The man had turned in particular against meeting bans, and contact restrictions. Due to the social isolation of severe and unavoidable prejudice would be caused to him. Also the ban on religious events and the de facto abolition of the freedom of Assembly he considers to be disproportionate. To the discharge of the health care system more lenient, as appropriate measures were available. So the Sick and people with Corona could be isolated, suspect and at-risk groups to be protected, he argued.

in the opinion of the constitutional judge, the man should have first, to the administrative courts. For this, he had – as he claimed had failed – only against the bans. There are quite a appeal. Since it was a regulation and not a law, it is possible to obtain without recourse to the Federal constitutional court for legal protection.

The judges emphasize that they relied on a prior expert-of-court preparation: The development of the pandemic and the assessment of experts are the answer to the constitutional questions of vital importance. The plaintiff would have had to set out much more precisely why more lenient measures are supposedly just as suitable. The mere allegation is not enough.