The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main heard a claim brought by travellers returning from Greece who sought compensation for pain and suffering because they had been required to quarantine after returning from a risk area. The quarantine order was based on the Corona Quarantine Ordinance of the State of Hesse dated 26 November 2020. Under that ordinance, persons entering Germany from an area classified as a risk area under the Infection Protection Act were required to enter ten days of domestic isolation, which could be ended at the earliest from the fifth day by a negative PCR test or a medical certificate (\u201ctesting out\u201d).<\/p>\n
The claimant married couple entered Germany by plane on 9 March 2021 from Greece, which had been classified as a risk area. They were then required to quarantine for six and ten days respectively, despite having negative PCR tests. According to their own account, this caused them depression, anxiety, sleep problems and other ailments.<\/p>\n
They therefore claimed compensation for pain and suffering of at least EUR 1,250 and at least EUR 2,500 respectively, arguing that the State of Hesse had acted unlawfully by issuing the Corona Quarantine Ordinance.<\/p>\n
Decision of the Regional Court<\/strong><\/p>\n The Regional Court held that the couple was not entitled to compensation for pain and suffering and dismissed the claim. The protective measure of quarantine was justified in order to counteract the spread of the virus as a pathogen and thereby prevent the lung disease COVID-19 that could result from it. The couple had entered Germany from an international risk area, which rightly classified them as \u201csuspected of infection\u201d within the meaning of the Infection Protection Act. Moreover, there was also a possibility of infection by other passengers on the aircraft and therefore of introducing the pathogen into Germany. A negative PCR test on the day of entry was not sufficient proof that there was no risk of infection. It was merely a snapshot and, due to the incubation period, could not provide information about whether the pathogen had actually been contracted during or shortly before the start of the flight.<\/p>\n But Was the Quarantine Proportionate in View of the Claimants\u2019 Suffering?<\/strong><\/p>\n The Regional Court answered \u201cyes\u201d. This decision was based on a balancing of the public interest in protecting life and health and the public healthcare system against the claimants\u2019 interest in freedom of movement.<\/p>\n In this respect, the public interest of the population prevailed, since protecting medical staff from acute overload, keeping schools and shops open, and ensuring the best possible medical care constitute an exceptionally important public good that the state must protect as effectively as possible.<\/p>\n The quarantine ordinance was also reasonable for the claimants, as they had been aware of the rules before commencing their journey and nevertheless decided to travel. In addition, the intensity of the interference was reduced by the possibility of \u201ctesting out\u201d.<\/p>\n Quarantine Is Not a Serious Interference with Freedom Rights<\/strong><\/p>\n The serious interference with their freedom rights alleged by the claimants was also rejected. They were able to stay in their own apartment without supervision and move freely within it. Unlike imprisonment, this also did not in any way damage their reputation. Accordingly, there was no serious interference in terms of its nature, duration or intensity.<\/p>\n Practical Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n As a traveller, you must familiarise yourself with the rules on re-entry into Germany before starting your journey. If you are not prepared to accept possible quarantine, you should not travel. A subsequent claim has little prospect of success in view of your prior knowledge and the protection of the general public.<\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main heard a claim brought by travellers returning from Greece who sought compensation for pain and suffering because they had been required to quarantine after returning from a risk area. The quarantine order was based on the Corona Quarantine Ordinance of the State of Hesse dated 26 November 2020. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":29,"featured_media":55851,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-55848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news-en"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t