Skip to content

German courts uphold nearly all COVID-19 restrictions after years of legal battles

Years of legal fights over COVID-19 rules conclude—with judges overwhelmingly siding with the state. Why did so few cases succeed?

The image shows a graph depicting the number of Covid-19 cases in the United States. The graph is...
The image shows a graph depicting the number of Covid-19 cases in the United States. The graph is accompanied by text that provides further information about the data.

Germany's legal battles over COVID-19 restrictions have largely come to an end. Higher administrative courts across the country dismissed the vast majority of challenges, with only a few plaintiffs securing partial or full victories. The Federal Constitutional Court also rejected complaints against vaccination proof rules in healthcare settings, finding no clear unconstitutionality.

The outcomes varied slightly by region but followed a clear pattern. In Baden-Württemberg, courts reviewed 201 applications, yet only 16 led to a ruling—three fully successful and three partially. North Rhine-Westphalia's Higher Administrative Court handled 380 cases, with just three achieving even partial success. Berlin-Brandenburg saw around 100 judicial reviews, with none succeeding so far and only three still pending.

Bavaria initiated roughly 450 main proceedings, though 14 decisions remain unresolved. Across all regions, oral hearings with expert testimony were rare. The Federal Constitutional Court's dismissal of complaints against vaccination requirements under §§ 20a, 22a, and 73 IfSG reinforced the broader trend: no nationwide restrictions were deemed unconstitutional. A full nationwide count of lawsuits and their results remains unlikely. Germany's federal legal system means data is scattered across regional courts, making a comprehensive tally difficult.

With most legal challenges now settled, the courts have upheld nearly all COVID-19 measures as lawful. Only a small fraction of cases resulted in favourable rulings for plaintiffs. The decisions confirm that restrictions, including vaccination proof rules, did not violate constitutional rights in the eyes of the judiciary.

Read also:

Latest