Courts in Portugal rules PCR tests are unreliable justification for Quarantines

One thought on “Courts in Portugal rules PCR tests are unreliable justification for Quarantines”

  1. It appears that the Portuguese Judges are now being investigated.

    Google translate…

    Judgment Prosecution of judges who considered quarantine illegal Alexandre Panda and Nelson Morais Yesterday at 00:01 António Joaquim Piçarra, president of the Supreme Court and CSM António Joaquim Piçarra, president of the Supreme Court and CSM Photo: Gerardo Santos / Global Imagens

    Judges did not admit an appeal, but they appreciated arguments and took sides on scientific disagreements.

    The Superior Council for the Judiciary (CSM) decided yesterday to open a disciplinary inquiry into the actions of two judges at the Lisbon Court of Appeal, Margarida Ramos de Almeida and Ana Paramés, who appreciated an appeal by the Azorean Regional Health Authority (ARS) on the compulsory confinement of four German tourists in the context of the covid-19 pandemic.

    According to JN, the disciplinary body of the judges decided to open the investigation for two main reasons. In the first one, the CSM understands that the judges went beyond what they should: if they understood that the appellant had no legitimacy or interest in taking action, they should not rule on the object of the appeal.

    COURT CONSIDERS ILLEGAL QUARANTINE OF DGS The legal interpretation promises to generate controversy, as soon as the current state of emergency ends. VIEW MORE ARS had lodged an appeal against a decision of the Judicial Court of the District of the Azores, which, after a request for habeas corpus from tourists, ordered his immediate release. And the Judges of the Relação wrote, in the first of their conclusions, that the appeal on habeas corpus was not admissible, because the ARS “has no legitimacy, nor interest in acting”. However, despite this, they appreciated the issues raised by the same appeal, considering that mandatory confinement was equivalent to an arrest and could only be imposed by judicial authority, or after the declaration of the state of emergency or siege by Parliament, and not in alertness, as was the case in the situation assessed at the resource.

    In addition, the Superior Council for the Judiciary, chaired by António Joaquim Piçarra, who also heads the Supreme Court of Justice, also believes that the judges should not have taken sides, as they allegedly did, on aspects and divergences in the scientific world in relation to citizenship. 19, namely the degree of reliability of tests currently in use.

    The CSM Plenary will consider the issue on December 2nd.


Comments are closed.