Law expires: what did the federal emergency brake bring?

The so-called federal emergency brake has been in place since the end of April. Since then, the corona numbers have decreased. Now the law is running out. What did the emergency brake do? A review.

By Uwe Jahn, ARD capital studio

The Federal Emergency Brake was first mentioned in an interview by Anne Will with Angela Merkel at the end of March. The Chancellor has just failed with the unthought-out Easter rest, the country leaders can barely agree on corona rules and the incidence values ​​are rising. What to do? Merkel is still thinking about it and says: “I have not yet made a final decision, but one possibility is then to tackle the Infection Protection Act again and say very specifically what must happen in which case.”

Tackling the Infection Protection Act means: Including the federal emergency brake in the fourth law to protect the population from an epidemic emergency of national scope. At the end of April, the Bundestag passed votes from the SPD and the Union, the Greens abstained and the other opposition parties voted against. The Federal Council lets the law pass.

Alice Weidel from the AfD complains about the federal emergency brake – and the corona policy as a whole: “They are banning entire industries, they expropriate dealers and traders, restaurateurs and tourism businesses by being forced to close for months with no prospect of a way out.”

Greens abstain

Klaus Ernst from the Left Party is also upset because, in his opinion, employers are not given enough responsibility: “If I go to retail, I need a test, otherwise I won’t even get in. But the industry, where is 40 million dependent employees romp around and get infected every day, close your eyes and say they should do what they want. ”

That’s not entirely true, mandatory test offers and home office are regulated by ordinance. According to the Bundesnotbremse, outdoor catering must remain closed, which is particularly annoying to Michael Theurer of the FDP: “If you want to prevent binge drinking in the private sector, it is best to open outdoor catering immediately so that people can meet under supervision with clear hygiene concepts.”

More than 400 proceedings at the Federal Constitutional Court

The FDP considers the curfews to be disproportionate, the determination of incidence values ​​to be one-sided, and there were no exceptions for fully vaccinated people. She files constitutional complaint and not only she, also MPs from the SPD, AfD and the Greens. But the brakes cannot be stopped: to date, the Federal Constitutional Court has not granted an urgent application or a complaint.

What worked: the brake or the discussion?

Now, at the end of June, the incidence values ​​are back in the single digits. It is difficult to say whether the federal emergency brake was really able to bring Corona to a halt. Merkel remains vague: “I think that the emergency brake has had its effect, we know that the discussion in advance of certain measures draws people’s attention to something that is about to happen that is not good.”

That is a bit oddly expressed and means: If perhaps the federal emergency brake itself has not slowed the rise in the incidence figures, then the discussions about it may well have led people to behave more cautiously.