PDF-Sönnichsen-Acquittal-Article
Article
Re: the Acquittal of Dr Sönnichsen for Issuing Vaccine Exemption Papers
Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.
Exemption Certificates Case
Exemption Certificates Case
Re: the Legality of a Medical Doctor Issuing Vaccination Exemption Certificates
Facts of the Case
- Dates: Feb 9, 2023
- Location: Salzburg, Austria
- Court: Regional Court Salzburg
- Case #: ?
- Plaintiff: Public Prosecutor
- Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
- Defendant: Dr Andreas Sönnichsen
- Trial Type: Criminal Complaint
- Judge: ?
- Status: Decided
- Verdict: for the Defendant
*updated Feb 13, 2023
Background
Dr Andreas Sönnichsen, a German national, was employed as a teaching and research professor at the university hospital in Vienna from 2018 up to end of 2021 when he was fired from his position because of his fierce criticism of Corona vaccination policy. [1]
He was accused of having issued digital certificates for provisional vaccination incapacity against payment of 20 euros, although he was not authorized to do so. [1]
The Medical Association had seen the general practitioner’s actions as a violation of the Medical Act and reported this to the public prosecutor’s office. In the court hearing, he was accused of his opinions being issued via the internet without having conscientiously examined the patients in advance. [1]
He was also accused by defenders of the government and Corona policy Corona policy of being a “Schwurbler” (indiscriminate conspiracy theorist, lateral thinker etc). [1]
Significance
First legal case in Austria of a medical doctor found innocent of issuing vaccine exemption certificates.
Plaintiff’s (State Prosecutor’s) Argument
Dr Sönnlichen was further accused of issuing his expert opinions via the Internet without having conscientiously examined the patients beforehand. [1]
Defendant’s Argument
Sönnichsen protested his innocence in the trial. The judge could not recognize any subjective facts and no intent to enrich. [1]
Via his lawyer, Dr Sönnichsen argued [2] that he:
“…never committed fraud or abused his powers.” further stating that: “It is legal, that if people are afraid of having an allergic reaction to an untested vaccine, to issue them with a certificate [of vaccination exemption] up until the time that the ingredients and effects of this vaccine are clarified.”
Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases
A similar case was held in Germany where entrepreneur Markus Bönig was on trial for brokering “vaccination certificates” for a fee. [3]
in the view of the Lüneburg Regional Court, the vaccination certificate is not a health certificate at all, because it does not certify an individual state of health. “The ‘certificate’ is also not incorrect, since the statement made in it that no examination had taken place corresponds to the truth,” the court said. The extent to which the certificate is then useful in practice – for example, in the case of a workplace-based vaccination requirement – was not before the court.[3]
According to Bönig, the certificates are in any case simply expert opinions “which merely reflect what the user himself has stated, namely that he does not know at all whether he could react allergically or not.” This determination does not require personal contact with a doctor.[3]
Decision
The trial against the physician, university lecturer and well-known CoV vaccination critic Andreas Sönnichsen ended in Salzburg with an acquittal. [1]
Aftermath
After the acquittal, Sönnichsen strongly criticized the CoV policy. Those who had not been vaccinated had been severely defamed and discriminated against. [1]
He told ORF after the verdict was handed down that there was now a great deal of work to be done in society. [1]
He criticizes the fact that there is now a great silence – after many months of expensive media campaigns against the unvaccinated:
“I am very glad that Corona is now coming to an end. On the other hand, we now have to come to terms with the past. We now know that many political measures were completely inappropriate. It is now openly admitted that the kindergarten and school closures were unnecessary. Now two studies have come out that the mandatory masking was also unnecessary. The lockdowns certainly did more harm than good.” [1]
Of course, a lot was learned in this crisis, Sönnichsen said,
“But the people who predicted this, and I count myself among them, they were massively defamed and called right-wing radicals. I have never had any radical right-wing thoughts in my head. [1]
Further Research
Court Documents:
- Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
Media
References
- Freispruch für Impfkritiker, heftige Kritik an CoV-Politik .>>> Click here for English translation
- short video of Sönnichsen describing his hearing in the Salzburg court on Feb 9th
- Hörtest gegen die Maskenpflicht
Keyword
Exemption, Exemption Certificates, Fraud, Hospital, Medical Act, professor, Salzburg, Schwurbler, Sönnichsen, University, Vienna
Work Vaccine Mandate Case
Work Vaccine Mandate Case
Re: the Legality of forcing an employee to be vaccinated for covid by their employer
Facts of the Case
- Dates: March 1, 2022 (?)
