Supreme Court grants appeal in 14-day quarantine case

Iceland’s Supreme Court has granted a man permission to appeal a ruling that rejected his claim for compensation over a 14-day quarantine order, mbl.is reported. The court said the case could have significant general importance. The decision grants permission to appeal but does not indicate whether he is entitled to compensation.

The case concerns an order issued by the chief epidemiologist on November 24, 2021, requiring the man to quarantine for 14 days after arriving in Iceland. He is seeking compensation for non-pecuniary harm under the Constitution and the communicable disease prevention law in force at the time.

A district court rejected the claim, and Iceland’s Court of Appeal upheld that decision on June 25. The state did not oppose the man’s request for permission to appeal. The Supreme Court made its decision on October 21.

Quarantine rules and appeal arguments

The Court of Appeal said the man had not presented any of the documents required under the regulation on Covid-19 control measures when he arrived, including a recognised vaccination certificate. He also did not follow the regulation’s instruction to take a PCR test on arrival. According to the ruling, he could have left quarantine after receiving a negative PCR test five days after arriving.

The court said the man knew that, under the chief epidemiologist’s general instructions, he would have to quarantine for 14 days. It found that the regulation had an adequate legal basis in his case. The court also noted that the restriction was intended to protect people’s lives and health, interests protected by the Constitution and international agreements binding on Iceland. It said lawmakers and authorities had some discretion in assessing which measures were necessary.

In his request to appeal, the man argued that the case raised questions about the legality and clarity of the legal basis for measures restricting freedom, and about the limits of regulatory powers. He also argued that the case concerned an individual’s right to guidance and meaningful access to the courts while subject to quarantine. He said the Court of Appeal’s ruling was clearly wrong and contrary to the Constitution and general law, and that the outcome affected particularly important interests of his.

The Supreme Court concluded that the case could have significant general importance and that the conditions for granting permission to appeal had been met.