The tightening planned in the draft of the amendment to the Epidemic Act and the COVID-19 Measures Act have met with some fierce criticism in the comments received so far. Above all, the plan that meetings of at least four people can be considered an event and be prohibited is rejected. There is also criticism of the plan to allow exit restrictions as soon as there is “a proliferation that is no longer controllable”.
Image: dpa
Criticism of the planned restrictive term of the event was expressed by both the Ombudsman's Office and the Federation of Trade Unions (ÖGB), the Chamber of Commerce (WKÖ), the Bar Association (ÖRAK) and several state governments, and the SPÖ was also critical. The draft contains a redefinition of gatherings: So far, this regulation in the Epidemic Act with the passage “confluence of large crowds” was formulated somewhat vaguely; the amendment stipulates that in future at least four people (from at least two households) are considered to be an event. This applies in the public as well as in the private sector, with the latter once again making it clear that there are no controls at home.
A mere gathering of such groups of people is “not an event and cannot be designated as such,” says the opinion of the Bar Association; the provision is clearly rejected. If the legislature wants to take measures against the coming together of people, it must also formulate it this way – this cannot “be hidden under the concept of an 'event'”.
The Ombudsman's Office raised the question of whether such an event term is suitable for promoting willingness to comply with legal regulations. The fear that the possibility of imposing relatively high administrative fines could even more lead to people meeting family members and close friends in their apartments and houses instead of outdoors, where there is no control, so the fear. The Bar Association also considers the range of punishment – up to EUR 1,450 for participation in a prohibited “event” – to be “disproportionate”.
For the ÖGB, the plan “overshoots the target beyond measure”. Like the WKÖ, the union also expressed fears that “meetings that are mandatory or required by law” (for example by employee or staff representatives) are subject to authorization – “and can accordingly also be prohibited”.
There was also criticism from the federal states. The proposed definition of the event is so comprehensive that “typical private living conditions (private living area, family contacts)” are also covered, complained the Upper Austrian provincial government. From Vienna it was said that the intended notification requirement or authorization requirement for such meetings “can in no way be helpful in tracking contact persons”. Because with a related announcement “typically no personal data of participants would be transmitted in advance”. From the office of the Burgenland Provincial Councilor Leonhard Schneemann (SPÖ), APA asked that they had concerns as to whether the plan was constitutional.
The plan to be able to impose exit restrictions more easily in the future is also clearly rejected. So far, this has only been possible to “prevent a collapse in medical care or similar emergency situations”. In addition, it was a prerequisite that measures such as entry bans (e.g. in retail) were insufficient. In the future, exit restrictions should also be imposed if there is a threat of Covid-19 spreading beyond control, for example if contact tracking fails. The requirement should also fall that all other possible measures must be exhausted beforehand.
In its opinion, the Ombudsman's Office doubts whether these provisions are in conformity with the constitution. The Viennese provincial government also expressed “massive constitutional concerns”. It remains completely unclear when an “uncontrollable spread of the virus” is to be assumed, the statement said.
The WKÖ pointed out that, given the spread of the virus, such an uncontrollable spread would “de facto now often occur”. The plan to be able to issue exit restrictions without exhausting all other possible measures could possibly mean a “disproportionate restriction of personal freedom of movement”, according to the WKÖ. The lawyers also gave a clear no. The ÖGB rejected the project as “disproportionate”.
The planned expansion of the test requirement was also criticized. So far – apart from health service providers – employees with customer contact could also wear an FFP2 mask as an alternative to the weekly corona test. This passage is omitted from the draft. An alternative solution for those employees who cannot provide evidence (test or infection) is, however, “indispensable”, according to the ÖGB.
The Viennese state government is also critical of the possibility of stricter testing. She pointed out that the alternative of the FFP2 mask should be retained “if only in the event of a lack of test capacities or physical or psychological test obstacles”. The WKÖ also “strictly rejects” a tightening, an alternative to testing “must in any case remain”.
The statement of the Vorarlberg state government was noticeably cautious. The definition of the term “event” is “expressly welcomed in order to avoid ambiguity in the interpretation of the term” larger crowd “”. There was also no criticism from the state of the possibility of exit restrictions that were easier to impose.
The legislative service of the state of Salzburg also remained cautious. It is proposed that meetings in institutions of the social sector (e.g. senior day centers) or by people with disabilities should be excluded from the planned tightening of events. With regard to the stricter test requirement, the Legislative Service suggests that FFP2 masks continue to be permitted as an alternative to the test in public administration. The state of Styria welcomed the departure from the “very imprecise definition of a 'larger crowd'” when it came to the term organizer. The limitation to exactly four people from two households must be factually well justified “in order to be able to withstand a possible review by the Constitutional Court”.
SPÖ health spokesman Philip Kucher identified an “expression of helplessness” in the targeted change in the law. Austria needs “no paragraph cavalry” and not “the 250th change in the legal basis since the outbreak of the pandemic,” he said in a broadcast on Tuesday. The government not only has no plan, “it no longer even has a goal”. Rather, they stumble from lockdown to lockdown. “Due to the haphazard government openings, the number of infections is rising sharply and causing great uncertainty,” said Kucher. If the government had listened to SPÖ chairman Pamela Rendi-Wagner, “the number of infections would now be so low that we would talk about a permanent opening at Easter and not about a 3rd wave and a 4th lockdown,” said the SP mandate .
Meanwhile, the draft assessment triggered a veritable avalanche of statements on the parliamentary website – as of Tuesday afternoon, there were already more than 25,000. The majority of this comes from private individuals, many also anonymously. Opponents of the corona measures had also called for it via “social media” and messenger services such as WhatsApp and Telegram. Many statements consisted of ready-made text modules. The review period ends today, Tuesday.
