During a global pandemic, a state may restrict freedom of movement to limit the possibility of bringing a disease or new strains of a disease into their territory. Measures such as lockdowns, curfews, and travel bans may also restrict freedom of movement. In some cases, states may require people to fill out a document in order to justify leaving their house. Such restrictions may be necessary to limit contact between people or to prevent spreading new strains of diseases to larger regions. However, they must be applied in a way that allows people to meet their basic needs, such as getting food, medicines, medical assistance, or even exercise.
Such measures also must be carefully assessed in terms of unequal treatment and how a lockdown and similar measures affect people with different income levels and socio-economic situations.
example An extended lockdown, where people are confined to their homes and allowed to leave them only briefly for a specific reason, such as grocery shopping, may have a much more negative effect on people who live in smaller flats, than those with high incomes living in large houses with inner yards.
In Estonia, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the government imposed a quarantine requirement on persons crossing the state border, with exceptions regarding certain groups of people. The Chancellor of Justice received a complaint that the requirement was not proportionate and discriminated against citizens of Estonia compared to citizens and residents of Latvia, Lithuania and Finland, regarding whom there were exceptions from the quarantine requirement. The Chancellor of Justice confirmed that in the original version of the order there were questionable differences in the quarantine requirement imposed on Estonian citizens and foreign nationals. The substantive reason for different treatment was not the nationality of the person, but the country in which they had recently stayed more permanently and whether, based on the epidemiological situation of that country, it was possible to waive the quarantine requirement. The wording of the order had since been amended and the Chancellor of Justice found that the different treatment is based on an objective criterion, and Estonian citizens and permanent residents were not treated less favourably than citizens of other countries.