He distinguishes
The legal scholar says it is important to distinguish between the government as a policy maker and employer. “The framework you use to assess responsibility is different. If you look at the responsibility of the employer, it is relatively appropriate for the employee. But whether it is the responsibility of the government, for example, to take inadequate or belated policy measures, then the test is more conservative.”
It is also for this reason that FNV Director Jung believes that this case does not set a precedent for a group claim, but it does for individual cases. “We think government is responsible in terms of policy, and that’s why our employers said, ‘Look, we don’t have to do anything.'”
not promising
However, Professor de Jong does not immediately see promise in their case. “If you look at past cases, which involved responding to an epidemic like Q fever, the judge will review government policy. Especially if the risks are still uncertain and you’re in a complex situation where you don’t quite know how what to do, then the judge will test restraint.”
Especially when you consider that it is about infections that occurred during the first three months of the pandemic: “The government must have done a lot wrong for the court to assume its illegality. This is the most important step you have to take towards liability. A very difficult threshold to overcome and make it a challenge.” .
