European - COVID-19 Lawsuits

RULED:  Curfews – Violation of right to freedom of movement etc.

A court in The Hague ruled on February 16, 2021 that the night-time curfew should be stopped and said that the "curfew is a far-reaching violation of the right to freedom of movement and privacy and (indirectly) limits, among other things, the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration”. The government requested and was granted an injunction, or emergency order, in which the three-judge appellate panel in The Hague agreed to suspend that ruling and uphold the curfew pending the outcome of the appeal to be heard on February 19, 2021.

Full text:  Reuters.com news

RULED:  Curfews – No longer warranted

Administrative Court in the German region of Baden-Wurttemberg has overturned the nighttime curfew imposed to stop the spread of COVID-19 following an emergency application. It means the nationwide curfew running from 20:00 to 05:00, which was imposed in mid-December 2020, will be lifted in the state on Thursday, February 11, 2021. The court said that it was no longer warranted because the country's epidemiological situation has improved with the seven-day incidence rate now at 76 cases per 100,000 population compared to 163 cases for every 100,000 inhabitants on December 12. The court also flagged that in the majority of the region's districts, the seven-day incidence rate is below 50 per 100,000, which is the threshold for nationwide coordinated measures. It also rejected the state's argument that the "premature" lifting of the curfew could increase the risk of renewed exponential growth, describing it as "too generalized and undifferentiated".

Full text:  Euronews.com

RULED: Regional containment policies including lockdowns, social distancing, prohibitions on gatherings by family or friends deemed unconstitutional 

A LANDMARK legal decision declared that regional containment policies – including lockdowns, social distancing, prohibitions on gatherings by family or friends) are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The judge called the lockdowns a “catastrophically wrong political decision with dramatic consequences for almost all areas of people’s lives.” The judge ruled that the government violated the “inviolably guaranteed human dignity” under basic German law. This momentous, affirmative, liberating decision was handed down by a court of law in Weimar, Germany.

Full text:  Alliance for Human Research Protection

International Tribunal – Crimes Against Humanity; Common Law Court Rulings (Europe)

Formed in response to global covid-19 measures, an Emergency Grand Jury for Natural Law from Public Health & Justice along with 32 Judges from around the world who are experts & together we have launched an International Tribunal for Emergency Injunctions & we have served Indictments for Crimes Against Humanity To Ban:

1) Forced Vaccinations, 2) Unlawful Lockdowns 3) The Criminal Misuse

4) Fraudulent Tests on Healthy People

5) The Criminal misuse of 5G Technologies6) Economic Terrorism

7) Forcing people into poverty.

Download and Service Cease & Desist Covid Vaccination, Safe Conduct & Health & Safety, etc.

Full text:  Expopolitics

RULED:  Enforced wearing of mask in public space deemed unconstitutional

The police tribunal in Brussels issued a judgment on January 12, 2021 acquitting a man summoned for non-wearing of a mask. The judge concluded that the enforced wearing of the mask in public space was unconstitutional. The court recalled that the two articles of law relating to public security, the ministerial order of June 30, 2020, on the basis of which the infringement was established, were exceptions to the principle of freedom of movement. The judge recognized that the current health situation justifies a restriction of freedom of movement and the imposition of certain measures. However, he considered that these measures must have a legal basis – parliament had not legislated to authorize the restrictive measures taken by the various ministers since the beginning of the crisis – and that they must be compatible with the other rights in force.

Full text:  LeVif.be News

RULED:  Prohibiting social contact deemed unconstitutional

In a landmark judgment on January 11, a district court judge in Weimar declared the prohibition on social contact unlawful as contrary to the German Basic Law (Gründgesetz). The background to the proceedings in Weimar was a fine of 200 euros imposed on a man from Weimar in April 2020. The man had celebrated his birthday together with seven other people in the courtyard of a house at the end of April 2020 and thus violated the contact requirements in force at the time, which only allowed members of two households to be together. The judge ruled that the order at the time had been unconstitutional because the Infection Protection Act was not a sufficient legal basis for such a far-reaching regulation as a contact ban, the ruling said. The order of the contact ban had violated human dignity and had not been proportionate. The public prosecutor's office in Erfurt is taking action against the ruling issued by the Weimar District Court and had submitted an application to the local court for admission of a legal complaint. With this, the public prosecutor wants to achieve that the judgment with the underlying determinations is overturned and referred to another judge for a new hearing and decision.

