Many companies justify their demand to suspend restrictions on the grounds that the risk of coronavirus is low in their operations.
About interest rate restrictions the elected parties consider that the risk of coronary contamination is low and that the restrictions are disproportionate to the losses they cause, according to complaints to the administrative authorities.
Recently, the coronavirus restrictions imposed by the regional government agencies (Avit) have been appealed to administrative courts all over Finland. Many agencies have imposed extensive closures on the premises and banned public meetings altogether in many places.
When HS asked about the three administrative courts on Monday, the number of appeals pending in all of them was in the range of about ten.
HS shows how the gym company, hockey team and spa are justifying their demand to suspend restrictions.
Here’s how the gym justifies its complaint:
Gyms The fitness center Liikku, which owns all over Finland, has complained about the closures of its premises in several areas. It calls for a ban on closures and the suspension of those that have already begun.
In Northern Ostrobothnia, Liikku was able to open its doors through a complaint, but at least in Uusimaa and Pirkanmaa, the complaints have not yielded any results. Information on southwestern Finland is expected this week.
Liikku complained about Uusimaa’s restrictions, for example, on the grounds that they violated its right to the protection of property and the freedom to conduct a business “unreasonably and on unjustified grounds”.
According to the company, the closure will cause it extensive financial damage. In its complaint, it estimates that the closure of one fitness center will result in a loss of turnover of around EUR 7 100 per week and a cost of EUR 7 600 per week.
I’m moving in addition, “it is clear that the closure of the gyms will not achieve the desired result at all”. It says the virus has not spread in gyms.
“The movement has had 3,500,000 training visits during the pandemic. No detected infections have been reported to Liiku. ”
In its complaint, the company provides a comprehensive explanation as to why it considers that section 58g of the Communicable Diseases Act as a whole violates the Constitution. The section provides for the closure of premises.
I move CEO Johanna Riihijärvi says the content of the complaints is practically the same in all areas.
Here’s how the spa justifies its complaint:
Turku The Sunborn Saga company, which operates the Ruissalo and Naantali spas in Turku, has filed a complaint with the administrative court.
Sunborn Saga believes that the restrictions on it should be lifted, as even according to THL’s risk table, the risk of infection on its premises is low. According to it, the spread of the epidemic can be prevented in the spa by even milder means.
In addition, the company refers to the decision of the Administrative Court of Northern Finland on gyms. The company considers that its facilities are similar to those in that decision.
When making the decision, the Southwest Finland Regional State Administrative Agency consulted the Hospital District of Southwest Finland, which thought that the restrictions at that time were already sufficient. This argues that the decision is not based on a risk assessment based on expertise.
In addition, the spa believes that the regional government agency should have consulted before making its decision.
The closure of the pool sections in December caused confusion when, for example, Ikaalinen Spa was open at Christmas despite the restrictions.
Read more: Ikaalinen Spa, which has circumvented interest rate restrictions, still closes its pool – the company denies “resistance intentions”
Here’s how sports clubs justify their complaint:
About hockey clubs at least the Aces of Pori, Lukko Rauma and the Turku Palloseura have filed a complaint with the Turku Administrative Court.
The complaints of at least these three clubs appear to be identical and have been signed by the League CEO on behalf of the clubs. Riku Kallioniemi. According to the clubs, the restrictions will cause them great harm.
Read more: The opening of the gyms is also of interest to the League clubs: “We are carefully examining whether the closure decisions should be clarified for us as well”
Revival on the one hand, they claim that their activities are low-risk activities in terms of the coronavirus, such as the gyms that have escaped restrictions in northern Finland. In the THL model, the risk score for gyms is 1, the lowest, and for hockey matches 2.
On the other hand, clubs point out that the Chancellor of Justice does not believe that THL’s risk score model can be used to differentiate between opportunities and facilities. The rationale for THL’s model has not been revealed anywhere.
According to the complaint, the decision ‘did not even attempt to show that playing hockey matches completely without the public is a necessary or proportionate measure to combat an infectious disease’.
In addition, the clubs believe that the ban on public events violates their freedom of assembly, as they have shown in 2020 and 2021 that they will be able to hold matches in a safe manner.
#Restrictions #Thousands #euros #week #trade #gym #spa #hockey #club #challenge #regional #administrations #court
Leave a Reply