RTL Today – In Luxembourg: These lawyers who unite against CovidCheck
A group of anti-CovidCheck lawyers is ready to launch legal action from January 15. Who are they and how do they intend to proceed concretely?
The ASTREE collective (Lawyers in support before the courts for the respect and equality of the law) was formed in opposition to the laws relating to Covid and Covid-Check. It is made up of lawyers from Luxembourg and the Grand Est.
The initiator of the group, Antoine Winkel, says he asked himself the following question:Who takes care of the unvaccinated at present?“
He thus presents himself as an ally of the employees who do not replace the conditions of the Covid-Check. He fears that some of them will suffer a suspension of their employment contract. Others might be discriminated against when entering a trade and “these people, someone has to defend them“.
His alternative to the generalization of vaccination: to make the tests more affordable and more accessible. For him, currently everything is in place to put the non-vaccinated in difficulty.
He regrets the delicate position in which employers will find themselves: “between the devil and the deep sea“. Indeed, one of the consequences of the legal actions planned from January 15 by the collective is the following: either the employers respecting the Covid-Check and fearing to be prosecuted by the group of lawyers, or they ignore the new measures applied and encourage a fine.
In addition, the lawyer says he is ready to meet the government to discuss the vaccination obligation which, according to him, goes against several standards.
“THE DEBATE WILL NEED TO BE LAUNCHED”
According to Sébastien Lanoue, lawyer at the court of Luxembourg, “we are now in a situation that is settling legally”. He fears that the law establishing the Covid-Check at work, currently effective until February 28, will be extended. For him, there is no doubt: “In any case, the debate will have to be launched in the long term”. Thus, he asks that the following question be studied: does the current law conflict with the Constitution and the various European standards? For this, he wishes to seize the national judge so that he compares the different interests which would be in contradiction.
The lawyer admits that the process he intends to initiate will be “technical“but for him the game is worth the candle.
He also believes that the new measures were implemented very quickly and that not all questions could be studied: “not all the issues raised by this new law have been raised“.
He specifies that he understands the legitimate desire for the establishment of these laws, which was to protect the health of the population, but he is concerned that other interests may have been neglected.