- Location: Austria
- Court: Landesgericht Krems (Krems Regional Court)
- Case #:
- Plaintiff: Chauffeur & House Technician
- Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
- Defendant: Special Needs Care Facility
- Trial Type:
- Judge:
- Status: Decided
- Verdict: for the Plaintiff
*updated March 25, 2022
Background
In the summer and fall of the previous year, mainstream media, politicians at various levels, the medical associations and especially the vaccination experts of the National Vaccination Committee as well as the pharmaceutical lobby as a whole had put massive pressure on employees to be vaccinated. It had been threatened with dismissal and cancellation of unemployment benefits and partly it was also implemented. Now a court has heard a challenge. [1]
A person who was employed as a chauffeur and house technician in an institution for severely impaired people (defendant) was dismissed from his work only because the plaintiff did not want to be administered a so-called vaccination against SARS-CoV-2. [1]
At trial, it was undisputed that the reason for the plaintiff’s termination was his refusal to be vaccinated against Covid-19. [2]
Significance
This case provides a legal basis as to whether an employer may require an employee to have a vaccination administered and whether an employee has the right to defend against the interference with his/her bodily integrity from said employer or risk termination. Dismissal of an employee who does not wish to be treated with these injections can be successfully challenged. [2]
The special circumstances of the novel procedures, which do not represent conventional vaccinations, have not even been referred to. After all, the mRNA procedures have never before been used on humans. They are only conditionally approved and do not provide lasting immunity (hence boosters). [2]
Plaintiff’s Argument
The termination was contested pursuant to § 105 para 3 subpara 1 lit i ArbVG (motive termination) and explained as follows in justification: [2]
“The decision as to whether or not to be administered a so-called vaccine is arguably up to each individual. Regardless of the fact that the inviolable and inviolable rights related to physical health are enshrined in fundamental law, it is stated that the Council of Europe on 27.01.2021 in its Resolution 2361 (2021) decided, among other things, that this so-called vaccination may not be mandatory and that no one may be discriminated against because they are not vaccinated.” [1]
The Council of Europe thus follows the constitutionally guaranteed rights to physical and mental integrity of the person (Art. 3 CFR), respect for private and family life (Art. 8 ECHR) and equality before the law (Art. 7 (1) B-VG), the protection of which is also fully due to the plaintiff. [2]
Further on the “vaccines”:
“Both the preparations of BioNTech Pfizer, as well as those of Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and AstraZeneca were only conditionally approved, namely provisionally for a period of 1 year, because essential data on the efficacy and safety of use are not (yet) available and must be collected only after the conditional approval in the so-called post-marketing. [1]
Therefore, the approvals were granted with the requirement to submit study results on efficacy and safety by 2022 (for Moderna), 2023 (for BioNTech Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson) and 2024 (for AstraZeneca), i.e. at a time when millions of vaccine doses will already have been vaccinated in Austria. But this means that every person who undergoes vaccination in the next few months will effectively be a “second-class study participant” (no medical supervision).” [1]
Only preliminary evaluation reports are currently available on the “safety” aspect. The final study results will have to be submitted several years later. The ongoing clinical phases I and II to test safety have been significantly shortened by shuffling and pooling. [2]
It is therefore not possible to make any reliable statements on any long-term effects or side effects occurring in the medium term. Above all, however, interactions with medications were not tested. However, these aspects represent only an exemplary list and a conclusive assessment of the risks for the population cannot be made at present. In addition, it is pointed out that the risk-benefit ratio on the part of the plaintiff is not positive. [2]
However, it is a fact, based on the data already available, that in connection with the substances of all four manufacturers there have been both numerous deaths and frequently serious side effects. Of course, these are only those side effects that became apparent and were also reported after only a few weeks after the so-called vaccination. [2]
It is also stated accordingly:
“Even if the defendant were to take the position that the interests, health and right to self-determination of an employee can be completely disregarded and any interests of other employees and clients would prevail, this argument would fall flat as a purely protective claim. In justification, it is pointed out that there is currently no evidence whatsoever that vaccinated persons can no longer infect anyone; sterile immunity has not yet been proven by any of the vaccines. This is also explicitly mentioned in the approval documents of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).” [1]
Defendant’s Argument
The defendant argued in the proceedings that the majority of the clients were severely disabled and required special protection due to serious pre-existing conditions. Many of those affected could not wear a mask due to their limitations, and direct physical contact repeatedly occurred in the course of care. The special protection and responsibility cannot be passed on to the clients. Neither testing nor the wearing of FFP2 masks would be able to prevent infections.
Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases
…More information is needed…
Decision
The court states in its judgment that the “dismissal (of the case) must have occurred because of the defense against unjustified demands of the employer.” That the demand for vaccination was unjustified follows, among other things, from the fact that at the “time the termination was issued, there was (and currently is) no general legal obligation for Covid-19 vaccination. Therefore, there is also no obligation under labor law for employees to be vaccinated, which could be unilaterally ordered and enforced by an instruction from the employer (cf. Gerhartl, COVID-19: Arbeitsrechtliche Maßnahmen wegen Infektion oder Impf- bzw Testverweigerung, RdW 2021/230, p. 274; Pallwein, Indirekte Impfpflicht am Arbeitsplatz?, ARD 6738/5/2021, p. 3ff).” [1]
Therefore:
“The performance of a vaccination is a medical intervention and constitutes a significant interference with the physical integrity of the plaintiff, which – in the absence of a legal obligation to vaccinate – cannot be ordered by the employer.” [1]
Aftermath
…More information is needed…
Further Research
Court Documents:
- Read the Court Ruling
In the news:
…More information is needed…
Media
……
source: ….
….
source: ….
….
source: ….
References
Keyword
Austria, employment, Krems, Mandate, Termination, Vaccine, Work