Thomas Wagner

Die Beschwerde des Autors gegen seine Verurteilung zur Zahlung einer Geldbuße wegen des Betretens eines Bahnsteiges unter freiem Himmel in Bayern am 2. September 2020 ohne eine (nicht näher in der Verordnung definierte) Mund-Nasen-Bedeckung im Gesicht ging in die nächste Instanz. Das Netzwerk KRiStA hatte bereits über die Erfolglosigkeit der Verfassungsbeschwerde gegen diese Grundrechtsverletzung berichtet. Da das Bundesverfassungsgericht die Beschwerde ohne Begründung nicht zur Entscheidung angenommen hatte, zog der Beschwerdeführer vor den Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte. (Bei diesem handelt es sich übrigens nicht um eine Einrichtung der Europäischen Union, sondern eine solche der derzeit 46 Mitgliedstaaten des Europarates.)

Der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (nachfolgend nur: Gerichtshof) entschied am 9. Oktober 2025 durch einen Einzelrichter, dass die Beschwerde nicht angenommen wird, weil keine Verletzung von Menschenrechten aus der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (im Folgenden: Konvention) vorliege. Warum in dem Vorbringen des Beschwerdeführers keine Menschenrechtsverletzung liegen soll, wurde indes nicht begründet und ist nicht nachvollziehbar.

Die Beschwerde stützt sich auf die Verletzung folgender Rechte aus der Konvention:

• Artikel 6 – Recht auf ein faires Verfahren – garantiert jedem das Recht auf eine faire und öffentliche Verhandlung vor einem unabhängigen und unparteiischen Gericht. Dazu gehört, dass die Gerichte die wesentlichen Argumente der Verteidigung prüfen. Im vorliegenden Fall haben die deutschen Gerichte die Argumente des Beschwerdeführers zur Verfassungswidrigkeit der Regelung nicht geprüft und sich dieser Prüfung vollständig entzogen. Dies stellt einen Verstoß gegen Artikel 6 dar, da die Gerichte verpflichtet gewesen wären, die Rechtsgrundlage der Verurteilung – d. h. die Gültigkeit der Verordnung – zu überprüfen. Durch die Weigerung, dies zu tun und sich mit den vorgebrachten Gründen in einer vorurteilsfreien Weise auseinanderzusetzen, enthielten die Gerichte dem Beschwerdeführer ein faires Verfahren vor.
• Artikel 7 – Keine Strafe ohne Gesetz – besagt, dass niemand für eine Handlung bestraft werden darf, die zum Zeitpunkt ihrer Begehung nach nationalem oder internationalem Recht nicht strafbar war. Dies ist der Kern der Beschwerde. Der Gerichtshof hatte bereits 1984 in einem Verfahren gegen Deutschland klargestellt, dass Geldbußen ebenfalls als „Strafen“ im Sinne dieses Artikels angesehen werden können, wenn sie Strafcharakter haben, was der Gerichtshof im Falle von Ordnungswidrigkeiten im Straßenverkehr bejaht hatte. Im Rahmen der Maskenpflicht gab es im September 2020 in Bayern keine gültige Rechtsgrundlage für die Geldbuße, da die Regelung in § 8 Satz 1 der Sechsten Bayerischen Infektionsschutz­­maßnahmen­­verordnung nichtig war. Sie verstieß sowohl formell als auch materiell gegen das deutsche Grundgesetz, wie in der Verfassungsbeschwerde dargelegt wurde. Nach der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, die der Beschwerdeführer dem Gerichtshof vorgelegt hat, führt die Verfassungswidrigkeit einer Verordnung in der deutschen Rechtsordnung zur Nichtigkeit. Folglich gab es keine wirksame Maskenpflicht und keine wirksame Bußgeldvorschrift, die Grundlage für die Verurteilung des Beschwerdeführers hätte sein können.
• Artikel 8 – Recht auf Achtung des Privat- und Familienlebens – schützt das Recht auf Achtung des Privatlebens, welches laut mehreren vorangegangenen Entscheidungen des Gerichtshofs die körperliche Unversehrtheit als zentralen Bestandteil umfasst. Die Maskenpflicht stellte einen Eingriff in dieses Recht dar, da sie den Beschwerdeführer zwang, eine Maßnahme zu befolgen, die ihm gesundheitliche Probleme (darunter Kopfschmerzen und Schwindel) bereitete. Die bayerische Verordnung wollte ihm das Recht nehmen, selbst zu entscheiden, ob er seine Atemfunktion durch das Bedecken seines Gesichts beeinträchtigen möchte. Gemäß Artikel 8 Absatz 2 der Konvention ist ein solcher Eingriff nur gerechtfertigt, „soweit der Eingriff gesetzlich vorgesehen und in einer demokratischen Gesellschaft notwendig ist für die nationale oder öffentliche Sicherheit, für das wirtschaftliche Wohl des Landes, zur Aufrechterhaltung der Ordnung, zur Verhütung von Straftaten, zum Schutz der Gesundheit oder der Moral oder zum Schutz der Rechte und Freiheiten anderer“ (Hervorhebung des Wortes „und“ durch den Autor). Da die Verordnung verfassungswidrig und nichtig war, war sie nicht wirksam und die Maskenpflicht nicht gesetzlich vorgesehen. Dass die Rechte der Konvention nicht durch irgendwelche Gesetze, sondern nur durch wirksame, in Deutschland also durch verfassungsgemäße, eingeschränkt werden können, folgt beispielsweise aus der englischen Fassung der Konvention, wo die Voraussetzung „in accordance with the law“ genannt wird, was am ehesten mit den Worten „im Einklang mit dem Recht“ übersetzt werden kann.
• Artikel 13 – Recht auf wirksame Beschwerde – garantiert das Recht auf einen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf vor einer nationalen Behörde im Falle einer Verletzung der Rechte aus der Konvention. Im vorliegenden Fall hatte der Beschwerdeführer keinen wirksamen Rechtsbehelf, da die Gerichte seine Argumente zur Verfassungswidrigkeit der Verordnung nicht geprüft haben. Diese Weigerung verwehrte ihm die Möglichkeit, die Verletzung seiner Rechte aus den Artikeln 6, 7 und 8 der Konvention wirksam anzugreifen. Die fehlende Prüfung durch die Gerichte stellt einen eigenständigen Verstoß gegen Artikel 13 dar, da der Beschwerdeführer keinen Zugang zu einem wirksamen Rechtsbehelf hatte, um seine Rechte durchzusetzen.

