[ad_1]
HOLIDAY HOMES: Norwegians with holiday homes in Sweden are now subject to quarantine when they return home after having visited their cabins overnight. Here from Värmland. Photo: Mars Vike Arnesen
1000 Norwegians with huts in Sweden went to court on Friday to have the quarantine obligation lifted. – It must be proportionate, and we do not see that it is, says the owner of the cabin.
Writes the law firm Andersen & Bache-Wiig in a press release.
The group has been subject since March 2020 to a quarantine obligation upon returning after a trip with accommodation to their own holiday property in Sweden, they write in the press release.
– For most people, the obligation of quarantine in practice means that they are prohibited from spending the night, keeping and using their own leisure property. This is perceived as a strong violation of fundamental rights, with significant negative consequences for the individual family.
They demand that it be opened to travel to their own leisure property, with accommodation, without the obligation of quarantine. They will accept orders to use their own means of transport and the prohibition of close contact in Sweden.
Jostein Halle has a holiday home in the Eda municipality in Värmland and is one of the 1000 cottage owners behind the lawsuit. He tells VG that they want the legality of the quarantine obligation to be assessed.
– We are now in the ninth month in which we have been banned in practice. We have only been able to go there on a day trip for strictly necessary maintenance and supervision. So now we will see if the state can do what it has done to us, says Halle.
He believes that the state has not had professional documentation to introduce a quarantine obligation for the group owned by Leisure Sweden.
CABIN OWNER: Jostein Halle owns a holiday property in the Eda municipality in Värmland. Photo: Private
– In violation of the requirements of equal treatment.
The group argues that the quarantine obligation may be illegal, among other things because there is no “justifiable justification that meets the requirements of the law.” They also believe that they have not been sufficiently listened to and involved in the process that led to the provisions.
Furthermore, they argue that the quarantine obligation is disproportionate and “violates the requirements of equal treatment and non-discrimination, including the imposition on owners of leisure properties in Norway.”
Halle is behind this. He believes that Norwegians who own a holiday property in Sweden can travel door to door and maintain their distance from the local population on an equal footing with cabin owners in Norway.
– We usually buy from Kongsvinger, pandemic or not, he says, adding that he himself is in the risk group.
– I don’t travel there to get infected.
– So, do you think there is no difference between traveling to holiday properties in Sweden and Norway, even if the infection situation is completely different?
– Yes, we don’t see any difference there. Certainly there are many who cannot understand that we are suing you, but it is very important that we try it here in court when so much time has passed.
He believes that the quarantine obligation they are now subjected to is disproportionate and does not comply with the Communicable Diseases Act.
– It must be proportionate, and we do not see that it is, he says.
– We feel a bit discriminated against here, we do.
The case is being updated.
