The pandemic-related 2G regulations continue to create a mood of crisis and poor sales among the affected retailers, which are nowhere near the level of before the pandemic. The trade association textile shoes and leather goods (BTE) now wants to support traders with an argumentation paper to take legal action.
A current survey by the German Retail Association (HDE) for the last calendar week of 2021 among 1,000 retailers clearly shows that the 2G regulation causes high sales losses for retailers who are affected by the rule. In the last week of the year, non-food retailers made 29 percent less sales than before the pandemic. Businesses that were not affected by the 2G rule, on the other hand, would have had to accept less high losses with a minus of around eight percent.
“The situation remains difficult for many retailers, many businesses in the stationary non-food trade are fighting for their economic existence. In particular, where the 2G regulation applies when shopping, there are significantly fewer customers and sales remain deep in the red, ”says HDE Managing Director Stefan Genth.
Protective effect even without 2G
This is all the more regrettable since the mask requirement, hygiene concepts and distance would have their effect even without further restrictions. “This means that shopping is safe even without 2G. The grocery trade proves this every day, ”Genth continued. He calls on politicians to correct and abolish the 2G rule.
In view of the high losses of many traders, the HDE continues to demand adjustments to the corona aid. For example, the hurdle for applying for funds must be lowered and the maximum limits for aid raised. After two lockdowns and two lost Christmas sales, many retailers would run out of financial reserves.
Support for merchants who want to take legal action against 2G
A fashion retailer from Bavaria proves that lawsuits against the 2G regulation can also be promising. Now the Handelsverband Textil, Schuh, Lederwaren (BTE) has published an argumentation paper that is intended to support companies willing to take legal action to successfully follow this path.
It points out, among other things, that the terms used in the individual state ordinances are different and therefore no nationwide transferability is guaranteed. The Bavarian ordinance, for example, uses the phrase “shops that cover daily needs”. According to the BTE, this should be understood in such a way that clothing stores also fall under the exception to the 2G regulation because their importance for the general public does not take second place to that of shoes, books, cut flowers or gardening tools and the need for clothing can occur on a daily basis.
In other federal states, however, there is talk of “basic need” or “necessary need”, so that the Bavarian argumentation cannot simply be adopted for complaints in other federal states.
Argument: fashion purchases are also demand-driven
In the compact argumentation paper, the BTE clarifies the need for regular purchases of textiles and clothing (including shoes). It shows that the majority of the almost 60 annual fashion and textile purchases by German citizens are demand-driven, for example because the items wear out or no longer fit. The paper is also suitable for preparing discussions with members of the state parliament about the unacceptable unequal treatment of retail sectors, the BTE continues.
The paper can be downloaded free of charge from the BTE website.