The Constitutional Court (VfGH) rules that the corona vaccination requirement is constitutional – because it is not applied anyway. Initially, the decision of the Constitutional Court on mandatory vaccination was eagerly awaited. Although the controversial law went into effect on February 4, it never came into effect.
Given the “currently applicable Covid-19 Non-Application Ordinance (…) there are no constitutional objections to the admissible contested provisions,” the highest judges wrote in their decision, published Wednesday. The vaccination obligation was never applied: just before the “tightening” on March 16, which was accompanied by sanctions, it was suspended because it was disproportionate to the epidemiological situation. Last week, the government finally announced that mandatory vaccination against the coronavirus would be abolished.
On this very day, the constitutional judges also decided on the application of a Viennese, who had argued, among other things, that mandatory vaccination was contrary to the right to respect for private life, because it also includes freedom of choice and physical integrity. The Constitutional Court had to assess the application based on the factual and legal situation at the time of its decision, a press release stressed on June 23.
“Strict standard in testing”
The Constitutional Court ruled in its ruling that the vaccination obligation is a particularly serious violation of the physical integrity and the right to self-determination of the individual. That is why a strict standard applies when checking whether the vaccination obligation is proportionate. A condition for this would be that an infringement of this fundamental right is permissible if the infringement is regulated by law and, for example, is necessary to protect health.
The Covid-19 Mandatory Vaccination Act aims at a high vaccination coverage to protect people who for medical reasons cannot use the vaccination or for whom the effectiveness of the vaccination is reduced. The Vaccination Act also aims to protect the functionality of the health infrastructure and thus public health by reducing the risk of serious diseases after vaccination.
In addition, under the Vaccination Act, the Minister of Health is obliged to continuously check whether vaccination is appropriate and necessary to achieve these goals – however, as part of this ongoing evaluation, the vaccination obligation has been suspended since mid-March. “In this legal situation, there are no constitutional objections to the admissible challenged provisions of the Vaccination Act,” says the VfGH broadcast.
Rauch: ‘Measures are in line with the constitution’
In any case, Health Minister Johannes Rauch (Greens) felt in a statement “again” that the measures taken by the federal government to combat the corona pandemic are in accordance with the federal constitution. The law is proportional, and the Constitutional Court is of the same opinion, but until now a “weaponization” of the vaccination obligation has been disproportionate.The vaccination obligation has been introduced under different conditions.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
