On 16 March 2020, almost exactly five years ago, the then Federal Government decided on the first coronavirus lockdown in Germany – a historic decision that not only fundamentally changed public life, but also the lives of many people and the work of many companies. We as a law firm were also faced with new challenges that continue to influence legal advice in many areas. In this interview, we take a look back at the past five years and talk to one of our experienced lawyers, Albrecht Doering, who was particularly involved in the legal issues resulting from the pandemic restrictions. The focus was particularly on topics such as the catering industry, coronavirus aid and its recovery. We learn how the work within our law firm changed during this turbulent time and how the legal issues continue to evolve to this day.
Almost exactly 5 years ago on 16 March 2020, the first corona lockdown was decided by the then federal government, which came into force immediately afterwards. To what extent has this changed your work at the law firm?
We set up a coronavirus helpline on the very first day of the lockdown. This was a telephone number where we offered people who were concerned or affected by the coronavirus measures to contact us. In the early days in particular, this meant that our phone never really stopped ringing. We sometimes had two or three employees who only dealt with enquiries that came in via this helpline. For me in particular, this meant that between 2020 and 2023, I spent at least 80% of my working hours dealing with coronavirus-related cases. The topics were very different. During the lockdown, I had a lot to do with the catering industry and, of course, the question of how it can be that a business has to close overnight and therefore no longer has any income, but at the same time has to continue paying rent and salaries. Over time, I then had a lot to do with advising companies and other affected parties in connection with possible relief funds.
Were there any particular legal issues or uncertainties among people that kept coming up during the coronavirus crisis?
We had a lockdown in 2021 that lasted over the Christmas period. In this context, many questions naturally arose, especially in the family sphere, such as whether people were still allowed to spend Christmas together at all.
Since March 2020, you and your colleagues have conducted over 1,000 proceedings
in connection with corona. What are they mainly about?
We conducted countless court proceedings during the coronavirus period, and we are still conducting them now. Immediately during the coronavirus period, one of the issues in Berlin was the permissibility of a curfew. From a legal perspective, it is difficult to understand why restaurants are allowed to stay open until 6 p.m., but not after that. We are now mainly dealing with the review of so-called corona funds. In other words, companies that received financial support during the coronavirus period and are now being confronted with repayment claims in some cases. There is still a great need for clarification in these areas in particular.
Is there one case in particular that sticks in your mind?
My clients include catering companies that were no longer able to generate income during the lockdown because events were prohibited. The catering companies were not directly affected by the coronavirus measures, as they could have continued to offer catering. However, the companies were indirectly affected by the measures. After all, who orders catering if they are no longer allowed to hold events? It is precisely in these cases that we are currently conducting court proceedings to clarify whether companies that were not directly but indirectly affected by the coronavirus measures are also entitled to financial compensation for the losses they have suffered.
How have courts generally reacted to applications and lawsuits against state coronavirus measures? Have there been any developments?
Unfortunately, I continue to observe that the courts are very reluctant to make decisions in general in connection with coronavirus. When it comes to the issue of coronavirus funds in particular, we often hear from the courts that they cannot uphold a claim because if they were to award money to individuals now, everyone would end up coming and that would not be economically feasible.
What legal issues are at the centre of the investigation into the coronavirus period?
The legal issues have of course changed over time. It is no longer a question of examining the legality of individual measures such as a lockdown or curfew. Instead, the focus is now exclusively on questions relating to the countless coronavirus funding programmes.
In relation to the recovery of coronavirus funds: What sums are involved?
The amounts of money to be reclaimed vary greatly. Depending on the applicant, they were entitled to money according to different calculations. In some cases, we are talking about self-employed people who received a living allowance. But we are also talking about large corporations, where we are talking about several million. However, a possible clawback is a hard blow for all those affected, as the money has of course long since been spent and was actually needed due to a lack of income. If reclaims are now made, many of those affected will be faced with a real threat to their livelihood.
In your opinion, what were the biggest legal omissions or shortcomings during the pandemic that now need to be addressed?
It’s difficult to say what the omissions or abuses were. What is particularly annoying, however, is that it was said at the time that corona funds should be disbursed in a straightforward manner where they were needed and now – five years later – people are starting to put on a magnifying glass. The application requirements were not so clearly defined at the beginning; everything only crystallised afterwards.
How long are proceedings, especially proceedings to reclaim coronavirus funds, likely to keep the courts busy? Is that even foreseeable?
I am sure that we will be dealing with this issue for decades to come. The time has only just come for the coronavirus funds to be scrutinised by the authorities. It will be a long time before a court makes a decision on this.