Man punished for not having complied with the hotel quarantine measure

The Supreme Court has ruled in three cases (HR-2024-1107-A, HR-2024-1109-A and HR-2024-1110-A) on the validity of various infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. All cases concerned punishment for violations of regulatory provisions that applied when entering Norway during the pandemic. In such cases, it is a condition for punishment that the regulatory provisions are valid, i.e. not in conflict with law, the Constitution or international obligations that have been made into Norwegian law.

A Swedish man living in Innlandet county returned to Norway in May 2021 after visiting family in Sweden. At the border, he was ordered to stay in a quarantine hotel for ten days, but chose to go home to complete the quarantine there. He was sentenced to pay a fine of NOK 24,000 in both the District Court and the Court of Appeal. The question in the Supreme Court was whether the man should be acquitted because the provision on the obligation to stay in a quarantine hotel was invalid.

The Supreme Court concluded that the regulatory provision was valid, and that the man can be punished. The conditions for infection control measures in section 1-5 of the Infection Control Act were met. Punishment is not in conflict with the requirement of a clear legal basis, and it does not violate the man’s right to private and family life. Nor do the provisions of EEA law on the right to free movement preclude punishment.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF) 

Areas of law: Criminal law, infection control legislation, human rights and EEA law. Section 1-5 of the Infection Control Act, Articles 7 and 8 of the ECHR, Articles 7 (1) and 30−31 of the Union Citizens Directive.  

Key paragraphs: 60−61, 69, 79, 83−84, 86, 98−101, 113, 117, 124, 126, 128, 130

Justices: Matheson, Falkanger, Bergsjø, Sæther, Hellerslia