Expulsion Of Seriously Sick Migrants: A Novel Ecthr Ruling Reshapes Echr In Addition To Eu Law

Dr Lourdes Peroni*, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Ghent University Human Rights Centre (ECHR aspects) as well as Professor Steve Peers (EU police aspects)

In what is perchance i of the most of import judgments of 2016, Paposhvili v. Belgium, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has memorably reshaped its illustration police on when Article iii ECHR (which bans torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment) applies to the expulsion of seriously sick migrants. In a unanimous judgment, the Court leaves behind the restrictive application of the high Article iii threshold gear upward in N. v. the United Kingdom and pushes for a to a greater extent than rigorous assessment of the chance of ill-treatment inwards these cases. For us at the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University, it was a thrill to intervene as a tertiary political party inwards such an of import case. In post). He died inwards Kingdom of Belgium final June, patch his illustration was pending earlier the Grand Chamber. The Court did non hit his application out of the list. It found that “special circumstances relating to observe for human rights” required its continued exam based on Article 37 § 1 in fine ECHR (§ 133). The Court held that in that location would take maintain been a violation of Article iii if Kingdom of Belgium had expelled Mr. Paposhvili to Georgia without having assessed “the chance faced past times him inwards the lite of the data concerning his province of wellness as well as the existence of appropriate handling inwards Georgia.” It found a like violation of Article 8 if Kingdom of Belgium had expelled him without having assessed the ship upon of his provide on his “right to observe for his draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement life inwards catch of his province of health.”

Opening Up “Other Very Exceptional Cases”

The Chamber judgment in Paposhvili followed N. and Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium where the Court had taken into draw of piece of occupation organisation human relationship that “the applicants’ status had been stable as a final result of the handling they had been receiving, that they were non ‘critically ill’ as well as that they were jibe to travel” (§ 119). The Chamber thus concluded that though Mr. Paposhvili suffered from “a fatal as well as incurable illness … his weather condition are all stable as well as nether command at present; his life is hence non inwards imminent danger as well as he is able to travel” (§ 120).

As readers mightiness remember, the N. Grand Chamber established that removing a non-national suffering from a serious illness to “a province where the facilities for the handling of that illness are inferior to those available inwards the Contracting State may heighten an number nether Article 3, but only inwards a real especial case” (§ 42). The Grand Chamber concluded that the applicant’s circumstances in N. were non exceptional, as found in D. v. United Kingdom (§ 42). D was critically ill, about death, as well as had no prospect of medical tending as well as draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement back upward inwards his dwelling country. The N. Grand Chamber, however, left a window open: it did non exclude that “there may be other real especial cases where the humanitarian considerations are as compelling” (§ 43, emphasis added).

In our tertiary political party intervention, nosotros argued that beingness medically stable as well as jibe to go as a final result of the handling received should non endure a determining measure inwards allowing an expulsion. We respectfully invited the Court to prepare a less extreme approach, i that considered the departure betwixt applicants’ suffering inwards the sending province as well as the suffering they would confront inwards the receiving state. The aim, nosotros submitted, should endure to create upward one's take heed whether the reduction of applicants’ life expectancy as well as the deterioration of their character of life would endure such as to attain the degree of severity required past times Article 3. The applicant argued that his expulsion to Georgia would house him at chance of “a severe as well as rapid deterioration inwards his province of wellness leading to his swift as well as for certain death” (§ 148). He asked the Court “to become beyond its findings in N. v. the United Kingdom” as well as to define “a realistic threshold of severity that was no longer confined to securing a ‘right to give-up the ghost with dignity’” (§ 149).

The Paposhvili Grand Chamber enters through the window N. left open. It notes that since N. no other “very especial cases” had been found (§ 178). It importantly recognizes that the application of Article iii only to persons about expiry has deprived those whose status was less critical but who were silent seriously sick from “the produce goodness of that provision” (§ 181). In a pivotal paragraph, the Grand Chamber considers

… that the “other real especial cases” inside the pregnant of the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom (§ 43) which may heighten an number nether Article iii should endure understood to cite to situations involving the removal of a seriously sick individual inwards which substantial grounds take maintain been shown for believing that he or she, although non at imminent chance of dying, would confront a existent risk, on draw of piece of occupation organisation human relationship of the absence of appropriate handling inwards the receiving province or the lack of access to such treatment, of beingness exposed to a serious, rapid as well as irreversible decline in his or her province of wellness resulting inwards intense suffering or to a significant reduction inwards life expectancy. The Court points out that these situations stand upward for to a high threshold for the application of Article iii of the Convention inwards cases concerning the removal of aliens suffering from serious illness (§ 183). Emphasis added.

