Both sides in the battle over whether Novak Djokovic should be allowed to enter Australia have now determined the arguments they plan to use in court.

The hearing, which begins at 10:00 a.m. local time in Australia (11:00 p.m. UK) and is expected to end around 5:00 p.m. (6:00 p.m. in the UK), will be virtual, but will take place in Australia. Federal Circuit and Family Court.

Here are the main arguments each side will make:

Novak Djokovik

Tennis Player He said he should be allowed because he was “recently infected with COVID in December 2021 and on that basis (…) was entitled to medical exemption in accordance with Australian Government rules and guidelines.”

Documents filed with the court indicate that the 34-year-old received a letter from Tennis Australia’s chief medical officer on December 30, which said he had been granted medical exemption “from COVID vaccination” on the grounds that he had recently had recovered from COVID. ,

It is found from the record that Djokovic tested positive for COVID-19 on 16 December And, on the day the letter was sent, it confirmed that the player “did not have fever or respiratory symptoms in the past 72 hours”.

their lawyers dispute Australian government regulations People may be turned away from needing the vaccine when they have had a “PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection” in the past six months.

Tennis Australia’s exemption certificate was granted by an independent expert medical review committee appointed by the body, which was approved by an independent medical exemption review committee of the Victoria State Government, according to records.

Then, on 1 January, Djokovic received a document from the Australian Home Office regarding his Australian travel announcement, stating that his request was “”[had] rated ‘, and'[his] indicate the answer[d] This [he met] Arrival requirements without quarantine in Australia where your jurisdiction of arrival permits”.

His lawyer claims that the jurisdiction he is referring to is the state of Victoria.

Another file indicated that his client was Sleep deprived and under pressure from Australian authorities His visa was revoked after he was detained at Melbourne airport.

The legal team also appealed on the grounds that the decision was unreasonable, did not consider the extenuating circumstances reasonably, and on a number of other technical details.

australian state

Australia’s Home Office relies on its claim that it had Djokovic not assured medical exemption He said he had to enter Australia without accepting a COVID-19 vaccination.

In response to the tennis player’s claim that her travel declaration indicated she was eligible for arrival without quarantine, the government legal team said in a court file: “No guarantee of a non-national’s entry into Australia Is. In contrast, there are entry criteria and conditions, as well as grounds for denial or cancellation of a visa. ,

He said the document he received from Home Affairs was no assurance that “his so-called ‘medical exemption’ would be accepted,” and remained that his answers could be questioned upon arrival. and can be verified.

The government also took issue with Djokovic’s claim that he was eligible for medical exemption on the grounds that he had contracted COVID-19.

He stressed that the list of people who have avoided vaccination if necessary only applies if those requesting a temporary exemption are suffering from a “serious and acute medical condition”.

The government’s court record reads: “There is no indication that the applicant was suffering from ‘serious and serious illness’ in December 2021. He merely stated that he tested positive for COVID- 19. Not the same thing Is. ”

So far there’s no indication whether the government plans to present any evidence that has surfaced in the media that could sway his claims of a serious illness – including a photo of him Meeting with children in Serbia the day after testing positive,

But a key part of the government’s argument is a clause in immigration law that says an official may “revoke a visa at any time” if he feels that “the presence of its holder … risk to good order”.

Sydney-based immigration law expert Christopher Levingstone told Sky News: “If you get a visa, it’s best to be an invitation to show up at the border and then be considered for entry. Visas are not guaranteed.”