Swiss Exhibition appeals against the
Federal Office for Public Health's directive on SARS

MCH Swiss Exhibition Ltd. (Swiss Exhibition) considers the decision taken by the Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) on SARS in connection with BASELWORLD to be unlawful. It has lodged an appeal with the Swiss Federal Department of Home Affairs against the corresponding BAG directive of April 1, 2003.
Swiss Exhibition contends that the directive violates Federal law and is unreasonable.
In view of the spreading SARS disease, and based on a relevant Federal Council decree, the Federal Office for Public Health (BAG) ordered Swiss Exhibition on April 1 to ensure “that the exhibitors of the World Watch and Jewellery Show in Basel and Zurich (BASELWORLD) do not employ any persons at the Show who spent time in China, Hong Kong, Singapore or Vietnam after March 1, 2003 and travelled from there to Switzerland either directly or indirectly.”
The number of exhibiting firms directly affected by this directive was 394 of a total of 2163 (11 of the total 1377 in Basel and 383 of the total 786 in Zurich). These organisations were forced to withdraw as exhibitors at BASELWORLD from April 3 to 10, 2003 due to the impossibility of recruiting stand personnel from other countries at such short notice. The estimated 3,000 employees of these firms - and all other persons who had spent time in the SARS countries designated by the BAG after March 1, 2003 - were allowed, however, to remain in Switzerland and also to visit BASELWORLD.

Appeal against the directive
Swiss Exhibition is exercising its right to appeal against the BAG directive to the Swiss Federal Department of Home Affairs. It by no means disputes the fact that the spread of the SARS disease had to be taken seriously at the time the directive was imposed, nor that the protection of people against the danger of a spreading disease, is more important than any commercial interest as a matter of principle.
Swiss Exhibition considers, however, that the measures imposed made no contribution whatsoever to the protection of the population. It also criticizes the way in which the directive transpired.
Swiss Exhibition has an interest in ensuring that a higher-level authority reviews the legality of the BAG directive, in particular with regard to the conduct of future fairs and events.
Swiss Exhibition believes that the BAG directive is based on inadequate fact-finding and that the measures imposed were unreasonable and an over-exaggerated reaction.

Incorrect assumptions - unreasonable injunction
The directive is based on incorrect and incomplete factual findings. Swiss Exhibition believe that the assumption made that the situation prevailing during sales discussions in exhibition stands is equivalent to that of nurse/patient relations in a hospital, is false. Equally incomprehensible is the distinction drawn between exhibitors and Show visitors, i.e. the fact that the people in question are not allowed to work as exhibitors in a Show stand, but may attend the Show as visitors without any restrictions. The fact that the BAG based its decision on incorrect assumptions is compounded by its failure to pay a single visit to any of the Show venues beforehand to determine the true facts.
Swiss Exhibition deems that the measures imposed were neither suitable nor necessary to achieve the objective of minimising the risk of infection. The 3,000 or so people from the countries in question were already at the Show venues. As a result of the employment injunction, however, they were “expelled” from the Show as exhibitors - without any medical examination or information about the continuation of their stay in Switzerland. Many of the affected companies proceeded to do their business at a location outside of the Show.
In view of the repeated and public declarations of BAG personnel prior to April 1, 2003 to the effect that no reasons existed requiring special measures to be put in place, BAG's directive also constituted a failure to act in good faith. Although the demand from Canton Zurich's public health authority that the Show be called off had already been received by the BAG, a BAG spokesperson confirmed on a Swiss Radio programme at midday on Monday, March 31, 2003 that no emergency measures were necessary. These official assurances led the Exhibition Management to believe that BASELWORLD would take place as planned without any fundamental restrictions.
Moreover, with its directive, the BAG created a situation that seriously restricted Swiss Exhibition's commercial freedom: although the affected firms were effectively forbidden to exhibit at BASELWORLD, they remained perfectly free to conduct their business elsewhere in Switzerland. Theoretically they would have even been allowed to organise a fair of their own somewhere in the country.
Finally, the BAG failed to grant the Exhibition Management an orderly hearing and did not clearly explain to Swiss Exhibition the reasons for the directive. Up to the time that the appeal is being submitted, the BAG has been unable to provide Swiss Exhibition with any minutes of the meetings that preceded issuance of the directive.