Diese Rechtsverletzung setzt sich nun in der Entscheidung des Gerichtshofs fort. Denn auch er stieg nicht in die Prüfung des Falles ein. Die Feststellung von Verstößen gegen Artikel 6, 7 oder 8 der Konvention setzt die Prüfung der Frage voraus, ob das Tragen einer Maske eine Gesundheitsschädigung hervorrufen kann und ob deshalb die Festlegung einer Maskenpflicht besonders sorgfältiger Abwägung bedarf, um verhältnismäßig und rechtmäßig sein zu können. An diese Frage haben sich nicht nur die deutschen Gerichte einschließlich des Bundesverfassungsgerichts nicht herangetraut, sondern auch nicht der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte.

Das Netzwerk KRiStA veröffentlicht nachfolgend die Beschwerde an den Gerichtshof im Originalwortlaut (ohne die Anlagen, auf welche das Symbol ▶ in der Sachverhaltsschilderung verweist) und die zugehörige Entscheidung (die Verfahrenssprache ist englisch), um den Lesern zu ermöglichen, sich selbst ein Bild von der Entscheidungsfindung des Gerichtshofs zu machen. Für den Autor ist klar: Der Schutz von Grund- und Menschenrechten ist in Fällen wie dem vorliegenden in Deutschland nicht gegeben. Man kann sich bei Eingriffen des Staates nicht mehr darauf verlassen, dass die Grund- und Menschenrechte geachtet werden.

---

Relevant excerpts from the complaint form

State(s) against which the application is directed

DEU – Germany

Statement of the facts

[1] The complainant was condemned by the German Local Court (Amtsgericht) of Regensburg to pay a fine on the basis of a statutory ordinance which was unconstitutional and therefore void under national law. In all instances, the national courts refused to deal with the facts presented by the complainant to prove the unconstitutionality.

