Court Reviews AfD's Challenge Over Stalled COVID Inquiry Committee
Parliamentary Committee Ponders AfD Lawsuit Case before Supreme Court - The Highest Judiciary Body Listened to the AfD's Argument in Front of the U-Committee
Got some juicy gossip from Wiesbaden? The state's highest court is listening to the AfD's constitutional complaint about that stagnant COVID inquiry committee. This bunch of political rebels wants to widen the scope of investigating Hesse's earlier pandemic policy way beyond the other four factions in the state parliament. The State Court of Justice's hearing lasted like a mini-series, friends! The verdict?expected to drop in the next few weeks, or maybe months. Case No. P. St. 2974.
Here's the lowdown: The state parliament sparked this inquiry committee a year back at the AfD opposition's request, but it's yet to dive headfirst into the real deal. After the AfD's application packing 43 questions, the parliament cut the inquiry mandate down to seven points due to constitutional concerns, all thanks to the other factions—the CDU, SPD, Greens, and FDP.
AfD wanted to beat the drums on lockdowns, mask mandates, but the others griped it was too broad. A legal punch-up happened, and here we are!
Christoph Basedow, AfD's lawyer, told the eleven top judges, "The inquiry committee needs to let us sniff outwards for effective parliamentary control—without the brain-draining from 43 questions to just seven, and a half." Parliament gets lots of wiggle room, but the committee should be prepped for future crises.
The state parliament's legal rep, Christoph Henckel, contended the inquiry committee shouldn't be spinning conspiracies or wild speculations. The original 43 AfD questions caught the attention of distant institutions, such as the EU Commission and the World Health Organization, and questioned many foggy subjects. Henckel said it's not on the inquiry committee to chase folklore.
The public interest's law dog, Landesanwältin Monika Böhm, cautioned the AfD faction's complaint as factually baseless. With the subquestions of the 43 AfD points, the real deal is a pile of 100+ queries, mostly vague.
Court President Wilhelm Wolf had the nerve to question Henckel about denied topics, specifically the vaccines' side effects, "Isn't that what the people are interested in?" Henckel diplomatically pointed out that the EU Commission and the federal government are the ones in charge of vaccine approval and purchase, not Hesse.
Despite skimping down to seven questions, the committee has asked for countless documents, totaling several thousand pages, and summoned around a dozen experts, including top-notch virologists still.
So there you have it! Stay tuned for updates on this riveting political drama—AfD's constitutional complaint versus the stalled COVID inquiry committee in Hesse, Germany.
- AfD
- Investigation Committee (Hesse)
- Coronavirus
- Justice
- Wiesbaden
- Germany
- Sate Constitutional Court
- EU Commission
- CDU
- SPD
- FDP
- The AfD believes that the limited scope of the inquiry committee investigating Hesse's COVID-19 policy, as reduced from their initial 43 questions, hinders effective parliamentary control over the state's employment policy and politics in future crises.
- The proceeding at the State Court of Justice in Wiesbaden, regarding the AfD's constitutional complaint against the stalled COVID inquiry committee, has raised discussion about public interest in issues like vaccine side effects, which are under the oversight of the EU Commission and federal government, not Hesse.