This is a graceful motion that softens the unduly restrictive approach that had so far been followed inwards cases concerning the expulsion of seriously sick migrants. Paposhvili thus comes to fill upward what Judge Lemmens calls a “gap inwards the protection against inhuman treatment” (concurring sentiment in Paposhvili § 3) past times including as especial to a greater extent than than only cases of imminent death. My kickoff impression is that the Court does non formally go out behind N.’s especial grapheme as well as the high threshold of Article iii inwards cases concerning the expulsion of seriously sick non-nationals (see final judgement § 183 as well as Judge Lemmens’ sentiment § 3). Rather, it appears to opened upward up what inwards practise has resulted inwards a express application of the high threshold. The commendable trial of the Court’s motion is, inwards whatever event, a less extreme approach to a greater extent than compatible with the spirit of Article 3. Elements of both our tertiary political party intervention as well as the applicant’s arguments are reflected positively inwards the Grand Chamber reasoning inwards this regard.

Real Rather Than Theoretical Access to “Sufficient” as well as “Appropriate” Care

In our tertiary political party intervention nosotros proposed that the chance assessment should consider the adequacy of the medical tending available inwards the receiving province as well as the person’s actual access to such care. The question, nosotros argued, is non only whether adequate handling is by as well as large available but, crucially, whether the available handling would inwards reality endure accessible to the individual concerned. The applicant argued that the alleged Article iii violation should endure examined “in concreto,” taking into consideration, with other things, “the accessibility of handling inwards the province of destination” (§ 139).

The Grand Chamber seizes the occasion to meticulously gear upward out a make of procedural duties for the domestic government inwards the ECHR province parties. All these duties signal inwards i clear direction: a to a greater extent than rigorous assessment of the chance as required past times the absolute nature of the Article iii prohibition (Saadi v. Italy § 128). In assessing the alleged chance of ill-treatment, the domestic government should verify whether the tending available inwards the receiving province is “sufficient and appropriate in practice for the handling of the applicant’s illness so as to foreclose him or her beingness exposed to handling reverse to Article 3” (§ 189, emphasis added). The domestic government should also consider “the extent to which the private inwards question will actually have access to this tending as well as these facilities inwards the receiving State” (§ 190, emphasis added). Referring to existing illustration law, the Court points to several factors to endure taken into account: “cost of medication as well as treatment, the existence of a social as well as draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement network, as well as the distance to endure travelled inwards social club to take maintain access to the required care” (§ 190).

Duty to Obtain Assurances from the Receiving State

With reference to Tarakhel (a 2014 ECtHR ruling on the application of the EU’s Dublin rules on allotment of asylum responsibility), our tertiary political party intervention proposed that Article iii impose on the domestic government inwards the returning province the procedural duty to seek or obtain assurances from the receiving province that the individual concerned would genuinely take maintain access to the handling s/he needed. We argued that access to appropriate medical tending should non endure a theoretical option, but a existent as well as guaranteed one, as well as the burden of proving that such a existent selection exists should prevarication on the expelling province (on assurances as well as the benefits of adopting this path, come across Eva Brems’ post). He died inwards Kingdom of Belgium final June, patch his illustration was pending earlier the Grand Chamber. The Court did non hit his application out of the list. It found that “special circumstances relating to observe for human rights” required its continued exam based on Article 37 § 1 in fine ECHR (§ 133). The Court held that in that location would take maintain been a violation of Article iii if Kingdom of Belgium had expelled Mr. Paposhvili to Georgia without having assessed “the chance faced past times him inwards the lite of the data concerning his province of wellness as well as the existence of appropriate handling inwards Georgia.” It found a like violation of Article 8 if Kingdom of Belgium had expelled him without having assessed the ship upon of his provide on his “right to observe for his draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement life inwards catch of his province of health.”