[2] On September 2, 2020, during the coronavirus pandemic, the complainant was encountered by the German Federal Police (Bundespolizei) on the platform of the Main Train Station in the Bavarian city of Regensburg without a mouth-nose covering after getting off a train at 16:03 and, as a result, was fined 150 euros and ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings for a violation of the ▶ Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance (Sechste Bayerische Infektionsschutz­maßnahmen­verordnung) dated June 19, 2020 [appendix, page 309]. This ordinance was extended in its validity by the ▶ Ordinance amending the Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance and the Entry Quarantine Ordinance (Verordnung zur Änderung der Sechsten Bayerischen Infektionsschutz­maßnahmen­verordnung und der Einreise-Quarantäne­verordnung) of September 1, 2020 [appendix, page 321] and thus in force on September 2, 2020.

[3] Section 8 Sentence 1 of this ordinance stated:

[4] “In local and long-distance public passenger transport and the facilities belonging to it, there is a mask obligation for passengers as well as for control and service personnel, insofar as they come into contact with passengers.”

[5] Section 1 Paragraph 2 number 2 of the regulation exempts persons from the obligation to wear a mouth-nose covering (mask obligation) if they can credibly substantiate that wearing a mouth-nose covering is not possible or unreasonable for them due to a disability or for health reasons. The term “mouth-nose covering” was not defined in more detail, nor was it specified how such credible substantiation should be provided.

[6] The complainant had previously discovered in June 2020 that he gets headaches and slight dizziness after a few minutes when wearing face coverings, even with thin single-layer fabric, as well as a feeling of heat and sweating in some cases, and considered wearing masks to be unreasonable for health reasons because of these complaints.

[7] The complainant had prepared a ▶ written statement explaining the general medical effects and his own symptoms when wearing face coverings [appendix, page 136]. This document contained, among other details, a reference to an Article in Deutsches Ärzteblatt (a medical journal), according to which wearing a mask is not safe for everyone, as insufficiently exhaled carbon dioxide can lead to respiratory acidosis due to the face covering. It also contains a scientific study on the effects of masks on cardiopulmonary exercise capacity. This written statement was intended to substantiate the unreasonableness of wearing a mask in the event of a police inspection. The complainant showed this document to the police officers during the operation on September 2, 2020.

[8] Neither with the regulatory authority, the City of Regensburg – Legal Department (Stadt Regensburg – Rechtsamt), which issued the ▶ fine notice [appendix, page 9] nor with the German courts before which this fine notice was disputed, did the complainant succeed with this justification of unreasonableness or by invoking the unconstitutionality of the provision ordering the compulsory wearing of face coverings. 

[9] Under national law, a law that violates the constitution, the Basic Law (Grundgesetz), is null and void. The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has ruled that a law was legally invalid from the beginning if it contradicted the Basic Law (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of October 23, 1951 – 2 BvG 1/51 [appendix, page 621 (636), Paragraph 94]). While the unconstitutionality of formal laws can only be determined by the Federal Constitutional Court, any court can and must leave unconstitutional legal ordinances unapplied. This is because formal laws, passed by the legislature, undergo constitutional review only by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas ordinances – secondary administrative rules issued based on these laws – can be set aside by any court if deemed unconstitutional. This follows from the fact that, according to the fundamental ▶ decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of March 20, 1952 – 1 BvL 12, 15, 16, 24, 28/51 [appendix, page 654] courts can only submit formal laws to the Federal Constitutional Court, but not ordinances that they consider to be unconstitutional.

[10] The obligation to wear a face covering in accordance with the Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance interferes with the fundamental right to physical integrity guaranteed in Article 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the ▶ Basic Law [appendix, page 830]. According to the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, interference with this fundamental right occurs in the case of physical interventions, i.e. interference with natural body functions. Interference with physical integrity also includes non-physical effects that are equivalent to physical interventions; these are at least those that change a person’s well-being in a way that corresponds to the causing of pain (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of January 14, 1981 – 1 BvR 612/72 [appendix, page 666 (680), Paragraph 55]).

