FRANKFURT, November 28, 2025 – A judge’s challenge too COVID-19 rules implemented in his court has been rejected by the Service Court Frankfurt, with the court ruling that organizational measures don’t infringe on judicial independence. The judge, who initially opposed the rules, sought a declaratory judgment, but the court persistent he no longer has grounds for a decision.
The case centers on a judge’s objection to a 3G rule-vaccination, recovery, or testing-mandated for court employees during the height of the pandemic.
- The Infection Protection Act (IfSG) § 28b initially prompted the 3G rule for employees in certain sectors.
- the President of the VG Gießen ordered the 3G rule for all personnel within the building.
- The Service Court Frankfurt concluded that implementing the 3G rule didn’t substantially restrict the judge’s judicial independence.
The dispute arose from the Infection Protection Act (IfSG) § 28b,which introduced the 3G rule during the peak of the pandemic. This rule stipulated that employees in personal-related industries-including the judiciary-coudl onyl access workplaces with proof of vaccination,recovery from COVID-19,or a negative test. Following this, the President of the VG Gießen issued an order mandating the 3G rule for all staff within the court building. After an initial unsuccessful appeal, the judge brought the case to the LG Frankfurt, continuing his request as a declaratory action. However, both the LG Frankfurt and the Service Court for Judges (ServiceGH) in Frankfurt am Main denied his petition, stating he lacked a legitimate interest in pursuing the matter.
Legal Protection Requires ‘Notable’ Intervention
The Service Court examined four potential grounds for legitimate interest in a declaratory judgment, ultimately finding only one relevant: situations where legal protection is needed swiftly. However, the court emphasized that merely rapid completion isn’t sufficient.A “significant” intervention in essential rights must also be demonstrated to invoke the constitutional guarantee of legal protection (Art. 19 abs. 4 GG).
The judge argued that his judicial independence (Art. 97 GG) was compromised. The Service Court, though, determined that the measure didn’t significantly restrict this independence. The court found no evidence of arbitrary intervention,asserting that the rule was justified to protect court employees and aligned with existing legal requirements.
Organizational Measures Don’t Impede Core Judicial function
Furthermore, the court reasoned that the measure wasn’t substantial enough to warrant a declaratory action. The 3G rule was viewed as an organizational implementation of the requirements outlined in the IfSG,rather than a direct infringement on judicial activity. The court emphasized that the measure affected only a marginal area-organizational framework conditions-and wasn’t significant in retrospect.The court reiterated that the order simply mirrored the legal stipulations of the IfSG and was only in effect for three months.
Protecting court employees from the risks of the pandemic was deemed a sufficient justification for the measure by the Service Court. The court also noted that it has the authority to close parts of the building to ensure orderly operations, making the 3G rule a comparatively mild and appropriate response.Consequently, the judge’s concerns were ultimately dismissed.
