Berlin: Journalist wants to overturn quarantine regulation

Justitia (Photo: Pixabay).
Justitia (Photo: Pixabay).

Berlin: Journalist wants to overturn quarantine regulation

Justitia (Photo: Pixabay).
Advertising

The Berlin journalist Olaf Alp has a problem: he has to go into quarantine after his vacation in the Canary Islands. But he now wants to prevent that by means of an urgent application.

Since December 20, the Federal Foreign Office has also classified the Canary Islands as a risk area. As a result, returnees are quarantined. The person concerned does not let it sit on them and does everything to overturn the quarantine regulation. In doing so, he refers in particular to two cornerstones of the Basic Law: the principle of equal treatment and the principle of proportionality. 

In the application to the Berlin Administrative Court, he states that the seven-day incidence in the State of Berlin is 212 cases per 100.000 inhabitants, while the incidence in the Canary Islands is 72,82 cases per 100.000 inhabitants. Against this background, there is “a higher or at least as high probability that they have picked up the corona virus” for people who have not left the state of Berlin. The people from Berlin are not restricted in their rights of freedom, although objectively the risk of infection is higher, the travel portal quotes Travel before 9 the journalists. Therefore, the obligation to quarantine at home for ten days would represent an objectively unjustified unequal treatment of comparable issues. 

The plaintiff follows a well-known line of argument: A few weeks ago, the Higher Administrative Court in Münster rejected the quarantine requirement for foreigners returning from risk areas, which is regulated in the state's Corona entry regulation. According to the court, the country had not taken into account that travelers are at a higher risk of infection when they return from countries with fewer infections than at their place of residence than at their holiday destination. Courts are generally not bound by the decisions of other courts when reaching a judgment. So you can decide differently in a comparable case. Nevertheless, the judges can orientate themselves on previous decisions. Will they do it here?

Comment

  • Fosters, 25. December 2020 @ 16: 14

    It is to be hoped that the court will recognize the very meaningless unequal treatment and judge accordingly. How one should have a higher risk (of becoming infected) when the incidence is 3x lower than at home is completely illogical. In addition, it is generally disproportionate to appoint “risk areas” (moreover “randomly” because of non-existent, equal and more transparent criteria) that have correspondingly lower incidences. Or do the countries just want to forbid all travel and flying because that would make an easy victim for a lobby that is very weak in politics? Also highly recommended: https://www.stoppt-reisewarnungen.at/
    After all, it doesn't matter where you are, but how you behave.

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * marked

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.

Editor of this article:

Granit Pireci is an editor at Aviation.Direct and specializes in aviation in Southeast Europe. Before that he worked for AviationNetOnline (formerly Austrian Aviation Net).
[ssba buttons]

Nobody likes paywalls
- not even Aviation.Direct!

Information should be free for everyone, but good journalism costs a lot of money.

If you enjoyed this article, you can check Aviation.Direct voluntary for a cup of coffee Coffee trail (for them it's free to use).

In doing so, you support the journalistic work of our independent specialist portal for aviation, travel and tourism with a focus on the DA-CH region voluntarily without a paywall requirement.

If you did not like the article, we look forward to your constructive criticism and / or your suggestions for improvement, either directly to the editor or to the team at with this link or alternatively via the comments.

Your
Aviation.Direct team
paywalls
nobody likes!

About the editor

Granit Pireci is an editor at Aviation.Direct and specializes in aviation in Southeast Europe. Before that he worked for AviationNetOnline (formerly Austrian Aviation Net).
[ssba buttons]

Nobody likes paywalls
- not even Aviation.Direct!

Information should be free for everyone, but good journalism costs a lot of money.

If you enjoyed this article, you can check Aviation.Direct voluntary for a cup of coffee Coffee trail (for them it's free to use).

In doing so, you support the journalistic work of our independent specialist portal for aviation, travel and tourism with a focus on the DA-CH region voluntarily without a paywall requirement.

If you did not like the article, we look forward to your constructive criticism and / or your suggestions for improvement, either directly to the editor or to the team at with this link or alternatively via the comments.

Your
Aviation.Direct team
paywalls
nobody likes!

Comment

  • Fosters, 25. December 2020 @ 16: 14

    It is to be hoped that the court will recognize the very meaningless unequal treatment and judge accordingly. How one should have a higher risk (of becoming infected) when the incidence is 3x lower than at home is completely illogical. In addition, it is generally disproportionate to appoint “risk areas” (moreover “randomly” because of non-existent, equal and more transparent criteria) that have correspondingly lower incidences. Or do the countries just want to forbid all travel and flying because that would make an easy victim for a lobby that is very weak in politics? Also highly recommended: https://www.stoppt-reisewarnungen.at/
    After all, it doesn't matter where you are, but how you behave.

Leave a Comment

Your e-mail address will not be published. Required fields are marked with * marked

This website uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn more about how your comment data is processed.

Advertising