Germany, Civil Court Hamburg, 13 April 2022, No. 336 O 143/21
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
The Claimant was a child, who attend a day-care center. During the period from December 2020 to May 2021 the Claimant was ordered to stay in quarantine because other children of his group had been tested positive for COVID-19. The quarantine measures had been ordered by the competent health authorities.
The Claimant looked for compensation for the pain and suffering caused on him by the issued orders. Further the Claimant alleged an infringement to the principle of legality because the administrative orders were not based on a law provision and to the freedom of movement. The claim has been rejected.
Facts of the case
The Claimant was a child, who attended a day-care center. In December of 2021, another child of the Claimant's group tested positive for COVID-19, so the competent health authority was informed. This one ordered a domestic quarantine measure. The Claimant tested negative for COVID-19. He was asymptomatic for the whole quarantine period.
These facts occurred again in March of 2021 and in May 2021. On both occasions the Claimant was ordered to stay in quarantine. The Claimant asked the competent authority to shorten the quarantine period since he had a negative PRC test. The Claimant asked for 10,250 Euro plus a 5% of interest for pain and suffering damages.
The Defendant, the competent health authority, denied having breached its official duties because the Defendant implemented the rules provided in the Federal Infection Protection Law.
Type of measure challenged
- Federal government measure
- Quarantine orders issued by the competent health authority
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Public
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court began its reasoning recalling that the competent health authority ordered the quarantine measures, based on the Federal Infection Protection Law.
This law authorized the competent authorities to take the necessary measures to protect the population from communicable diseases. In particular the competent health authority could order that sick people, persons suspected of being ill, and persons suspected of being infected should be isolated in a suitable hospital or in another suitable manner. Within this meaning, the Claimant had been correctly included among "persons suspected of being infected” by the Defendant.
The Court has pointed out that in all three cases the children in the same group as the Claimant tested positive, so there was high probability that also the Claimant could have COVID-19, according to the scientific knowledge available at the time.
Further, the Court has focused on the daily-life argument. The claimant and the children who tested positive were part of the same group at the care facility. Therefore, the Defendant assumed that they had been in the same room with a probably high concentration of aerosols for more than 10 minutes. Considering the relevant criteria of the German Scientific Institute, it was not objectionable to classify the entire group of children as suspected of being infected due to the unclear contact situation and the resulting impossibility to determine who had been in contact with whom and for how long.
The Court has not shared the Claimant's argument concerning the infringement on the freedom of movement can be restricted by law or by an order of a Court.
The provision of the Federal Infection Protection Law did not constitute a deprivation of liberty because of the lack of a physical coercive effect. Indeed, a corresponding selective monitoring would serve to control compliance with the order, but not its direct compulsory enforcement, according to the Court. The Defendant did not breach its official duties by not giving the opportunity to end the quarantine prematurely after submitting a negative test. A test result represented a snapshot at the time when the sample was taken. This test is not able to exclude that COVID-19 was still during its incubation period.
Considering the above reasons, a claim for compensation for pain and suffering has no legal basis. In the absence of an illegality of the disputed orders, claims for damages are excluded by German Civil Law.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court has concluded that the orders issued by the competent health authority were legally based and implemented the federal law provision. Accordingly, a claim for damages for pain and suffering has been rejected because of an absence of a legal basis.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
- Principle of legality, right to compensation for pain and suffering
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Principle of legality (secondary legislation), Art. 80, German Constitution
- Freedom of a person can be limited by law or by a Court, Art. 104, German Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
- Health v. freedom of movement of persons
- Health v. authority liability for compensation
General principle applied
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
Throughout its decision the Court has applied the rule of law. The Court has focused its attention to examining whether the challenged order had a legal basis. The conclusion that the quarantine orders had correctly implemented the Federal Infection Protection Law, resulted in the claim for damages was not having a legal basis.
