Webbläsaren som du använder stöds inte av denna webbplats. Alla versioner av Internet Explorer stöds inte längre, av oss eller Microsoft (läs mer här: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/windows/end-of-ie-support).

Var god och använd en modern webbläsare för att ta del av denna webbplats, som t.ex. nyaste versioner av Edge, Chrome, Firefox eller Safari osv.

Porträtt på Vladislava Stoyanova. Photo.

Vladislava Stoyanova

Universitetslektor

Porträtt på Vladislava Stoyanova. Photo.

How Exceptional Must ‘Very Exceptional’ Be? Non-Refoulement, Socio-Economic Deprivation and Paposhvili V. Belgium

Författare

  • Vladislava Stoyanova

Summary, in English

Since N. v. the United Kingdom, an exceptionally high threshold has been applied to migrants who try to avoid expulsion in order to continue to receive medical assistance in the returning state. With Paposhvili v. Belgium, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR recognized the ensuing protection gap and modified the standards. These modifications imply a small opening of the ‘very exceptional’ standard to the effect that risk of imminent death is no longer the threshold, but rather ‘a serious, rapid and irreversible decline’ in the migrant’s health upon removal. The Court clarified the factors to be considered for evaluating the development of the migrant’s health condition in case of expulsion. These factors, together with the requirement for seeking ‘individual and sufficient assurances’ that care will be provided from the receiving state as a precondition for removal, channel the evaluation of the risk towards a more careful consideration of the individual circumstances of the specific migrant. Despite these promising developments, the underlying reasoning in the non-refoulement medical cases under Article 3 of the ECHR remains riddled with inconsistencies and questionable premises. These relate to the framing by the Court of the obligation not to refoule as a negative obligation, a frame which the Court explicitly adopted for the first time. This frame is, however, difficult to reconcile with the ‘very exceptional’ standard as underpinned by the distinction between ‘natural’ sources of harm and intentionally-inflicted harm. It is also disturbing that Paposhvili v. Belgium reflects a move in favor of procedural protection and a sidelining of substantive protection at the European level.

Avdelning/ar

  • Mänskliga rättigheter
  • Folkrätt
  • Juridiska institutionen
  • Migrationsrätt

Publiceringsår

2018-02-01

Språk

Engelska

Sidor

580-616

Publikation/Tidskrift/Serie

International Journal of Refugee Law

Volym

29

Issue

4

Dokumenttyp

Artikel i tidskrift

Förlag

Oxford University Press

Ämne

  • Law

Nyckelord

  • Non-refoulement
  • Article 3 ECHR
  • Paposhvili v. Belgium
  • Public international law
  • Folkrätt
  • Paposhvili v. Belgium

Status

Published

Projekt

  • Positive Obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights: More Predictability through Better Legal Reasoning

Forskningsgrupp

  • Human Rights Law
  • Public International Law
  • Migration Law

ISBN/ISSN/Övrigt

  • ISSN: 0953-8186