In the Corona Update on April 7, the dean of the law faculty, Prof. Michael Mayrhofer, explains how the current discussions can be reconciled with our law or how it can be changed.
In the past three weeks the federal government has put a tightly knit network of traffic restrictions into force. As a result, large parts of the economy are paralyzed and private social contacts are reduced to a minimum. All of these measures serve the goal of preventing or slowing down the spread of COVID-19 as much as possible.
These measures, most of which were enacted in the form of ordinances, have their legal basis in some very old legal regulations such as the Epidemic Act. A law from 1913 that is more than a hundred years old. The second legal basis is provided by regulations that were decided by the National Council in a fast-track procedure specifically for the purpose of combating COVID-19.
How is this compatible with central fundamental rights and freedoms? Rights that the new regulatory regime will curtail in a dimension that was only recently unimagined for peacetime. The most recent discussions about the so-called “Easter Decree” or the debate about a mandatory Corona app clearly show: Corona is a question of health, but also one that will remain with us for a long time to come when it comes to legal issues.