In the dispute over Corona shop closures, the Stuttgart Regional Court rejected a multi-million dollar lawsuit by the Woolworth and Tedi mother company.
As the 7th civil chamber decided, the department store chains have no claims for compensation. According to the judges, the Corona regulations of the state of Baden-Württemberg were lawful, proportionate and compatible with the Basic Law.
BH Holding GmbH had sued for two Lockdowns in 2020 and 2021. Overall, it is about a period of more than 25 weeks in which the shops had to close. For the lost profit, the company demanded compensation of more than 32 million euros from the state.
Chains see themselves treated unevenly
The holding was violated by the Corona regulations several fundamental rights – especially the equality requirement. Woolworth and Tedi argued that pure so-called non-food dealers: inside the company had to cease because of the lockdowns. Supermarkets and several other privileged dealers: Inside and drugstores, however, would continue to open and have been allowed to sell their entire range without limitation-including non-food articles. Even hardware stores would not have had to close.
The chamber did not follow this reasoning. There is no violation of the equality requirement of the Basic Law. When regulating a dynamic infection, its limits are less strict. “The privilege of the retail trade that serves the basic needs of the population, which does not sell products for daily life, is justified by weighty concerns of the common good,” it said. In this context, certain disadvantages must also be accepted in individual cases as long as this are justified by factual reasons.
Holding has also submitted similar complaints in other federal states. The plaintiff did not want to give the exact number. Non-food discounters like Woolworth and Tedi specialize in the trade with goods that cannot be consumed. They conduct household and stationery, home textiles, fashion and decoration, toys and multimedia, leisure and sporting goods.
Does it go to Karlsruhe?
The judgment is not yet final. The applicant’s representative announced that he would first want to wait for the written reasoning. However, one is still confident that the claims are justified. Therefore, it is not unlikely to be appealed.
Observer: Inside, assuming that the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe will have to decide in the last instance. In cases of hairdressers and restaurateurs, the BGH had already judged that the lockdowns were lawful.