Entschädigung für Corona-Schutzmaßnahmen: Grundrechtshaftung oder soziale Hilfen?

Q4 Social Sciences
Verwaltung Pub Date : 2021-10-01 DOI:10.3790/verw.54.4.477
M. Cornils
{"title":"Entschädigung für Corona-Schutzmaßnahmen: Grundrechtshaftung oder soziale Hilfen?","authors":"M. Cornils","doi":"10.3790/verw.54.4.477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Financial solidarity for the economy, which has been severely affected by the pandemic, is appropriate and is constitutionally required in essence, but it is not a task of state liability. The necessary aid for hundreds of thousands of businesses far exceeds the functional limits and legitimacy of the general legal institutions of liability for lawful state action (“Aufopferungshaftung”). They are also not a subject of statutory protection against infection (“Infektionsschutzgesetz”). The state, which may be constitutionally obligated to take far-reaching and drastic protective measures in the event of an epidemic, must not be prevented from fulfilling this obligation by the burden of of legally determined financial compensation on a big scale. And the legislator of infection protection law cannot responsibly make such a regulation aimed at compensating ex ante incalculable economic losses. The thesis that is sometimes put forward of a right to compensation for the Corona losses of affected companies based in the fundamental rights also proves to be problematic. Shutdown measures against certain industries or types of trade that can plausibly justified by legitimate reasons – particular risk of infection, lesser need for the vital functions of society and the economy – do not violate the principle of equality. They are therefore not special sacrifices in the sense of compensation law. Furthermore the principle of proportionality is sufficiently elastic to justify pandemic-related restrictions without financial compensation. Fundamental rights do not really provide a more precise and stringent standard for the task incumbent on society of distributing the unequal Corona burdens than does the welfare state principle. The Corona pandemic and its economic consequences should therefore not be taken as an incentive to commercialize fundamental rights on a scale previously not thought possible for good reasons. Instead, in the face of the concrete situation of a pandemic, politically negotiated and parliamentarily accountable ad hoc aid programs of the legislature or the empowered governments are far better suited to meet the enormous challenge.","PeriodicalId":36848,"journal":{"name":"Verwaltung","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Verwaltung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3790/verw.54.4.477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Financial solidarity for the economy, which has been severely affected by the pandemic, is appropriate and is constitutionally required in essence, but it is not a task of state liability. The necessary aid for hundreds of thousands of businesses far exceeds the functional limits and legitimacy of the general legal institutions of liability for lawful state action (“Aufopferungshaftung”). They are also not a subject of statutory protection against infection (“Infektionsschutzgesetz”). The state, which may be constitutionally obligated to take far-reaching and drastic protective measures in the event of an epidemic, must not be prevented from fulfilling this obligation by the burden of of legally determined financial compensation on a big scale. And the legislator of infection protection law cannot responsibly make such a regulation aimed at compensating ex ante incalculable economic losses. The thesis that is sometimes put forward of a right to compensation for the Corona losses of affected companies based in the fundamental rights also proves to be problematic. Shutdown measures against certain industries or types of trade that can plausibly justified by legitimate reasons – particular risk of infection, lesser need for the vital functions of society and the economy – do not violate the principle of equality. They are therefore not special sacrifices in the sense of compensation law. Furthermore the principle of proportionality is sufficiently elastic to justify pandemic-related restrictions without financial compensation. Fundamental rights do not really provide a more precise and stringent standard for the task incumbent on society of distributing the unequal Corona burdens than does the welfare state principle. The Corona pandemic and its economic consequences should therefore not be taken as an incentive to commercialize fundamental rights on a scale previously not thought possible for good reasons. Instead, in the face of the concrete situation of a pandemic, politically negotiated and parliamentarily accountable ad hoc aid programs of the legislature or the empowered governments are far better suited to meet the enormous challenge.
冠状病毒保护措施的赔偿:基本权利责任还是社会援助?
为受疫情严重影响的经济提供财政支持是恰当的,本质上也是宪法要求的,但这不是国家责任的任务。对数十万企业的必要援助远远超过了国家合法行动责任的一般法律机构(“Aufopferungshaftung”)的职能限制和合法性。它们也不属于法定的预防感染保护对象(“Infectionschutzgesetz”)。根据宪法,国家可能有义务在疫情发生时采取影响深远、严厉的保护措施,但决不能因为承担法律规定的大规模经济补偿而阻止国家履行这一义务。感染保护法的立法者不能负责任地制定这样一项旨在预先补偿无法估量的经济损失的法规。有时提出的基于基本权利的受影响公司科罗纳损失赔偿权的论点也被证明是有问题的。针对某些行业或贸易类型的关闭措施,如果有正当理由——特别是感染风险、对社会和经济重要功能的需求较小——则不违反平等原则。因此,它们不是赔偿法意义上的特殊牺牲。此外,相称性原则具有足够的弹性,可以在没有经济补偿的情况下证明与疫情相关的限制是合理的。与福利国家原则相比,基本权利并没有真正为社会分配不平等的科罗纳负担的任务提供更精确和严格的标准。因此,不应将新冠疫情及其经济后果视为激励基本权利商业化的动机,而这种商业化的规模以前是有充分理由认为不可能的。相反,面对疫情的具体情况,立法机构或授权政府通过政治谈判和议会问责的临时援助计划更适合应对这一巨大挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Verwaltung
Verwaltung Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信