During Covid lockdown, a group of artists applied to the courts in Munich to declare the Government’s closure of concert halls illegal. The group included the singer Christian Gerhaher (pic), the conductor Thomas Hengelbrock and the violinist Anne-Sophie Mutter.
Today, the Bavarian Constitutional Court dismissed the case on the ground it is no longer applicable.
So what time’s the next epidemic? And where do we stand then?
Here’s a statement by the disgruntled artists:
In its decision, delivered to us on 13 August 2025, the Bavarian Constitutional Court has dismissed the popular complaint of 18 March 2021 against the complete closure of cultural venues during the 2021 COVID-19 lockdown — when places of worship were simultaneously allowed to remain open — on the grounds that it is now inadmissible.
While a review of legal acts that are no longer in force is, in principle, possible, the contested regulation no longer produces the necessary legal effects for such a review. The Court also ruled that the question of whether the complete shutdown of cultural life was compatible with the Bavarian Constitution’s commitment to being a “cultural state” does not need to be clarified — not even for future pandemic situations — since the Bavarian State Government decided on 5 November 2024 not to pursue COVID-related proceedings any further.
With this decision, the Court has, in our view, clearly avoided taking a position on whether the cultural bans violated the cultural-state principle or whether the total shutdown was proportionate — despite the fact that the scientific evidence is unequivocal.
All available scientific studies agree that with 50% seating capacity, mask mandates, and modern ventilation systems, virus transmission in audience areas is “virtually excluded.” In other words, no lives were saved by these closures, and at most an insignificant number of transmissions were prevented. Nevertheless, the complete shutdown of cultural venues lasted for over 12 months — longer than in any other sector — and nine months longer than the closure of religious institutions, which enjoy equal constitutional protection.
It seems likely that, out of political considerations, the Court wished to avoid issuing a substantive ruling. This is evident from the conduct of the proceedings: for more than 4½ years, our repeated enquiries were met only with the curt reply that, due to “work overload,” a decision could not yet be made.
By comparison, the Austrian Constitutional Court ruled twice on the Austrian cultural-entry bans in just one-third of that time, most recently in July 2022. At that time, the Austrian Court declared the cultural bans unconstitutional because of unequal treatment compared to religion, and found the religious exemptions to be unlawful. However, it upheld its October 2021 decision that the cultural bans were proportionate due to the primacy of protecting life and health — contrary to the scientific evidence. This means that in Austria, in the future, either both areas (culture and religion) must be closed or both must be kept open.
At least in Austria, there were substantive court rulings. By contrast, the Bavarian Constitutional Court let the popular complaint sit for years, only to then claim that no decision was necessary.
In doing so, the Court has failed in its core task: the constitutional review of executive action. This undermines the rule of law. A judiciary that shirks its essential responsibility and prefers to let cases expire rather than decide them makes itself irrelevant.
On behalf of Aufstehen für die Kunst (“Standing Up for the Arts”):
Wolfgang Ablinger-Sperrhacke
Hansjörg Albrecht
Kevin Conners
Christian Gerhaher
Thomas Hengelbrock
Anne-Sophie Mutter
The post Bavaria dismisses landmark Covid case appeared first on Slippedisc.