Opening Up “Other Very Exceptional Cases”

The Chamber judgment in Paposhvili followed N. and Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium where the Court had taken into draw of piece of occupation organisation human relationship that “the applicants’ status had been stable as a final result of the handling they had been receiving, that they were non ‘critically ill’ as well as that they were jibe to travel” (§ 119). The Chamber thus concluded that though Mr. Paposhvili suffered from “a fatal as well as incurable illness … his weather condition are all stable as well as nether command at present; his life is hence non inwards imminent danger as well as he is able to travel” (§ 120).

As readers mightiness remember, the N. Grand Chamber established that removing a non-national suffering from a serious illness to “a province where the facilities for the handling of that illness are inferior to those available inwards the Contracting State may heighten an number nether Article 3, but only inwards a real especial case” (§ 42). The Grand Chamber concluded that the applicant’s circumstances in N. were non exceptional, as found in D. v. United Kingdom (§ 42). D was critically ill, about death, as well as had no prospect of medical tending as well as draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement back upward inwards his dwelling country. The N. Grand Chamber, however, left a window open: it did non exclude that “there may be other real especial cases where the humanitarian considerations are as compelling” (§ 43, emphasis added).

In our tertiary political party intervention, nosotros argued that beingness medically stable as well as jibe to go as a final result of the handling received should non endure a determining measure inwards allowing an expulsion. We respectfully invited the Court to prepare a less extreme approach, i that considered the departure betwixt applicants’ suffering inwards the sending province as well as the suffering they would confront inwards the receiving state. The aim, nosotros submitted, should endure to create upward one's take heed whether the reduction of applicants’ life expectancy as well as the deterioration of their character of life would endure such as to attain the degree of severity required past times Article 3. The applicant argued that his expulsion to Georgia would house him at chance of “a severe as well as rapid deterioration inwards his province of wellness leading to his swift as well as for certain death” (§ 148). He asked the Court “to become beyond its findings in N. v. the United Kingdom” as well as to define “a realistic threshold of severity that was no longer confined to securing a ‘right to give-up the ghost with dignity’” (§ 149).

The Paposhvili Grand Chamber enters through the window N. left open. It notes that since N. no other “very especial cases” had been found (§ 178). It importantly recognizes that the application of Article iii only to persons about expiry has deprived those whose status was less critical but who were silent seriously sick from “the produce goodness of that provision” (§ 181). In a pivotal paragraph, the Grand Chamber considers

… that the “other real especial cases” inside the pregnant of the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom (§ 43) which may heighten an number nether Article iii should endure understood to cite to situations involving the removal of a seriously sick individual inwards which substantial grounds take maintain been shown for believing that he or she, although non at imminent chance of dying, would confront a existent risk, on draw of piece of occupation organisation human relationship of the absence of appropriate handling inwards the receiving province or the lack of access to such treatment, of beingness exposed to a serious, rapid as well as irreversible decline in his or her province of wellness resulting inwards intense suffering or to a significant reduction inwards life expectancy. The Court points out that these situations stand upward for to a high threshold for the application of Article iii of the Convention inwards cases concerning the removal of aliens suffering from serious illness (§ 183). Emphasis added.

This is a graceful motion that softens the unduly restrictive approach that had so far been followed inwards cases concerning the expulsion of seriously sick migrants. Paposhvili thus comes to fill upward what Judge Lemmens calls a “gap inwards the protection against inhuman treatment” (concurring sentiment in Paposhvili § 3) past times including as especial to a greater extent than than only cases of imminent death. My kickoff impression is that the Court does non formally go out behind N.’s especial grapheme as well as the high threshold of Article iii inwards cases concerning the expulsion of seriously sick non-nationals (see final judgement § 183 as well as Judge Lemmens’ sentiment § 3). Rather, it appears to opened upward up what inwards practise has resulted inwards a express application of the high threshold. The commendable trial of the Court’s motion is, inwards whatever event, a less extreme approach to a greater extent than compatible with the spirit of Article 3. Elements of both our tertiary political party intervention as well as the applicant’s arguments are reflected positively inwards the Grand Chamber reasoning inwards this regard.

