This ruling was issued by the Bavarian Constitutional Court in Munich regarding follow-up questions concerning protective masks purchased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The court found that the Bavarian government provided only partial and insufficient responses to von Brunn’s inquiries about mask acquisitions. In its ruling, the judges noted a specific violation of parliamentary rights: a March 2021 question regarding the protective properties of specialized masks remained “completely unanswered” without “sufficient justification.”
Information Rights Fulfilled “Inadequately”
Furthermore, the Ministry of Health was required to identify all ministers involved in the March 2020 procurement of high-priced Emix protective masks, which were brokered by Andrea Tandler. The court stated that regarding the finalization of the mask deals, the petitioner’s right to information was met in an “inadequate manner” due to only a partial response.
Von Brunn had specifically asked which members of the cabinet were informed about the relevant negotiations. The ministry failed to provide this information, citing a lack of time and the high administrative burden of conducting a “thorough survey.”
The court rejected these arguments. “Under time constraints, the department could not be expected to clarify and collect data on every informational process that occurred during conversations. However, at least a short-term review of the minutes from the disaster control task force or the Council of Ministers would have been possible,” the justification stated. “These records could have provided information on who participated in meetings where mask procurements were discussed.”
Muted Reaction from the Ministry of Health
The Bavarian Ministry of Health reacted to the court’s decision with restraint. A spokesperson told the Deutsche Presse-Agentur: “During the proceedings, we maintained the position that the state government, under the extraordinary conditions of the coronavirus pandemic—marked by time shortages and high workloads—had sufficiently satisfied petitioner von Brunn’s need for information.” The spokesperson added, “It has now been confirmed that this was largely the case, with the exception of two follow-up questions.”
Throughout the process, the state government had labeled the SPD deputy’s lawsuit “unfounded.” According to the court documents, the government argued there was no further need for information because the applicant had already received extensive data through previous inquiries.
Von Brunn: Strengthening Oversight Rights
For Florian von Brunn, the ruling strengthens the oversight rights of the parliament and the opposition. He noted: “The government is obliged to report to parliament and does not have the right to simply refuse to provide inconvenient information—this also applies to crisis situations such as a pandemic.”
Source: dpa and AFP
Latest Posts