“Incomprehensible and arbitrary”
The leading hygiene specialist, Professor F. Daschner of the Institute for Environmental Medicine and Hospital Hygiene of the University Clinic, Freiburg i.B., comes to this conclusion: The measures recommended by the BAG are grossly exaggerated and unnecessary from the viewpoints of epidemiology, risk of infection and epidemic hygiene. “On the basis of the epidemiological situation prevailing in Switzerland on April 1, 2003, this directive is not only medically incomprehensible, but also arbitrary,” comments Professor Daschner.
He also refutes the BAG's justification that the contact existing between exhibitors and visitors is close enough to permit the transmission of SARS. “The justification is incorrect and in no way supported by the transmission mechanisms described by the BAG itself,” Professor Daschner comments. “In fact, the BAG directive was epidemiologically counterproductive and dangerous, because it compelled many of the exhibitors to carry out their business in various hotels and restaurants outside the Show venue. So SARS could have spread unchecked outside the Show.”
Finally, Professor Daschner points out in his expertise that it would have been sufficient to impose some relatively easy-to-implement infection control measures. Furthermore, no other public health organisation worldwide - neither the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, nor the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and the World Health Organisation in Geneva - had ever issued a recommendation that Show exhibitors from SARS-risk countries be prohibited from working or that trade fairs be cancelled.

Review of the action to recover damages
The BAG directive had drastic consequences for BASELWORLD, especially at the Zurich venue, where the number of exhibiting firms was reduced by approximately half and the exhibition area was decreased to about one-third. The employment prohibition for nearly 400 companies was one of the reasons why BASELWORLD suffered a 22 percent decline in the number of visitors compared with 2002. What is more, the future inclusion of the Zurich venue within the BASELWORLD concept has been placed in serious doubt.
Not surprisingly, the affected companies have announced their intention to sue for damages. The extent of these actions cannot yet be estimated. Nor can monetary figures be placed on the negative effects on Switzerland's trade relations with the countries in question or the damage done to Switzerland's image as a trade fair venue.
Swiss Exhibition has entrusted the company KPMG Legal to handle the damage claims from the affected customers and service providers. As the central coordinator, KPMG Legal receives all claims from exhibitors and third parties, evaluates them with regard to urgency and substantiation, and initiates appropriate action.
Besides submitting its appeal against the BAG directive, Swiss Exhibition is currently considering whether and to what extent it will lodge a claim for damages, including the costs incurred in implementing the directive, with the Swiss Confederation.
The Exhibition Management is also currently reviewing the continued inclusion - or discontinuation - of the Zurich venue in the BASELWORLD concept. This means determining the conditions under which the Zurich location might be retained and also examining possible alternatives.


Chronology of events:
• On March 21, 2003, the Exhibition Management contacted the BAG for the first time: It informed the BAG about the upcoming BASELWORLD and requested instructions regarding any measures to be taken in connection with the spreading SARS disease. Up to March 31, 2003, the BAG - with which Exhibition Management then remained in continuous contact - saw no reason for any special measures.
• On Monday morning, March 31, 2003, the Canton Zurich Public Health Administration contacted the BAG and requested that the upcoming BASELWORLD be cancelled. It expected a decision on the matter by 12 noon of the same day.
• On that same day, a BAG spokesperson said the following when asked about the problems connected with the spread of SARS and the upcoming BASELWORLD on the midday “Rendez-vous” programme of Swiss Radio (SR DRS): “Based on the facts known at the moment and after contacting the WHO - I spoke with the WHO half an hour ago - we assume that no immediate measures are needed.”
• At the same time, the Exhibition Management was summoned to a meeting at the BAG in Berne for the purpose of discussing and coordinating any measures to be taken, such as the possibility of medical facilities at the Show venue; the invitation to this meeting made no reference to the already existing demand that the Show be cancelled.
• After a nine-hour meeting, attended by the BAG representatives, a representative of Exhibition Management (who, however, had no say in the matters discussed), and authorities from Cantons Zurich and Basel-City, a draft directive was formulated on Tuesday morning, April 1, 2003. It provided for measures such as checks at the airport and the wearing of a mouth protector in the exhibition stands. Exhibition Management immediately began preparing to implement these measures.
• By the time the directive was finally submitted to Swiss Exhibition on Tuesday evening, it had been amended in Berne with no-one from Exhibition Management present. This altered version of the directive was only submitted to Swiss Exhibition three hours after the media had already been informed about the Federal Council's (and the BAG's) decision on the issue.
• In the course of Wednesday, April 2, further possibilities were reviewed that would have enabled the affected firms to take part in BASELWORLD nonetheless. On Thursday, April 3, both Exhibition Management and the exhibitors had to reject a “compromise” solution because it was impossible to be carried out quickly enough.

www.messe.ch
Media contact: [email protected]
(please credit europastar.com)

Source: BaselWorld press release
May 2003