EIT:n suuri jaosto: Vakavasti sairaan henkilön karkottaminen olisi loukannut EIS 3 ja 8 artiklaa, kun viranomaiset eivät olleet arvioineet karkottamisen vaikutuksia
asianajaja - asianajotoimisto - Helsinki - Asianajotoimisto Lex Helsinki Oy - lakiasiaintoimisto - lakitoimisto
Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuimen (EIT) suuri jaosto on tänään antamassaan tuomiossa katsonut, että mikäli pitkään Belgiassa asunut, vakavasti sairas henkilö olisi karkotettu Georgiaan, epäinhimillisen kohtelun kieltoa ja perhe-elämän suojaa olisi loukattu siksi, että Belgian viranomaiset eivät olleet varmistuneet siitä, mitä seurauksia valittajan terveydelle karkottamiselle olisi ollut.
In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Paposhvili v. Belgium (application no. 41738/10) the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there would have been:
a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights if Mr Paposhvili had been removed to Georgia without the Belgian authorities having assessed the risk faced by him in the light of the information concerning his state of health and the existence of appropriate treatment in Georgia, and a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) if Mr Paposhvili had been removed to Georgia without the Belgian authorities having assessed the impact of removal on the applicant’s right to respect for his family life in view of his state of health.
The case concerned an order for Mr Paposhvili’s deportation to Georgia, issued together with a ban on re-entering Belgium.
The Court noted that the medical situation of Mr Paposhvili, who had been suffering from a very serious illness and whose condition had been life-threatening, had not been examined by the Belgian authorities in the context of his requests for regularisation of his residence status. Likewise, the authorities had not examined the degree to which Mr Paposhvili had been dependent on his family as a result of the deterioration of his state of health.
The Court found, in particular, that in the absence of any assessment by the domestic authorities of the risk facing Mr Paposhvili, in the light of the information concerning his state of health and the existence of appropriate treatment in Georgia, the information available to those authorities had been insufficient for them to conclude that the applicant, if returned to Georgia, would not have run a real and concrete risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
The Court also found that it had been up to the national authorities to conduct an assessment of the impact of removal on Mr Paposhvili’s family life in the light of his state of health. In order to comply with Article 8 the authorities would have been required to examine whether, in the light of the applicant’s specific situation at the time of removal, the family could reasonably have been expected to follow him to Georgia or, if not, whether observance of Mr Paposhvili’s right to respect for his family life required that he be granted leave to remain in Belgium for the time he had left to live.