the resulting deprivation of liberty. The order initially contained neither exceptions nor the possibility of leaving the complex by providing proof of a negative COVID-19 test.
The Infection Protection Act (IfSG) invoked in this case provides no legal basis for such a measure. "Isolation" under Section 30 Paragraph 1 of the IfSG is generally intended to take place in a suitable hospital. Only for "quarantine violators" is a legal basis provided in Section 30 Paragraph 2 of the IfSG for compulsory placement in a hospital or another suitable closed facility. However, this requires a prior court order.
“The decision of the Göttingen Administrative Court sets limits in terms of fundamental rights protection and has far-reaching and fundamental implications for legal developments and the future handling of building complexes during pandemics,” explains attorney Sven Adam, who represented the plaintiffs in court. “The City of Göttingen failed to meet essential procedural requirements and thus significantly and unlawfully infringed upon the fundamental rights of the affected and already socially marginalized residents of the building complex. Such a measure should never have been implemented in this form, even given the dynamic and, both practically and legally, difficult situation caused by the pandemic. More assistance, rather than confinement, would have been appropriate,” Adam continues.
