Almanya Frankfurt am Main B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, Yunanistan\u2019dan d\u00f6nen yolcular\u0131n, riskli bir b\u00f6lgeden d\u00f6nd\u00fckten sonra karantinaya al\u0131nmalar\u0131 nedeniyle manevi tazminat talepli a\u00e7t\u0131\u011f\u0131 davay\u0131 de\u011ferlendirdi. Karantina karar\u0131, 26 Kas\u0131m 2020 tarihli Hessen Eyaleti Korona Karantina Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi\u2019ne dayan\u0131yordu. Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fe g\u00f6re, Bula\u015f\u0131c\u0131 Hastal\u0131klardan Korunma Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda riskli b\u00f6lge olarak s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lan bir b\u00f6lgeden Almanya\u2019ya giri\u015f yapan ki\u015filerin on g\u00fcn s\u00fcreyle evde izolasyona girmeleri gerekiyordu. \u0130zolasyon, en erken be\u015finci g\u00fcnden itibaren negatif PCR testi veya t\u0131bbi raporla sona erdirilebiliyordu (\u201ctestle karantinadan \u00e7\u0131kma\u201d).<\/p>\n
9 Mart 2021 tarihinde davac\u0131 \u00e7ift, riskli b\u00f6lge olarak s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lan Yunanistan\u2019dan u\u00e7akla Almanya\u2019ya giri\u015f yapt\u0131. PCR testleri negatif olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, s\u0131ras\u0131yla alt\u0131 ve on g\u00fcn s\u00fcreyle karantinada kalmalar\u0131 istendi. Kendi ifadelerine g\u00f6re bu durum depresyon, anksiyete, uyku sorunlar\u0131 ve ba\u015fka rahats\u0131zl\u0131klara yol a\u00e7t\u0131.<\/p>\n
Bu nedenle davac\u0131lar, Hessen Eyaleti\u2019nin Korona Karantina Y\u00f6netmeli\u011fi\u2019ni y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011fe koyarak hukuka ayk\u0131r\u0131 davrand\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrd\u00fc. S\u0131ras\u0131yla en az 1.250 avro ve 2.500 avro manevi tazminat talep edildi.<\/p>\n
B\u00f6lge Mahkemesinin Karar\u0131<\/strong><\/p>\n B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi, \u00e7iftin manevi tazminat hakk\u0131 bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131na h\u00fckmederek davay\u0131 reddetti. Karantina tedbiri, vir\u00fcs\u00fcn yay\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 ve bunun sonucunda COVID-19 hastal\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n ortaya \u00e7\u0131kmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00f6nleme amac\u0131 bak\u0131m\u0131ndan hakl\u0131 bulundu. \u00c7ift, uluslararas\u0131 risk b\u00f6lgesi olarak s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lan bir yerden Almanya\u2019ya giri\u015f yapm\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Bu nedenle Bula\u015f\u0131c\u0131 Hastal\u0131klardan Korunma Kanunu kapsam\u0131nda \u201cenfeksiyon \u015f\u00fcphesi bulunan ki\u015filer\u201d olarak s\u0131n\u0131fland\u0131r\u0131lmalar\u0131 hukuka uygun g\u00f6r\u00fcld\u00fc. Ayr\u0131ca u\u00e7aktaki di\u011fer yolculardan enfeksiyon kapmalar\u0131 ve patojenin bu \u015fekilde Almanya\u2019ya ta\u015f\u0131nmas\u0131 ihtimali de bulunuyordu. Giri\u015f g\u00fcn\u00fc yap\u0131lan negatif PCR testi, enfeksiyon riskinin bulunmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kan\u0131tlamak i\u00e7in yeterli de\u011fildi. Test yaln\u0131zca o andaki durumu g\u00f6steriyordu. Kulu\u00e7ka s\u00fcresi nedeniyle, patojenin u\u00e7u\u015f s\u0131ras\u0131nda veya u\u00e7u\u015fun ba\u015flamas\u0131ndan k\u0131sa s\u00fcre \u00f6nce bula\u015f\u0131p bula\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ortaya koyam\u0131yordu.