Full text:  German Alliance for Human Research Protection

RULED:   Lawyer successful – family can travel back to state without negative PCR test  

Jeroen Pols, the lawyer of the Virus Waarheid action group, has won summary proceedings against the Dutch State. He demanded that the Netherlands cannot ask that his wife and children first undergo a PCR test and show a negative test result before a return trip to the Netherlands. The preliminary relief judge of the court in The Hague agrees with Pol and has decided that his family can fly back from Tanzania on 3 January without a negative test. The State must also repay the legal costs to Pols. 

According to the court, the verdict applies only to this case. But according to professor of general legal science Jan Brouwer, this is more nuanced: "In principle, a court decision always applies only between the parties to the proceedings, but it is customary to attach general validity to such a judgment." This means that if someone else sues the State in an identical case, there is no reason to expect the judge to decide otherwise, Brouwer explains.

According to the professor, it is therefore likely that the policy will have to be changed on the basis of this judgment.
 

The State has announced that it will appeal this decision.
Full text: Nos news

RULED:   Forced mask-wearing causing the splitting of society into two classes deemed illegal/unconstitutional

On December 23, 2020, Constitutional Court overturned virus mask mandate in schools and ruled that compulsory mask-wearing and splitting classes into two halves to be taught in alternate shifts, were illegal. Two children and their parents had brought the case before the court, saying the measures violated the principles of equality before the law, the right to a private life and the right to education. 

Full text:  Courthousenews.com

RULED:  Mandatory face masks and restriction of movement deemed unconstitutional

Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“the Court”) declared unconstitutional, two measures imposed in the efforts to suppress the COVID-19 epidemic, namely the mandatory use of face masks in the Canton of Sarajevo and the general restriction of movement in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“Federation”). The Court found that the contested measures violated the right to private life and the freedom of movement under the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the European Convention on Human Rights (“Convention”), and Protocol No. 4 to the Convention. However, it stopped short of quashing the contested measures and it only ordered the Parliament and the Government of the Federation “to take activities and bring their conduct in compliance” with human rights standards and to report to the Court about the compliance with this order.

Full text:  BDKAdvokati.com

RULED:  PCR tests cannot be used as effective diagnosis of infection 

Lisbon Court of Appeal ruled that the PCR test “is unable to determine, beyond reasonable doubt, that a positive result corresponds, in fact, to the infection of a person by the SARS-CoV-2 virus”.  Most importantly, the judges decided that a single positive PCR test cannot be used as an effective diagnosis of infection. The judges referred to the following publication: Surkova, E., Nikolayevskyy, V., & Drobniewski, F. (2020). False-positive COVID-19 results: hidden problems and costs. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine, 8(12), 1167–1168. doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(20)30453-7

Full text:  The Lancet Respiratory Medicine

RULED:  Establishment of certain restrictions, orders and prohibitions are not constitutional 

Provincial Administrative Court ruled that establishment of certain restrictions, orders and prohibitions in connection with an epidemic do not meet the constitutional condition for its issuance. The judge stated: “The Council of Ministers, on the basis of the wording of the statutory authorization as formulated in this way, could freely shape the sphere of fundamental rights and freedoms of an individual in the ordinance, without substantive guidelines contained in the act, specifying individual restrictions, orders and prohibitions. As a consequence, the independent law-making activity undertaken in this respect led to the regulation of statutory matters and the violation of a number of fundamental freedoms and rights of an individual, including the freedom of economic activity under Section 22 of the Constitution". Further, the procedure of introducing the restrictions, orders and bans "led to the violation of basic constitutional standards and rights in the field of freedom of economic activity".

Full text:  Law. Poland

RULED:  Interference by public authorities in citizen’s fundamental rights 

Madrid court on Thursday struck down a government order imposing a partial coronavirus lockdown on the Spanish capital, ruling in favor of the Madrid region in a standoff with national authorities. Under the Health Ministry’s order, Madrid regional authorities barred residents from leaving the area, including nine satellite towns, without a valid reason, and imposed other measures to curb the spread of COVID-19 in one of Europe’s worst virus hotspots. Regional government chief Isabel Diaz Ayuso had opposed the order, saying it would ravage the region’s economy, also arguing the ministry had no power to impose such curbs on a region. The Madrid regional court sided with her in its ruling, calling the restrictions “interference by public authorities in citizens’ fundamental rights without the legal mandate to support it”.

Full text: Reuters.com News