[11] In all instances, the complainant referred to the medical consequences of wearing face coverings, including specific internal effects, as well as adverse effects relating to neurology, psychiatry, psychology, dermatology, otorhinolaryngology, dentistry, gynaecology, sociology, sports medicine, social medicine, occupational medicine, microbiology and epidemiology. For example, the complainant referred to a ▶ study by Lee/Wang [2011]: Objective Assessment of Increase in Breathing Resistance of N95 Respirators on Human Subjects [appendix, page 502]. This study quantified the extent to which people’s breathing is hindered by masks of type N95 (equivalent to filtering facepieces of class 2 – FFP2). The results showed that the airflow resistance during inhalation and exhalation increased by an average of 126.5% and 122.6%, respectively, when using N95 respirators. The complainant cited several studies showing a significant correlation between wearing a mask and the occurrence or intensification of headaches

[▶ statement of defense addressed to the Local Court: appendix, page 194 (203) making a reference to chapter II of an

▶ essay cowritten by the complainant: appendix, page 154 (159-166);

▶  request for admission of the appeal on points of law (Antrag auf Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde): appendix, page 393 (445 f.);

▶ constitutional complaint: appendix, page 234 (259 f.)].

[12] He also provided studies for the other side effects from the aforementioned academic fields [for example in his

▶ constitutional complaint: appendix, page 234 (256-269)].

[13] According to Article 19 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the ▶ Basic Law [appendix, page 830], if a fundamental right is restricted by law or on the basis of a law, the law must name the fundamental right and specify the article. The Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance does not cite the right to physical integrity (Article 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Basic Law) as a restricted fundamental right. This already makes the provision unconstitutional and void.

[14] Moreover, the ordinance could not restrict this fundamental right. The Infection Protection Measures Ordinance in question was based on Section 32 Sentence 1 of the ▶ German Infection Protection Act (Infektions­schutz­gesetz) [appendix, page 831], which permitted the issuing of orders and prohibitions to combat contagious diseases. At this time, the right to physical integrity (Article 2 Paragraph 2 Sentence 1 of the Basic Law) was not among the fundamental rights listed in Section 32 Sentence 3 of the Infection Protection Act [appendix, page 831] that may be restricted (it was added to this provision only many months later in April 2021). As this provision did not mention the right to physical integrity, the ordinance must not interfere with it. An ordinance must have clear legal authorization to restrict fundamental rights; lacking this, it exceeds its authority and is unconstitutional.

[15] An ordinance that interferes with the right to physical integrity, but does not cite this right as a restricted fundamental right in the provision, is formally unconstitutional and void under national law. An ordinance that exceeds the limits of its authorizing provision, for example by interfering with rights to a greater extent than allowed in the authorizing provision, is also unconstitutional and void under national law, as the content, purpose and extent of an authorization to issue an ordinance must be specified in the law in accordance with Article 80 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the ▶ Basic Law [appendix, page 830 (831)].

[16] Furthermore, an obligation to wear a face covering restricts the right to free development of the personality under

Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law because it requires the addressee to act. This right only applies within the framework of the constitutional order, i.e. within the framework of laws and ordinances, but according to the jurisdiction of the German Federal Constitutional Court, it can only be restricted by legal provisions that satisfy the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeit) (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 23, 1980 – 2 BvR 854/79 [appendix, page 687 (689 f.), Paragraph 8]). When making decisions under uncertainty, the legislator has a margin of appreciation (Einschätzungsspielraum) which, according to the jurisdiction of the German Federal Constitutional Court, is subject to judicial review as to whether the estimation and prognosis of the dangers threatening the individual or the general public are based on a sufficiently reliable foundation (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of November 19, 2021 – 1 BvR 781/21 [appendix, page 691 (742), paragraphs 170 and 171]). Therefore, according to the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, the probability forecasts that were taken into account when the provision was enacted must be documented (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of March 1, 1979 – 1 BvR 532/77 [appendix, page 776 (803), Paragraph 110]).

