Corona mask requirement: District Judge Dettmar also loses final instance

The Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe has dismissed the appeal filed by Weimar District Judge Siegfried Dettmar. The former district judge came under scrutiny when he ordered the lifting of mandatory mask wearing at two schools in Thuringia in 2021. Formally, he was not responsible for this decision. In a decision published on Thursday, the Third Chamber of the Second Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a judge's constitutional complaint against his conviction for perverting the course of justice.

This means that Dettmar remains legally convicted.

In April 2021, Dettmar lifted the mask requirement in schools in two cases following a lawsuit filed by Doreen B. from Weimar. She argued that her children, ages 8 and 14, had suffered headaches, nausea, and sleep disturbances caused by wearing masks. Subsequently, Dettmar prohibited the state Pestalozzi elementary school and the state Pestalozzi regular school in Weimar from enforcing mask, social distancing, and testing requirements.

This decision was overturned by the Thuringian Higher Regional Court. The court justified its decision by stating that Dettmar lacked jurisdiction over the case. The public prosecutor's office accused him of perverting the course of justice, and the Erfurt Regional Court sentenced him to a two-year suspended sentence. The judges accused him of deliberately arranging the proceedings, including by selecting experts in advance who would rule in his favor.

The Federal Court of Justice confirmed this ruling in November 2024. Dettmar appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court, which now also rejected his final appeal.

The Federal Constitutional Court writes in its press release:

"According to the findings of the specialized court, the complainant, who serves as a family court judge, issued an interim injunction in April 2021 prohibiting the management and teachers of two schools from enforcing certain of the infection control measures in force at the time to contain the spread of the coronavirus against the children taught there. The complainant purposefully worked to ensure that a corresponding procedure would fall within his area of ​​responsibility under the business plan, ruled on a suggestion he had helped to prepare, and in doing so purposefully used and abused the judicial office entrusted to him.

With his constitutional complaint, the complainant challenges the Federal Court of Justice's judgment dismissing his appeal. He alleges a violation of Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, as it prohibits arbitrary conduct, because the Federal Court of Justice deviated from its established standards regarding the perversion of justice without adequate justification.

The Chamber did not accept the constitutional complaint for decision because the complainant did not conclusively demonstrate the alleged violation of the prohibition of arbitrary action."