Court Case Won in Norway regarding forced quraitine of cottage owners near Sweden.

Part of the Cabin Owners' Court Twist

Section 5 of the Covid-19 Regulation sets out the requirements for persons who will be in the entry quarantine. The fourth paragraph states: People in entry quarantine can only stay outside the place of residence if they can avoid close contact with anyone other than those with whom they live. Those who are in quarantine cannot be in a workplace where others also reside, at school or in kindergarten. It is not allowed to use public transport. The "place of residence" of the group of cabin owners that our case is about will be their place of residence in Norway. In other words, the entry quarantine means that the cabin owners must mostly stay at home when they return from the cabin. They can't go to work and their children can't go to school or kindergarten. Furthermore, it is stated in Section 4 of the Regulations that this quarantine lasts for 10 days. The court then moves to assess whether this entry quarantine interferes with the basic rights of the cottage owners. Freedom of movement Both the Constitution and human rights protect the freedom of movement of individuals. Freedom of movement was first unconstitutional by the revision in 2014, and the idea was then that the Constitution should provide the same protection as Article 12 of the UNITED NATIONS Convention on Civil and Political Rights (SP) and Article 2 of Additional Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (EMK P4-2). Since the protection is intended to be the same, the court will in the following adhere to the provisions of the Constitution. Section 106 of the Constitution states: Anyone who resides legally in the realm can freely move within the boundaries of the kingdom and choose their place of residence there. No one can be refused to leave the realm unless it is necessary for the sake of an effective prosecution or for the merit of conscription. Norwegian citizens cannot be denied access to the realm. the parliament’s Human Rights Committee, which investigated the proposals that under the aground for the later 

The constitutional proposals, write the following about freedom of movement in paragraph 34.2.4 (The Committee's assessment) For Norwegian citizens, freedom of movement is probably so obvious that most people do not think about having such freedom. However, the nature of freedom shows the central value of the Norwegian society. At the same time, it is a value that is often set aside in totalitarian societies. From recent times, the Berlin Wall is an example of encroachment on freedom of movement. So were the aphartheid regime's restrictions on where people could stay. But even less serious conditions can constitute interventions in freedom of movement, such as disproportionate and long-suffering bureaucratic treatment of passport applications. - 18 - 20-176591TVI-OTIR/05 The central importance of freedom of movement for today's free Norwegian society speaks for the constitutionality of freedom of movement. On this basis, the Committee finds that a provision on freedom of movement should be adopted in the Constitution.