Federal Constitutional Court: Partial vaccination obligation is constitutional | tagesschau.de

The Federal Constitutional Court has now finally approved the corona vaccination requirement in the nursing and health care sector. The protection of the elderly and the sick is of “outstanding importance”, according to the judges.

By mid-March, employees in medical practices, hospitals or nursing homes had to prove that they were fully vaccinated or had recovered. New employees required proof of vaccination from March 16th. If there is no evidence, employers must inform the responsible health authority, which can have serious consequences for employees, from fines to job loss.

The Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that compulsory vaccination is constitutional. It is true that it interferes with the right to physical integrity of the employees concerned. In addition, those who do not want to be vaccinated would have to reckon with professional consequences.

The only alternative would be to give up or change jobs. According to the judges of the first senate, the obligation to be vaccinated is justified under constitutional law and is also proportionate in the context of an assessment.

Special situation in nursing and health care

They referred to the special situation in the nursing and health care system. The primary aim of compulsory vaccination is to protect the elderly and the sick. They have an increased risk of becoming infected, then becoming seriously ill and dying. The protection of the elderly and the sick is of “outstanding importance”, as the decision states. The legislature has a duty to ensure this protection.

Dangerous, difficult to predict dynamics

The Federal Constitutional Court also refers to the time when the statutory provisions on compulsory vaccination were passed. The number of infections increased significantly last December. According to the constitutional court, the legislature could assume at the time that the pandemic would worsen significantly; and in the course of which older and previously ill people are particularly at risk.

In its decisions, the legislature had a wide margin of appreciation, because the pandemic is characterized by dangerous dynamics that are difficult to predict, and the situation is complex.

Nothing changes at higher danger

After the decision, the further development of the pandemic is no reason to deviate from this assessment. The court relies on the assessment of the Robert Koch Institute and medical societies.

It can still be assumed that a vaccination also protects against the currently predominant omicron variant. The protection does decrease over time, and most of the courses of the disease are milder with the omicron variant. Nevertheless, the institution-related vaccination requirement remains constitutional because, according to the experts, nothing has fundamentally changed in terms of the higher risk for old and sick people.

File number: 1 BvR 2649/21