My brother was diagnosed and completed 3 doses of vaccination. My brother was fined NT$200,000. The Bank of China revoked the punishment 39
CNEWS Convergence News Network reporter Zhang Xiaoyi/Reporting from Taipei
The “Special Regulations on the Prevention, Treatment, Relief and Revitalization of Severe Special Infectious Pneumonia” were enacted at the time of the severe COVID-19 epidemic to prevent the spread of the epidemic. However, as vaccination became more popular, the command center also revised the regulations from time to time. People surnamed Cao in Taichung City have After his brother was diagnosed, a person named Cao who had completed three doses of vaccination was listed as a subject of compulsory quarantine. He was fined 200,000 yuan for going out for shopping. Cao refused to accept and filed an administrative lawsuit. The Taichung High Administrative Court found that Cao was a ” Within the scope of “home quarantine”, the penalty sanction imposed by the Taichung City Health Bureau has been revoked. Can be appealed.
The brother of a person named Cao confirmed that he had completed the voluntary report on October 5, 2011, and listed Mr. Cao as a close contact who lives in the same household, and checked the “Residence Type” column in the close contact’s household. “3+4” of 3 days of home quarantine and 4 days of self-prevention.
The Taichung City Health Bureau sent a home quarantine notice to contacts of severe special infectious pneumonia cases via mobile phone text message on the same day, informing Cao Nan that he should be quarantined at home from October 5 to 7, 2011, and will be quarantined after the quarantine period expires. Carry out 4 days of independent epidemic prevention. Cao Nan drove by himself to go shopping and was seized by the Wufeng Branch. The Taichung City Health Bureau fined him NT$200,000 based on the information provided by the police. Cao Nan’s petition for prosecution was dismissed, so he filed an administrative lawsuit for relief.
Cao Nan sued and claimed that he and his family members living with him had completed three doses of vaccination. According to the Central Epidemic Command Center’s May 16, 111, “Since May 17, family members living with confirmed COVID-19 cases have completed three doses of vaccination.” “Those who have received the first dose of the vaccine are exempted from home quarantine and can instead carry out self-isolation for 7 days.” According to the press release, he did not need to be quarantined at home, but was placed in quarantine and sent a quarantine notice. Because he relied on the press release from the command center, he believed that there was no need to quarantine at home. When he went out, he was fined 200,000 yuan by the Central City Health Bureau, and his appeal was unsuccessful.
Cao Nan believes that the Zhongshi Health Bureau ignored the administrative order of the command center and imposed an administrative penalty of home quarantine on him. This punishment should have violated the order issued by the command center and violated the “principle of administrative integration” and “the principle of good faith.” Leaving the people at a loss as to what to do should be illegal and administrative sanctions should be imposed.
Cao Nan advocated that the Health Bureau should have his health insurance information. It was not aware that he had completed three doses of vaccination, but listed him as a subject for home isolation. This was an internal operational error of the agency, but the disadvantage of this oversight should not be passed on to the people. Bear in mind that it actually violates the principles of governing the country and violates the principle of good faith. Request to revoke the original sanction.
The collegial panel of the China High-Tech Banking Group found that, according to a press release issued by the command center, starting from May 17, 2011, family members living in the same household who have been in close contact with the confirmed person and who have completed three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine “can” Home quarantine is exempted and 7-day self-prevention is implemented instead. If a confirmed case fills in the form of close contact with family members who have received three doses of the vaccine, they can check the option of self-prevention, and the system will automatically list them as 7-day self-prevention targets and will not be issued a certificate. and receive a home quarantine notice; however, if the close contact family member who has received three doses of the vaccine still wants to choose “3+4” home quarantine, the home quarantine notice will still be issued and received. Therefore, the quarantine notice does not violate the principle of good faith and administrative integrity.
However, due to factors such as the lower chance of contracting and spreading the disease among those who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19, starting from May 17, 2020, confirmed persons who have completed three doses of vaccination will be allowed to have close contact with family members who live with them. Based on their needs and applicable epidemic prevention measures, they can choose whether to undergo home quarantine on their own, which means they are not subject to compulsory home quarantine measures.
When Mr. Cao’s brother was listed as a family member who was in close contact with the confirmed case on October 5, 2011, he had completed three doses of vaccination. He could choose to self-prevent the epidemic for 7 days and was completely exempt from home isolation. Although the diagnosed person, Cao Nan’s brother, filled in the self-report, Cao Nan’s “Residence Type” field was checked as “3 + 4”, and it was not later revised to “COVID-19 Vaccine Completed” within 24 hours. “Additional doses and self-prevention”, but this will not change the fact that Cao Nan has completed three doses of vaccination and is completely exempt from home isolation; in other words, even though the plaintiff violated the “3+4” home quarantine requirement that his brother checked The isolation measures are only a violation of Cao Nan’s voluntary epidemic prevention and isolation behavior, and cannot be considered as a violation of the “necessary isolation measures” stipulated in Article 48, Paragraph 1 of the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Act.
Even if Cao Nan’s brother did not make the correct check when filling out the self-report, and Cao Nan did not ask his brother to make correct corrections, it is difficult to identify him as a violation of the compulsory isolation measures stipulated by the health authorities at all levels in accordance with the Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Act. , and penalties will be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the since-abolished “Special Regulations on the Prevention, Treatment, Relief and Revitalization of Severe Special Infectious Pneumonia”. Therefore, the judgment was made to revoke the penalty of 200,000 yuan.
Photo source: CNEWS Convergence News Network file photo
“More CNEWS Convergence News Network Reports”
[Please indicate the source when reprinting the article]
2024-02-13 07:58:34
#brother #diagnosed #received #doses #vaccination #brother #fined #NT200000 #Bank #China #revoked #punishment
