The corona measures interfered with the cabin owners’ rights, but the rights were still not violated because the interventions were justified, the Supreme Court believes.
In December 2020, a group of Norwegians with cabins in Sweden filed a lawsuit against the state because quarantine requirements were introduced when entering Norway from abroad. The cabin owners believed that the restrictions in the COVID-19 regulations were not anchored in the Infection Control Act and that the government lacked professional justification.
They also believed that more comprehensive exceptions should have been made for them as long as they avoided public transport and did not have close contacts in Sweden.
They also thought that the quarantine obligation was contrary to human rights and the EEA agreement.
Interventions were justified
The Supreme Court states that from the start of the pandemic, it was well-founded to have as few exceptions as possible from the rules on entry quarantine and that the state could later emphasize the risk of non-compliance with any exceptions.
The Supreme Court also believes that the measures interfered with the right to respect for the home according to the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“These rights were still not violated because the interventions were justified,” the Supreme Court writes.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has concluded that the parties must cover their own legal costs because the case raises questions of principle as to how far the authorities can go in implementing intervention measures against private individuals in an extraordinary situation.
In total, Norwegian residents own around 12,400 cabins in Sweden.
Source: © NTB Scanpix / #Norway Today / #NorwayTodayNews
Do you have a news tip for Norway Today? We want to hear it. Get in touch at email@example.com