A new chapter on the deportation of ill persons and Article 3 ECHR: the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Savran v. Denmark

By Dr. Mark Klaassen, Institute of Immigration Law, Leiden University

On 1 October 2019, in the Savran judgment the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: ‘the Court’) has applied the Paposhvili-test in cases involving the expulsion of migrants who fear to be the victim of a violation of Article 3 ECHR because a medical treatment is not available in the country of origin. See, for an analysis of the Paposhvili ruling, the blog post of Lourdes Peroni on this blog. The case involves the deportation of a Turkish man with a severe psychiatric condition from Denmark to Turkey. In this contribution, I will first briefly sketch the development of the case law of the Court in Article 3 ECHR cases involving medical treatment. After that, I will outline the facts of the present case and the ruling of the Court. In my analysis of the ruling I will question the feasibility of the Court’s position that the host state is required to obtain assurances from the country of origin that medical treatment is available for a particular patient. I will argue that in case serious doubts persist as to whether the required medical treatment is available and accessible, the returning state should simply refrain from deportation. My final argument is that the Court should have addressed the issue of the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8 ECHR, as I believe it would be helpful to receive more guidance in deportation cases of convicts who committed their crimes in a situation that they cannot (fully) be held accountable because of a psychiatric condition. Continue reading

The subscription of Belgium to Strasbourg in detention cases: Rooman v. Belgium & Tekin and Arslan v. Belgium

By Rebecca Deruiter – PhD Researcher, Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Ghent University[1]

Two rulings convicted the Belgian state for violating Article 3 in the case of Rooman v. Belgium and Article 2 in the case of Tekin and Arslan v. Belgium. Both these cases concern mentally-ill offenders for which the Belgian state already has a deplorable reputation. These judgments reveal, once again, structural problems which are still present in the Belgian penitentiary system: the lack of (after)care for mentally-ill offenders and the inadequate training of prison staff. Continue reading