Real Rather Than Theoretical Access to “Sufficient” as well as “Appropriate” Care

In our tertiary political party intervention nosotros proposed that the chance assessment should consider the adequacy of the medical tending available inwards the receiving province as well as the person’s actual access to such care. The question, nosotros argued, is non only whether adequate handling is by as well as large available but, crucially, whether the available handling would inwards reality endure accessible to the individual concerned. The applicant argued that the alleged Article iii violation should endure examined “in concreto,” taking into consideration, with other things, “the accessibility of handling inwards the province of destination” (§ 139).

The Grand Chamber seizes the occasion to meticulously gear upward out a make of procedural duties for the domestic government inwards the ECHR province parties. All these duties signal inwards i clear direction: a to a greater extent than rigorous assessment of the chance as required past times the absolute nature of the Article iii prohibition (Saadi v. Italy § 128). In assessing the alleged chance of ill-treatment, the domestic government should verify whether the tending available inwards the receiving province is “sufficient and appropriate in practice for the handling of the applicant’s illness so as to foreclose him or her beingness exposed to handling reverse to Article 3” (§ 189, emphasis added). The domestic government should also consider “the extent to which the private inwards question will actually have access to this tending as well as these facilities inwards the receiving State” (§ 190, emphasis added). Referring to existing illustration law, the Court points to several factors to endure taken into account: “cost of medication as well as treatment, the existence of a social as well as draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement network, as well as the distance to endure travelled inwards social club to take maintain access to the required care” (§ 190).

Duty to Obtain Assurances from the Receiving State

With reference to here. In short, ‘medical cases’ are non inside the reach of European Union asylum law, either as regards refugee status or subsidiary protection (M’Bodj). However, if the individual concerned faces an expulsion order, as well as so the Returns Directive applies. (Note that the latter Directive doesn’t apply to the UK, Republic of Ireland or Denmark.)

Although the Returns Directive was mainly intended to ensure removal of irregular migrants from the territory, inwards ‘medical cases’ (at least), as interpreted past times the ECJ inwards Abdida, it has the opposite effect. According to the Court, the requirement inwards Article five of the Directive to ‘respect the regulation of’ non-refoulement agency that irregular migrants who autumn exterior the reach of European Union asylum police but nevertheless confront an Article iii ECHR risk, as defined inwards the illustration police of the ECtHR, cannot endure removed. Moreover, inwards farther displays of legal alchemy, the ECJ ruled that the challenge to their removal must take maintain suspensive effect, as well as they must have the necessary wellness tending as well as social benefits.  

The ECJ has non developed this illustration police since, although farther relevant cases are pending. In MP, the Court has been asked to clarify the draw betwixt asylum cases as well as medical cases, where the medical weather condition are to a greater extent than straight linked to persecution or serious impairment suffered inwards the province of origin. In Gnandi, it has been asked to clarify the suspensive trial of a legal challenge inwards medical cases, next a failed asylum application. In K.A. as well as others, the Court has been asked nearly the requirement to ‘take due account’ of draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement life inwards Article five of the Returns Directive; its ultimate ruling mightiness endure relevant to the ‘non-refoulement’ aspect of the same clause past times analogy. Equally inwards Nianga the Court has been asked whether Article five applies to the determination to number a provide determination or removal social club inwards the kickoff place: a crucial signal because if it does non apply, the individual concerned mightiness good autumn exterior the reach of European Union police entirely.  

What ship upon volition the novel ECtHR ruling take maintain on the interpretation of European Union law? First of all, there’s nil to suggest it will, past times itself, motion the dividing draw betwixt asylum cases as well as medical cases, as applied past times the ECJ. So nosotros are silent looking at the interpretation of the Returns Directive, if that Directive applies.

Since the ECJ committed itself to follow the case-law of the ECtHR as regards medical cases when interpreting the non-refoulement provision of the Returns Directive, it should follow that the novel ECtHR ruling applies to the Directive too. Therefore this enlarges the grouping of people who tin produce goodness from the specific provisions of European Union police as interpreted past times the ECJ, as regards suspensive trial of appeals as well as access to wellness tending as well as social benefits.

