The court decision made headlines nationwide, at least in the media, which are not strictly on the government course: A family judge from the Weilheim district court had exempted a school child from the mask requirement . In the specific case, a child at a secondary school in Schlehdorf, Upper Bavaria, was repeatedly sent home from class because it suffered from headaches and nausea while wearing the mask. The child had already had a medical certificate since October 2020. However, this was not recognized by the school management, as the Münchner Merkur reports: That is why the parents went to court. There the family judge ruled that “the child’s well-being” was “at risk in the specific case”.
The judge came to the decision that the school management should no longer require the child to wear a mouth and nose cover on the school premises, as the report says: “In addition, the court had ruled that the child was not due to the verdict may be isolated in the class. ”In principle, however, the court decision did not overturn the relevant ordinance. The family or local court would not be responsible for such a legal review, but the administrative courts.
The Munich public prosecutor’s office is now examining several charges for perverting the law against the Weilheim judge. “We have initiated preliminary investigations because there were several reports,” said a spokeswoman, according to Münchner Merkur: “It has not yet been decided whether these preliminary investigations will be turned into an official investigation or discontinued.” Both the school management and the Ministry of Culture in Munich had underlined , the judgment is an “individual decision”, so the sheet. The decision has no impact on infection protection measures in Bavarian schools. The regulations were also classified as lawful by the Administrative Court.
In Weimar in the red-red-green ruled Thuringia, the public prosecutor’s office, which is subordinate to a green justice minister, initiated a search last week of a judge who, like his colleague, had decided in Weilheim. There is an initial suspicion that the judge was guilty of violating the law, said a spokesman for the prosecutor. The judge’s cell phone was confiscated. The prosecution spoke of “indications that the accused has arbitrarily assumed his jurisdiction, even though it was an administrative matter for which only administrative judicial channels are open”.
According to the judge’s attorney Gerhard Strate, the public prosecutor’s office accuses the judge of violating Section 1666 (“Judicial measures in the event of a child’s well-being”) of the Civil Code. The provisions in paragraph 4 there state, however, that a family court is also authorized to take “measures with effect against a third party” to avert danger to children. Judge Dietmar assumed that “third parties” also meant public institutions such as schools. This is an “absolutely defensible position” “, so the lawyer.