<\/p>\n Peki, davac\u0131lar\u0131n ya\u015fad\u0131\u011f\u0131 s\u0131k\u0131nt\u0131lar g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, karantina tedbiri \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcl\u00fc m\u00fcyd\u00fc?<\/strong><\/p>\n B\u00f6lge Mahkemesi bu soruya \u201cevet\u201d yan\u0131t\u0131n\u0131 verdi. Mahkeme, ya\u015fam\u0131n ve sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n korunmas\u0131na ve kamu sa\u011fl\u0131k sisteminin i\u015flerli\u011finin s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fclmesine y\u00f6nelik kamu yarar\u0131 ile davac\u0131lar\u0131n seyahat \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fc\u011f\u00fc aras\u0131nda bir de\u011ferlendirme yapt\u0131.<\/p>\n Bu de\u011ferlendirmede kamu yarar\u0131na \u00f6ncelik tan\u0131nd\u0131. Sa\u011fl\u0131k \u00e7al\u0131\u015fanlar\u0131n\u0131n a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 i\u015f y\u00fck\u00fcnden korunmas\u0131, okullar\u0131n ve i\u015f yerlerinin a\u00e7\u0131k tutulmas\u0131 ve m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan en iyi t\u0131bbi bak\u0131m\u0131n sa\u011flanmas\u0131, devletin etkili bi\u00e7imde korumas\u0131 gereken \u00f6nemli kamu yararlar\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirildi.<\/p>\n Karantina d\u00fczenlemesi davac\u0131lar a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131ndan da makul bulundu. Davac\u0131lar yolculu\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kmadan \u00f6nce y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki kurallar\u0131 biliyor ve buna ra\u011fmen seyahat etmeyi tercih ediyorlard\u0131. Ayr\u0131ca \u201ctestle karantinadan \u00e7\u0131kma\u201d imk\u00e2n\u0131, tedbirin ki\u015filer \u00fczerindeki etkisini azalt\u0131yordu.<\/p>\n Karantina, \u00d6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck Haklar\u0131na Ciddi Bir M\u00fcdahale De\u011fildir<\/strong><\/p>\n Davac\u0131lar\u0131n \u00f6zg\u00fcrl\u00fck haklar\u0131na ciddi \u015fekilde m\u00fcdahale edildi\u011fi y\u00f6n\u00fcndeki iddias\u0131 da reddedildi. Davac\u0131lar herhangi bir g\u00f6zetim alt\u0131nda olmaks\u0131z\u0131n kendi dairesinde kalabilmi\u015f ve evlerinin i\u00e7inde serbest\u00e7e hareket edebilmi\u015fti. Hapis cezas\u0131ndan farkl\u0131 olarak karantina, itibarlar\u0131 \u00fczerinde de olumsuz bir etki yaratmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla m\u00fcdahale; niteli\u011fi, s\u00fcresi ve yo\u011funlu\u011fu bak\u0131m\u0131ndan ciddi olarak de\u011ferlendirilmedi.<\/p>\n Pratik Sonu\u00e7lar<\/strong><\/p>\n Seyahate \u00e7\u0131kmadan \u00f6nce Almanya\u2019ya yeniden giri\u015fte ge\u00e7erli olan kurallar hakk\u0131nda ayr\u0131nt\u0131l\u0131 bilgi edinilmelidir. Olas\u0131 bir karantina uygulamas\u0131n\u0131 kabul etmeye haz\u0131r olmayan ki\u015filerin seyahat kararlar\u0131n\u0131 buna g\u00f6re de\u011ferlendirmeleri gerekir. Kurallar\u0131n seyahat \u00f6ncesinde biliniyor olmas\u0131 ve kamu sa\u011fl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n korunmas\u0131na y\u00f6nelik menfaatler dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, sonradan yap\u0131lacak bir itiraz\u0131n ba\u015far\u0131 ihtimali olduk\u00e7a d\u00fc\u015f\u00fckt\u00fcr.<\/p>\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