[17] However, the Bavarian State Ministry of Health and Care (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Gesundheit und Pflege) that issued the Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance did not document the basis of its decision-making and thus made it impossible to determine the proportionality of the obligation to wear face coverings. The complainant asked the Ministry on September 3, 2020 and, after the Ministry prolonged the mask obligation, again on September 18, 2020 in his ▶ inquiries sent via the Internet portal FragDenStaat (“Ask The State”) [appendix, page 596] on which information the proportionality of this measure is based. In its ▶ answer from September 23, 2020 the Ministry named as the only source of information his “close exchange with a wide range of experts” [appendix, page 602] without providing any further details. Even retrospectively, it has not become known that the legislator has dealt with studies on the effects (risks and benefits) of wearing face coverings.

[18] In his detailed closing arguments before the Regensburg Local Court, the complainant spoke about the unconstitutionality of the mask obligation. In particular, he explained the specific health risks of wearing a mask and pointed to the lack of an official file that would prove that a proportionality analysis had been carried out.

[19] The Local Court did not accept the document written by the complainant himself on the unreasonableness of wearing a face covering as substantiation because the statements in it were general and blanket, the court said.

[20] The court also did not accept a ▶ medical certificate submitted by the complainant stating that he was unable to wear a mask [appendix, page 94] because the certificate was dated November 6, 2020 and was only issued after the offense was committed. The judgement of the Local Court does not address most of the points that lead to the unconstitutionality of the mask obligation at the time of the offense. In the ▶ grounds for the judgement [appendix, page 220 (222), section IV], the court states that there is no doubt about the constitutionality of the regulations at the time of the offense. The court says, there were no doubts about the legitimacy of the obligation to wear a face covering, particularly when taking into account the rights to freedom under Article 2 of the Basic Law. In the context of the balancing of interests, the life and physical integrity of the population prevail. In particular, there was no disproportionate interference, the court states.

[21] The Local Court, however, did not specify what it weighed against what. A proper proportionality check, which under German law requires examining the existence of a legitimate purpose, the suitability and also the necessity of the intervention to achieve that purpose, as well as the proportionality (in the narrow sense), cannot be inferred from the reasoning of the judgement.

[22] The Bavarian Supreme Court (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht) rejected in its ▶ decision [appendix, page 497] the complainant’s request for admission of the appeal on points of law (Antrag auf Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde) against the judgement of the Local Court of Regensburg as unfounded and ordered him to pay the costs of his appeal. In its grounds, the Bavarian Supreme Court simply made a general reference in a single Sentence to the ▶ statements made by the Munich Public Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München) in its application [appendix, page 467], without reproducing them verbatim and without addressing the complainant’s counter-arguments.

[23] The complainant’s ▶ constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) [appendix, page 234] was not accepted for decision by the Federal Constitutional Court who did not provide any reasons for this ▶ decision [appendix, page 617].

[16] Furthermore, an obligation to wear a face covering restricts the right to free development of the personality under

Article 2 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law because it requires the addressee to act. This right only applies within the framework of the constitutional order, i.e. within the framework of laws and ordinances, but according to the jurisdiction of the German Federal Constitutional Court, it can only be restricted by legal provisions that satisfy the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeit) (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of May 23, 1980 – 2 BvR 854/79 [appendix, page 687 (689 f.), Paragraph 8]). When making decisions under uncertainty, the legislator has a margin of appreciation (Einschätzungsspielraum) which, according to the jurisdiction of the German Federal Constitutional Court, is subject to judicial review as to whether the estimation and prognosis of the dangers threatening the individual or the general public are based on a sufficiently reliable foundation (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of November 19, 2021 – 1 BvR 781/21 [appendix, page 691 (742), paragraphs 170 and 171]). Therefore, according to the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court, the probability forecasts that were taken into account when the provision was enacted must be documented (▶ Federal Constitutional Court, decision of March 1, 1979 – 1 BvR 532/77 [appendix, page 776 (803), Paragraph 110]).

[17] However, the Bavarian State Ministry of Health and Care (Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Gesundheit und Pflege) that issued the Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance did not document the basis of its decision-making and thus made it impossible to determine the proportionality of the obligation to wear face coverings. The complainant asked the Ministry on September 3, 2020 and, after the Ministry prolonged the mask obligation, again on September 18, 2020 in his ▶ inquiries sent via the Internet portal FragDenStaat (“Ask The State”) [appendix, page 596] on which information the proportionality of this measure is based. In its ▶ answer from September 23, 2020 the Ministry named as the only source of information his “close exchange with a wide range of experts” [appendix, page 602] without providing any further details. Even retrospectively, it has not become known that the legislator has dealt with studies on the effects (risks and benefits) of wearing face coverings.

