With the assistance of the law firm, a case was won against illegal quarantine in Bulgaria. At present, the decision is final and not subject to further appeal. The main reason for the quarantine and its subsequent revocation as unlawful is the unclear legal framework in this area, leading to misinterpretation, including by the employees of the regional health inspectorates themselves.
Illegal quarantine – the case
At the beginning of 2022, Stanislav* entered the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria from the Kingdom of Norway. Before that, he checked out the current orders from the Minister of Health, which said that if you’re coming from a country that’s not in the European Union, you can show a “similar document” that proves you tested negative with an antigen or PCR test. He got a PCR test done in Norway, which showed he was negative, and took it with him to Bulgaria.
Considering that he has the right to choose, Stanislav decided to take an antigen test, since it was twice as – cheaper than the PCR test.
When he arrived in Bulgaria, he presented a similar document proving a negative antigen test result. However, an SRZI employee handed him a tablet and instructed him to sign it, explaining that he would be placed in quarantine. Stanislav was not informed what quarantine entailed, nor what rules he had to follow and for how long. He was not given a copy of his quarantine order, so he was unable to familiarize himself with its contents.
Following a deliberate message sent by Stanislav electronically to the regional health inspectorate, the order issued against him was delivered three days after he had been unlawfully placed in quarantine.
The explanation given by the regional health inspectorate officials to justify the illegal quarantine is that quarantine for arrivals from a red zone country can only be lifted upon presentation of a vaccination certificate or a negative PCR test result.
* In order to preserve attorney-client privilege, the name has been changed.
The problematic legal framework
The order of the Minister of Health in force at the time of Stanislav’s unlawful quarantine stipulates that persons arriving in the country are admitted upon presentation of a valid EU digital COVID certificate of vaccination or recovery or a similar document, or a negative result from a COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test conducted up to 72 hours prior to entry into the country, certified by a valid EU Digital COVID Certificate for testing or a similar document containing the same data as the EU Digital COVID Certificate for testing.
At the same time, the order also provides a definition of the term “equivalent document,” stating that a valid EU Digital COVID Certificate for testing or a similar document is a document showing a negative result from a PCR test carried out up to 72 hours before entering the country or a negative result from a rapid antigen test carried out up to 48 hours before entering the country.
The confusion in interpretation stems from the fact that upon arrival from a red zone that is a member state of the European Union, exemption from quarantine can only be granted upon presentation of a PCR test result. At the same time, however, according to the definition of the term “equivalent document” in the valid EU Digital COVID Certificate issued by countries that are not members of the European Union, a negative antigen test result is also considered equivalent.
In other words, entry into Bulgaria from an EU country is only permitted with a vaccine or PCR test, while entry from any other country is also permitted with an antigen test: a regulation that makes no sense whatsoever. And it is precisely because of this lack of logic that the regional health inspectorate officials have interpreted the order to mean that, regardless of whether it is a valid EU digital COVID certificate or a similar document, entry into the country from a red zone country is only permitted with vaccination or a negative PCR test result.
Illegal quarantine – the court’s decision
In deciding whether this was an illegal quarantine, the court interpreted the ambiguities in Stanislav’s favor due to several circumstances.
First, during the court proceedings challenging the unlawful quarantine, Stanislav indisputably proved that before taking any action, he had familiarized himself with the content of the current order of the Minister of Health and had acted in a manner aimed at complying with its requirements as he understood them.
Secondly, the court interprets the provision of the order literally, regardless of the lack of common sense. The reason why such an approach is entirely correct is that the court is obliged to apply legal norms in the manner in which they were created, without the possibility of amending or adapting them to acquire the logic they lacked when they were drafted.
Third, the court reflects the lack of grounds for the administrative act issued—an order by which Stanislav was unlawfully placed in quarantine, which it considers a significant procedural violation limiting the appellant’s right of defense.
Given the successful outcome of the case, all costs incurred in conducting it have been awarded to Stanislav and are to be paid from the budget of the regional health inspectorate that issued the unlawful act.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Silvia Petkova Sole Proprietorship Law Firm provides specialized legal assistance from experienced lawyers in cases of unlawful quarantine.
Contact:
Working hours: Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM
Address: Sofia, 2 Tri Ushi Str., 3rd floor
Tel. 0885 47 77 57
Email: office@petkovalegal.com
Consultations by telephone and on site at the law office are provided only by previously scheduled appointment.