The Bavarian Administrative Court (BayVGH) has temporarily suspended the basic restriction of access to retail stores to vaccinated and recovered people (2G). The judges granted the urgent application of the owner of an Upper Bavarian lamp shop, as the BayVGH announced.
Bavarian regulation not clear enough
At the end of the year, the Administrative Court had already made it clear that the 2G rule should not apply to clothing stores in Bavaria, since they serve to “cover daily needs” just like bookstores or flower shops.
Now the judges have overturned the entire regulation: they see the Infection Protection Act as a sufficient legal basis for 2G restrictions in retail. However, the Bavarian ordinance must state clearly and conclusively which transactions the regulation specifically applies to. The Bavarian specifications do not meet these requirements: the list of exceptions is not exhaustive, shops with “mixed assortments” are treated inconsistently. There is no appeal against the decision of the Administrative Court.
Bavaria quickly suspends 2G in retail
Head of the State Chancellery Florian Herrmann (CSU) announced that Bavaria would completely suspend 2G in retail and thus ensure a “quick and practicable implementation” of the decision. With the introduction of the 2G rule in retail last year, the Bavarian state government implemented a decision of the Prime Ministers’ Conference. “Because of the difficulties that have arisen, the regulation as in the supermarkets is now the simpler alternative,” said the CSU politician. He added: “The FFP2 mask requirement in retail continues to apply and offers protection.”
Plaintiff sees violation of professional freedom
According to the 15th Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance, access to retail may only be granted to those who have recovered and those who have been vaccinated. Shops for daily needs are excluded. This daily need is specified in the ordinance with a list of examples, for example grocery stores, pharmacies and petrol stations. The applicant saw this as a violation of her professional freedom and the principle of equal treatment.