[18] In his detailed closing arguments before the Regensburg Local Court, the complainant spoke about the unconstitutionality of the mask obligation. In particular, he explained the specific health risks of wearing a mask and pointed to the lack of an official file that would prove that a proportionality analysis had been carried out.

[19] The Local Court did not accept the document written by the complainant himself on the unreasonableness of wearing a face covering as substantiation because the statements in it were general and blanket, the court said.

[20] The court also did not accept a ▶ medical certificate submitted by the complainant stating that he was unable to wear a mask [appendix, page 94] because the certificate was dated November 6, 2020 and was only issued after the offense was committed. The judgement of the Local Court does not address most of the points that lead to the unconstitutionality of the mask obligation at the time of the offense. In the ▶ grounds for the judgement [appendix, page 220 (222), section IV], the court states that there is no doubt about the constitutionality of the regulations at the time of the offense. The court says, there were no doubts about the legitimacy of the obligation to wear a face covering, particularly when taking into account the rights to freedom under Article 2 of the Basic Law. In the context of the balancing of interests, the life and physical integrity of the population prevail. In particular, there was no disproportionate interference, the court states.

[21] The Local Court, however, did not specify what it weighed against what. A proper proportionality check, which under German law requires examining the existence of a legitimate purpose, the suitability and also the necessity of the intervention to achieve that purpose, as well as the proportionality (in the narrow sense), cannot be inferred from the reasoning of the judgement.

[22] The Bavarian Supreme Court (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht) rejected in its ▶ decision [appendix, page 497] the complainant’s request for admission of the appeal on points of law (Antrag auf Zulassung der Rechtsbeschwerde) against the judgement of the Local Court of Regensburg as unfounded and ordered him to pay the costs of his appeal. In its grounds, the Bavarian Supreme Court simply made a general reference in a single Sentence to the ▶ statements made by the Munich Public Prosecutor General’s Office (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft München) in its application [appendix, page 467], without reproducing them verbatim and without addressing the complainant’s counter-arguments.

[23] The complainant’s ▶ constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) [appendix, page 234] was not accepted for decision by the Federal Constitutional Court who did not provide any reasons for this ▶ decision [appendix, page 617].

Statement of alleged violation(s) of the Convention and/or Protocols and relevant arguments

Article invoked	Explanation
Article 6 – Right to a fair trial	Article 6 guarantees everyone the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This includes the courts examining the main arguments of the defense. In the present case, the courts did not examine the complainant’s arguments on the unconstitutionality of the ordinance and completely evaded this examination. This constitutes a violation of Article 6, as the courts would have been obliged to review the legal basis of the conviction – i.e. the validity of the ordinance. The refusal to do so and to deal with the presented grounds in an unprejudiced manner denies the complainant a fair trial.
Article 7 – No punishment without law	Article 7 states that no one may be punished for an act which was not punishable under national or international law at the time it was committed. The Court clarified in Öztürk versus Germany (judgment of February 21, 1984, appeal number 8544/79) that fines can also be considered “penalties” within the meaning of this Article if they are punitive in character. In this case, the Court ruled that a fine for a traffic offense is to be considered a “penalty” within the meaning of Article 6, whereby the criteria for the punitive nature are also transferable to Article 7. In the present case, there is no valid legal basis for the fine, as the regulation in Section 8 Sentence 1 of the Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance is considered null and void. The imposition of the fine therefore constitutes a violation of Article 7.
Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life	Article 8 protects the right to respect for private life, including physical integrity, which is a central component of this right. The Court has confirmed this in several decisions. For example, in Glass versus United Kingdom (judgement of March 9, 2004, application number 61827/00), it ruled that the administration of medical treatment against the parents‘ will violated the physical integrity of the child. In Bensaid versus United Kingdom (judgement of February 6, 2001, application number 44599/98), the Court held that mental health is also covered by Article 8 and that state measures which harm it may constitute an interference. Article 8 also protects the right to personal autonomy, including the freedom to make decisions about one’s own body (Pindo Mulla versus Spain judgement of September 17, 2024, complaint number 15541/20), in which the Court considered a forced blood transfusion to be a violation of Article 8. The mask requirement interfered with this right, as it forced the complainant to comply with a measure that caused him health problems (e.g. headaches, dizziness). According to the ordinance, he should not have the right to decide for himself whether to impair his respiratory function by covering his face. According to Article 8 Paragraph 2, such interference may only be justified if it is provided for by law, proportionate and necessary to protect a legitimate aim (e.g. public health). As the regulation was unconstitutional and void, it was not “in accordance with the law” and the interference with the complainant’s right was therefore not justified. Article 8 was therefore violated.
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy	Article 13 guarantees the right to an effective remedy before a national authority in the event of a violation of Convention rights. In the present case, the complainant had no effective remedy because the courts did not examine his arguments on the unconstitutionality of the regulation. This refusal denied him the opportunity to effectively challenge the violation of his rights under Articles 6, 7 and 8. The lack of examination by the courts constitutes an independent violation of Article 13, as the complainant had no access to an effective legal remedy to enforce his rights.

