Utvisning av svårt sjuka migranter - En kritisk granskning av skyddsomfånget i artikel 3 EKMR
(2018) LAGF03 20181Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The purpose of this essay is to investigate the scope of protection under article 3 of the European convention on human rights in cases where seriously ill migrants face expulsion to a country which cannot provide adequate health care. Starting with a presentation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the essay presents the development of the law regarding the scope of protection of the article. Furthermore, the essay critically analyses how the fact that these cases concern socio-economic interests has affected the scope of protection.
After a presentation of the original aim of the article, the applicable methods of interpretation are presented to explain how the article has come to include a principle of... (More) - The purpose of this essay is to investigate the scope of protection under article 3 of the European convention on human rights in cases where seriously ill migrants face expulsion to a country which cannot provide adequate health care. Starting with a presentation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the essay presents the development of the law regarding the scope of protection of the article. Furthermore, the essay critically analyses how the fact that these cases concern socio-economic interests has affected the scope of protection.
After a presentation of the original aim of the article, the applicable methods of interpretation are presented to explain how the article has come to include a principle of non-refoulement. After the case of D. v. the United Kingdom in 1997, the European Court of Human Rights has established that an expulsion can be prohibited under article 3 when the country of destination cannot provide adequate health care. The essay finds that after the case of Paposhvili v. Belgium in 2016, article 3 has a wider scope of protection than in the previous legal position. An expulsion is considered to be inhuman treatment in violation of article 3 when there are “exceptional circumstances” at hand. This refers to situations when a person after removal risks being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.
The essay then presents the problem of taking socio-economic interests in consideration under a convention of civil and political nature. After this, it is analysed how these interests have affected the scope of protection of article 3. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the socio-economic dimension of these cases is the reason behind the threshold of exceptionality – a threshold that does not apply in other cases of non-refoulement. This is criticised since previous case law has established that socio-economic interests may be protected under the convention, in spite of its civil and political nature. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda skyddsomfånget för artikel 3 i Europakonventionen i de fall svårt sjuka migranter riskerar utvisning till ett land som inte kan erbjuda tillräcklig vård. Med avstamp i artikelns ursprungliga förbud för stater att utsätta individer för tortyr och omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling, anläggs ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv på hur skyddet har utformats. Vidare appliceras ett kritiskt perspektiv på hur faktumet att klagomålen inbegriper socioekonomiska intressen har påverkat utformningen av artikelns skyddsomfång.
Efter en genomgång av artikelns ursprungliga innebörd, presenteras de tolkningsprinciper som ligger bakom den intolkade principen om non-refoulement. Vidare redogörs det för hur Europadomstolen i... (More) - Uppsatsens syfte är att utreda skyddsomfånget för artikel 3 i Europakonventionen i de fall svårt sjuka migranter riskerar utvisning till ett land som inte kan erbjuda tillräcklig vård. Med avstamp i artikelns ursprungliga förbud för stater att utsätta individer för tortyr och omänsklig eller förnedrande behandling, anläggs ett rättsutvecklingsperspektiv på hur skyddet har utformats. Vidare appliceras ett kritiskt perspektiv på hur faktumet att klagomålen inbegriper socioekonomiska intressen har påverkat utformningen av artikelns skyddsomfång.
Efter en genomgång av artikelns ursprungliga innebörd, presenteras de tolkningsprinciper som ligger bakom den intolkade principen om non-refoulement. Vidare redogörs det för hur Europadomstolen i det banbrytande rättsfallet D. v. the United Kingdom år 1997 ansett att avsaknad av sjukvård i mottagarlandet kan göra att utvisningen anses utgöra omänsklig behandling i strid mot artikel 3. Genom målet Paposhvili v. Belgium år 2016 har artikelns skyddsomfång utvidgats och fler utvisningar anses numera utgöra omänsklig behandling. En utvisning strider mot artikel 3 när det föreligger ”exceptionella omständigheter”. Detta anses vara när personen genom utvisningen riskerar utsättas för allvarlig, snabb och oåterkallelig nedgång av sitt hälsotillstånd vilket antingen leder till intensivt lidande eller en avsevärd förkortning av den förväntade livslängden.
Efter en presentation av problematiken i att beakta socioekonomiska intressen i en konvention av civilpolitisk karaktär, analyseras det hur dessa intressen påverkat utformningen av artikelns skyddsomfång. Analysen leder till slutsatsen att den socioekonomiska aspekten är skälet till att Europadomstolen uppställt ett krav på ”exceptionella omständigheter”, vilket inte gäller i andra fall av non-refoulement. Detta kan kritiseras bland annat då Europadomstolen i tidigare praxis konstaterat att socioekonomiska intressen får beaktas under konventionen, trots att den är av en civilpolitisk karaktär. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8940688
- author
- Knutsson, Caroline LU
- supervisor
-
- Anna Nilsson LU
- organization
- course
- LAGF03 20181
- year
- 2018
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Folkrätt
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 8940688
- date added to LUP
- 2018-06-28 13:18:56
- date last changed
- 2018-06-28 13:18:56
@misc{8940688,
abstract = {{The purpose of this essay is to investigate the scope of protection under article 3 of the European convention on human rights in cases where seriously ill migrants face expulsion to a country which cannot provide adequate health care. Starting with a presentation of the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, the essay presents the development of the law regarding the scope of protection of the article. Furthermore, the essay critically analyses how the fact that these cases concern socio-economic interests has affected the scope of protection.
After a presentation of the original aim of the article, the applicable methods of interpretation are presented to explain how the article has come to include a principle of non-refoulement. After the case of D. v. the United Kingdom in 1997, the European Court of Human Rights has established that an expulsion can be prohibited under article 3 when the country of destination cannot provide adequate health care. The essay finds that after the case of Paposhvili v. Belgium in 2016, article 3 has a wider scope of protection than in the previous legal position. An expulsion is considered to be inhuman treatment in violation of article 3 when there are “exceptional circumstances” at hand. This refers to situations when a person after removal risks being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering, or to a significant reduction in life expectancy.
The essay then presents the problem of taking socio-economic interests in consideration under a convention of civil and political nature. After this, it is analysed how these interests have affected the scope of protection of article 3. This analysis leads to the conclusion that the socio-economic dimension of these cases is the reason behind the threshold of exceptionality – a threshold that does not apply in other cases of non-refoulement. This is criticised since previous case law has established that socio-economic interests may be protected under the convention, in spite of its civil and political nature.}},
author = {{Knutsson, Caroline}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Utvisning av svårt sjuka migranter - En kritisk granskning av skyddsomfånget i artikel 3 EKMR}},
year = {{2018}},
}