Why do amusement parks fail

Administrative court over the opening of an amusement park

Because: There are milder, but similarly effective means than a closure to prevent the virus from spreading. The operator had presented a hygiene concept that included compulsory tests and masks as well as restrictions on visitors to 50% of the maximum capacity. In places that invite you to linger or are intended to wait, the hygiene concept ensures that no infectious crowds are formed.

The administrative court classified these measures as being “just as effective” as a closure. If all the stipulations were implemented, a visit to the amusement park could be compared to a walk, as long as the guests moved between the rides, according to the court.

In this respect, with regard to the risk of infection, there is also no qualitative difference to the "model projects" and "model projects for trade fairs" provided for in the Lower Saxony Corona Ordinance, the safety requirements of which are regulated in Section 18b of the Lower Saxony Corona Ordinance (mandatory testing, data collection) the court continues. Rather, the amusement park has the advantage that - unlike shops in city centers and trade fairs - it takes place almost exclusively outdoors.

Impact of the "Federal Emergency Brake"?

The administrative court has decided on a provision in the Lower Saxony state ordinance. Apart from the fact that the second instance could change or revoke this judgment, it should not help the park operator in view of the upcoming "emergency brake" in the Infection Protection Act. Because while the state ordinance can or could be attacked before the local administrative courts, only the Federal Constitutional Court is responsible for a federal law such as the Infection Protection Act. In all likelihood, Section 26b, reformulated as the “Federal Emergency Brake”, will come into force at the end of this week or the beginning of the coming week.

The park operator would then have to take action before the Federal Constitutional Court. The advantage: a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court automatically has nationwide effect, while the decisions of the administrative courts only had an effect in the respective federal state. This can also be a "disadvantage" for those industries that hope for differentiated opening strategies - namely if the Federal Constitutional Court should first approve parts of the new § 26b IfSchG.