Compliance with admissibility criteria laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention

For each complaint, please confirm that you have used the available effective remedies in the country concerned, including appeals, and also indicate the date when the final decision at domestic level was delivered and received, to show that you have complied with the four-month time-limit.

Complaint	Information about remedies used and the date of the final decision
Constitutional complaint (Verfassungs­beschwerde) dated January 16, 2023 (appendix, page 234)	Non-acceptance decision (Nicht­annahme­beschluss) of the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundes­verfassungs­gericht) of April 29, 2025, file number 2 BvR 57/23 (appendix, page 617), received by normal letter on May 10, 2025
Request for admission of the appeal on points of law (Antrag auf Zulassung der Rechts­beschwerde) dated August 2, 2022 [appendix, page 212] with statement of grounds [appendix, page 393] and additional statement [appendix, page 475]	Rejection of the request as unfounded by order (Beschluss) of the Bavarian Supreme Court (Bayerisches Oberstes Landesgericht) dated December 13, 2022, file number 201 ObOWi 1461/22 [appendix, page 497], served on December 20, 2022 [appendix, page 500]
<Objection (Einspruch) dated November 26, 2020 [appendix, page 17] against the fine notice (Bußgeld­bescheid) of the City of Regensburg (Stadt Regensburg), dated November 19, 2020, file number 30 OWi-2361/2020/Vo/Pö FAD-Nr. 479 504 [appendix, page 9] with statement of grounds for the objection [appendix, page 20 = 331]	Judgement (Urteil) of the Local Court of Regensburg (Amtsgericht Regensburg) dated July 28, 2022, file number 24 OWi 306 Js 10773/21 [appendix, page 220]

Is or was there an appeal or remedy available to you which you have not used?
Yes

If you answered Yes above, please state which appeal or remedy you have not used and explain why not

The Bavarian Supreme Court noted that, insofar as a violation of the right to be heard was to be claimed, it would not have been appropriate to apply for admission to the appeal on points of law, but rather to raise a procedural complaint (Verfahrensrüge) [appendix, page 498]. However, a procedural complaint was not necessary as the appeal to the right to be heard had only been made as an auxiliary claim before the Bavarian Supreme Court and this right was not to be asserted before the Federal Constitutional Court. The constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court only concerned a violation of the right to physical integrity and the right to free development of the personality. In this case, the procedural complaint is not a requirement for the admissibility of the constitutional complaint.

