:quality(70)/cloudfront-eu-central-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mentormedier/4MGAAAT2GJ4WDOKZ3CDLLW47G4.jpg "A woman refused a corona test – and got a hefty fine – Dagsavisen")
VADSØ (Dagsavisen): In a 25-page judgment, the reason for the woman’s judgment is explained. In June last year, she was stopped at the Helligskogen customs office in the Storfjord. It came from Sweden through Finland to Norway. The campaign began in Oslo. She had spent two days in Sweden because her car broke down.
After passing a toll booth in Helligskogen, the car was stopped by a police patrol and told to test itself for SARS-CoV-2 using a PCR test. This woman refused, not wanting anything inserted into her, this time in the form of a swab in the nose.
So the woman had to enter a quarantine hotel. The woman also refused and was told that she would be reported if she did not do so. Instead, she traveled home and had close contact with at least three people.
Unsure policeman
The convict had seen news reports that reopenings were under way, and was aware of the exceptional provision in the COVID-19 regulations that those who traveled through a quarantined area without using public transportation, without spending the night there and without having to travel to a quarantined area would be allowed to leave. Close contact with people other than those they live with has been exempted from the obligation to implement entry quarantine.
[ FHI: Salmonellautbruddet trolig over – agurk kan være smittekilden ]
The Court of Appeal did not believe the woman, who thought the police were unsure of the applicable rules. Defenders in court said the regulatory provisions did not meet the requirements of the infection control law: “Infection control measures in accordance with the law must be based on a clear medical justification, be necessary in order to control infection and appear to be beneficial after public assessment. When implementing infection control measures, the focus should be on the voluntary participation of the person or persons to whom the measure applies. Coercive measures cannot be used where it would be a disproportionate interference, according to the nature of the case and the circumstances.”
The defense forces considered the hotels as the quarantine implementation period unjustified in terms of infection control.
Contrary to the constitution
The woman also believed that the provisions in the covid-19 regulations were invalid because they contravened Article 106 of the Constitution. Specifically, the accused stated that her entry into Norway violated the current provisions in the covid-19 regulations.
The ruling states: “Any person lawfully residing in the Kingdom may move freely within the borders of the Kingdom and choose his place of residence therein. No person may be refused departure from the Kingdom unless it is necessary for effective prosecution or for the performance of military service. Citizens may not be prevented Norwegians from entering the kingdom.
[ Nå kommer noroviruset – slik unngår du smitte i jula ]
But here, too, the Court of Appeal disagreed with the woman’s assessment. They cannot see that the provisions of the covid-19 regulation on the obligation to quarantine in a hotel and the obligation to be tested for SARS-CoV-2 individually or collectively represent restrictions on a woman’s constitutional right to enter Norway.
Although it was heading towards reopening in Norway at the time in question, there is still a 10-day quarantine if you come from a country with a high infection rate. Everyone can test themselves outside of quarantine after three days.
[ Sønnen min begynte på skolen i år. Jeg har hatt lyst til å rope ]
“Explorer. Unapologetic entrepreneur. Alcohol fanatic. Certified writer. Wannabe tv evangelist. Twitter fanatic. Student. Web scholar. Travel buff.”