Equally the ECtHR’s rigid stress on the procedural elements of such cases logically applies past times analogy to cases falling inside the reach of the Returns Directive. While the ECJ inwards the Abdida judgment did non cite to its ain jurisprudence on the correct to a hearing for irregular migrants (discussed post). He died inwards Kingdom of Belgium final June, patch his illustration was pending earlier the Grand Chamber. The Court did non hit his application out of the list. It found that “special circumstances relating to observe for human rights” required its continued exam based on Article 37 § 1 in fine ECHR (§ 133). The Court held that in that location would take maintain been a violation of Article iii if Kingdom of Belgium had expelled Mr. Paposhvili to Georgia without having assessed “the chance faced past times him inwards the lite of the data concerning his province of wellness as well as the existence of appropriate handling inwards Georgia.” It found a like violation of Article 8 if Kingdom of Belgium had expelled him without having assessed the ship upon of his provide on his “right to observe for his draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement life inwards catch of his province of health.”

Opening Up “Other Very Exceptional Cases”

The Chamber judgment in Paposhvili followed N. and Yoh-Ekale Mwanje v. Belgium where the Court had taken into draw of piece of occupation organisation human relationship that “the applicants’ status had been stable as a final result of the handling they had been receiving, that they were non ‘critically ill’ as well as that they were jibe to travel” (§ 119). The Chamber thus concluded that though Mr. Paposhvili suffered from “a fatal as well as incurable illness … his weather condition are all stable as well as nether command at present; his life is hence non inwards imminent danger as well as he is able to travel” (§ 120).

As readers mightiness remember, the N. Grand Chamber established that removing a non-national suffering from a serious illness to “a province where the facilities for the handling of that illness are inferior to those available inwards the Contracting State may heighten an number nether Article 3, but only inwards a real especial case” (§ 42). The Grand Chamber concluded that the applicant’s circumstances in N. were non exceptional, as found in D. v. United Kingdom (§ 42). D was critically ill, about death, as well as had no prospect of medical tending as well as draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement back upward inwards his dwelling country. The N. Grand Chamber, however, left a window open: it did non exclude that “there may be other real especial cases where the humanitarian considerations are as compelling” (§ 43, emphasis added).

In our tertiary political party intervention, nosotros argued that beingness medically stable as well as jibe to go as a final result of the handling received should non endure a determining measure inwards allowing an expulsion. We respectfully invited the Court to prepare a less extreme approach, i that considered the departure betwixt applicants’ suffering inwards the sending province as well as the suffering they would confront inwards the receiving state. The aim, nosotros submitted, should endure to create upward one's take heed whether the reduction of applicants’ life expectancy as well as the deterioration of their character of life would endure such as to attain the degree of severity required past times Article 3. The applicant argued that his expulsion to Georgia would house him at chance of “a severe as well as rapid deterioration inwards his province of wellness leading to his swift as well as for certain death” (§ 148). He asked the Court “to become beyond its findings in N. v. the United Kingdom” as well as to define “a realistic threshold of severity that was no longer confined to securing a ‘right to give-up the ghost with dignity’” (§ 149).

The Paposhvili Grand Chamber enters through the window N. left open. It notes that since N. no other “very especial cases” had been found (§ 178). It importantly recognizes that the application of Article iii only to persons about expiry has deprived those whose status was less critical but who were silent seriously sick from “the produce goodness of that provision” (§ 181). In a pivotal paragraph, the Grand Chamber considers

… that the “other real especial cases” inside the pregnant of the judgment in N. v. the United Kingdom (§ 43) which may heighten an number nether Article iii should endure understood to cite to situations involving the removal of a seriously sick individual inwards which substantial grounds take maintain been shown for believing that he or she, although non at imminent chance of dying, would confront a existent risk, on draw of piece of occupation organisation human relationship of the absence of appropriate handling inwards the receiving province or the lack of access to such treatment, of beingness exposed to a serious, rapid as well as irreversible decline in his or her province of wellness resulting inwards intense suffering or to a significant reduction inwards life expectancy. The Court points out that these situations stand upward for to a high threshold for the application of Article iii of the Convention inwards cases concerning the removal of aliens suffering from serious illness (§ 183). Emphasis added.

