A legal action against the state of Austria, with interest to people from 45 countries who claim they were infected with COVID 19 at the resort of Ischgl in the early months of 2019, has been rejected by Austria's Supreme Court.
More than 6,000 people had contacted Austrian authorities from around the world saying they thought they had caught the disease while in the country, with about 1,000 of these joining a class action, seeking an average of €100,000 compensation each.
The court ruled that Austria could not be held responsible for the spate of infections and 32 COVID-19 related deaths that have been traced back to Ischgl as an early European epicentre of the infection.
The case hinged on the accusation that Ischgl, the province of Tirol and Austria as a whole were slow to act as it became clear what was happening. The plaintiffs stated the resort and the region should have shut down ski lifts, bars and restaurants earlier than they did.
The first cases from Ischgl were confirmed in Iceland from returning skiers on March 4th, 2020. However on March 8th the Tyrol Medical Authority issued a statement saying there was no cause for concern and the resort was not closed until March 13th.
An Austrian government investigation had already determined that the reaction was slow and suggested that the resort should have been shut down earlier than it was. It also found that the way Austria's national lockdown was also poorly handled in the way its terms were communicated leading to a panicked evacuation of resorts of foreign guests, some of whom were carrying COVID-19 and should have stayed in resort.
"The chancellor announced the quarantine while that wasn't his job, surprisingly, and without proper preparation. That created a panicked reaction from guests and workers. Some guests jumped into their cars with their ski boots still on, and rental skis were thrown into the entranceways of shops," said lead investigator Ronald Rohrer
However the supreme court decided that, essentially, the vagueness of communication meant that it could not be treated as specifically bad advice that could be held as legally responsible, saying the initial advice was part of a developing period of advice.
Peter Kolba, the legal director of Austria's Consumer Protection Association, which brought the case, expressed deep disappointment with the court's decision, and said that the association was now reviewing the detail of the court's ruling before deciding on what to do next.