Information concerning other international proceedings (if any)

Have you raised any of these complaints in another procedure of international investigation or settlement?
No

Do you (the applicant) currently have, or have you previously had, any other applications before  the Court?
No

List of accompanying documents

 In the box below, please list the documents in chronological order with a concise description. Indicate the page number at which each document may be found

1.	Excerpts from the essential national laws: Basic Law and Infection Protection Act	p. 830
2.	Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of October 23, 1951 – 2 BvG 1/51 proving that a German law is legally invalid from the beginning if it contradicts the Basic Law	p. 621 (636)
3.	Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of March 20, 1952 – 1 BvL 12, 15, 16, 24, 28/51 proving that courts can only submit formal laws to the constitutional court, but not ordinances that they consider to be unconstitutional	p. 654
4.	Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of March 1, 1979 – 1 BvR 532/77 stating that the probability forecasts taken into account when a provision that interferes with fundamental rights was enacted must be documented	p. 776 (803)
5.	Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of May 23, 1980 – 2 BvR 854/79 about stating that legal provisions must satisfy the principle of proportionality	p. 687 (690)
6.	Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of January 14, 1981 – 1 BvR 612/72 about right to physical integrity (interfered by effects changing natural body functions or a person’s well-being)	p. 666 (680)
7.	Study by Lee/Wang (2011): “Objective Assessment of Increase in Breathing Resistance of N95 Respirators on Human Subjects” quantifying the extent to which people’s breathing is hindered by masks of type N95	p. 502
8.	Sixth Bavarian Infection Protection Measures Ordinance dated June 19, 2020 stating the obligation to wear a face covering and Ordinance of September 1, 2020 extending its validity	p. 309 / 321
9.	Complainant’s written statement being a credible substantiation of medical effects and his health complaints	p. 136
10.	Inquiries via Internet portal FragDenStaat on which information the proportionality of the mask obligation is based and the Ministry’s response from September 2020 that it is based on “a close exchange with a wide range of experts”	p. 596 (602)
11.	Medical certificate of November 6, 2020 stating that the complainant was unable to wear a mask	p. 94
12.	Fine notice from the City of Regensburg dated November 19, 2020	p. 9
13.	Objection dated November 26, 2020	p. 17
14.	Statement of grounds for objection dated December 18, 2020	p. 20 = 331
15.	Meta-study by Kisielinski and others (2021): “Is a Mask That Covers the Mouth and Nose Free from Undesirable Side Effects in Everyday Use and Free of Potential Hazards?” about changes in respiratory physiology of mask wearers	p. 540
16.	Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of November 19, 2021 – 1 BvR 781/21 stating that the question if the estimation and prognosis of dangers is based on a sufficiently reliable foundation is subject to judicial review	p. 691 (742)
17.	Essay “Physical injury by masks?” by the complainant and others authors on the medical effects of wearing masks [as an attachment to the defense brief below]	p. 96
18.	Defense brief of the complainant dated June 19, 2022	p. 194
19.	Minutes of the court hearing before the Local Court of Regensburg on July 28, 2022	p. 207
20.	Judgement of the Local Court of Regensburg dated July 28, 2022 condemning the complainant to a fine for not wearing a face covering	p. 220
21.	Request for admission of the appeal on points of law dated August 2, 2022	p. 212
22.	Statement of grounds for request for admission of the appeal on points of law dated October 20, 2022	p. 393
23.	Rejection of the request for admission of the appeal on points of law by the Bavarian Supreme Court dated December 13, 2022	p. 497
24.	Constitutional complaint dated January 16, 2023 with all attachments	p. 234-614
25.	Decision on the non-acceptance of the constitutional complaint by the Federal Constitutional Court of April 29, 2025	p. 617

Any other comments 

Do you have any other comments about your application?

The appendix is structured as follows: ▶ the file of the Regulatory Authority and the Local Court (pages 1-232),

▶ the constitutional complaint with all its attachments (pages 233-614),

▶ the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (pages 615-619),

▶ the relevant jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court (pages 620-829),

▶ excerpts from the essential national laws: Basic Law and Infection Protection Act (pages 830-831).

Date
16062025
DDMMYYYY

Signature
Applicant(s)
Thomas Wagner

Decision of the Court

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME

DECISION

CASE OF WAGNER v. GERMANY

(Application no. 19970/25)

introduced on 30 June 2023

The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 9 October 2025 in a single judge formation pursuant to Articles 24 § 2 and 27 of the Convention, has examined the application as submitted.

The Court finds in the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or the Protocols thereto and that the admissibility criteria set out in Articles 34 and 35 of the Convention have not been met.

The Court declares the application inadmissible.

Alain Chablais
Judge

COUNCIL OF EUROPE

CONSEIL DE L’EUROPE