This is a graceful motion that softens the unduly restrictive approach that had so far been followed inwards cases concerning the expulsion of seriously sick migrants. Paposhvili thus comes to fill upward what Judge Lemmens calls a “gap inwards the protection against inhuman treatment” (concurring sentiment in Paposhvili § 3) past times including as especial to a greater extent than than only cases of imminent death. My kickoff impression is that the Court does non formally go out behind N.’s especial grapheme as well as the high threshold of Article iii inwards cases concerning the expulsion of seriously sick non-nationals (see final judgement § 183 as well as Judge Lemmens’ sentiment § 3). Rather, it appears to opened upward up what inwards practise has resulted inwards a express application of the high threshold. The commendable trial of the Court’s motion is, inwards whatever event, a less extreme approach to a greater extent than compatible with the spirit of Article 3. Elements of both our tertiary political party intervention as well as the applicant’s arguments are reflected positively inwards the Grand Chamber reasoning inwards this regard.

Real Rather Than Theoretical Access to “Sufficient” as well as “Appropriate” Care

In our tertiary political party intervention nosotros proposed that the chance assessment should consider the adequacy of the medical tending available inwards the receiving province as well as the person’s actual access to such care. The question, nosotros argued, is non only whether adequate handling is by as well as large available but, crucially, whether the available handling would inwards reality endure accessible to the individual concerned. The applicant argued that the alleged Article iii violation should endure examined “in concreto,” taking into consideration, with other things, “the accessibility of handling inwards the province of destination” (§ 139).

The Grand Chamber seizes the occasion to meticulously gear upward out a make of procedural duties for the domestic government inwards the ECHR province parties. All these duties signal inwards i clear direction: a to a greater extent than rigorous assessment of the chance as required past times the absolute nature of the Article iii prohibition (Saadi v. Italy § 128). In assessing the alleged chance of ill-treatment, the domestic government should verify whether the tending available inwards the receiving province is “sufficient and appropriate in practice for the handling of the applicant’s illness so as to foreclose him or her beingness exposed to handling reverse to Article 3” (§ 189, emphasis added). The domestic government should also consider “the extent to which the private inwards question will actually have access to this tending as well as these facilities inwards the receiving State” (§ 190, emphasis added). Referring to existing illustration law, the Court points to several factors to endure taken into account: “cost of medication as well as treatment, the existence of a social as well as draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement network, as well as the distance to endure travelled inwards social club to take maintain access to the required care” (§ 190).

Duty to Obtain Assurances from the Receiving State

With reference to here), it is forthwith necessary to update that approach inwards lite of the ECtHR ruling, given the rigid link which the latter judgment establishes betwixt the procedural as well as noun aspects of what I take maintain referred to as ‘alternative protection’. The ECJ volition take maintain an chance to address this number inwards the months to come, inwards the pending cases referred to above.

While the ECtHR judgment referred to a demand to cooperate with the province of root inwards social club to banking enterprise check weather condition there, inwards the European Union context this mightiness arguably inwards some cases entail past times analogy a banking enterprise check on wellness weather condition inwards another Member State, which would endure responsible for that individual nether the Dublin rules. The ECJ has yet to create upward one's take heed how its interpretation of the Returns Directive inwards medical cases fits together with the application of the Dublin rules, which inwards regulation apply if the individual concerned has at i signal applied for international protection (refugee status or subsidiary protection) inside the EU. (Mr. Paposhvili was originally dependent champaign to the Dublin rules, but it seems that the innovation to take him to Italy pursuant to those rules petered out).  

Finally, it should endure noted that the ECtHR also found a breach of Article 8 ECHR (the correct to draw of piece of occupation solid unit of measurement life), on like procedural grounds. This mightiness endure relevant to interpretation of the EU’s family reunion Directive, for those who autumn inside the reach of that Directive as well as who debate on the footing of the factors to consider during expulsion proceedings pursuant to Articles 17 as well as xviii of that law.

Share this post