In accordance with its own rules?: The role of the European Court of Human Rights in developing the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3 ECHR
(2021) JURM02 20212Department of Law
Faculty of Law
- Abstract
- The thesis examines, through the use of the doctrinal research method, the role of the European Court of Human Rights in developing the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950, ETS. 5). Through the examination, the thesis answers the question as to whether the Court has acted within the principles and methods governing the interpretation of the Convention in its legal development of the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3. The thesis is based on the assumption that the Court is governed by the means of interpretation that flows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (22 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331),... (More)
- The thesis examines, through the use of the doctrinal research method, the role of the European Court of Human Rights in developing the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950, ETS. 5). Through the examination, the thesis answers the question as to whether the Court has acted within the principles and methods governing the interpretation of the Convention in its legal development of the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3. The thesis is based on the assumption that the Court is governed by the means of interpretation that flows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (22 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331), as well as the Court’s general jurisprudence.
According to the Court’s case law, seriously ill migrants may benefit the protection of non-refoulement inherent in Article 3. The Court recognised the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants for the first time in the Case of D v the United Kingdom. In its judgment, the Court determined that medical non-refoulement cases would be subject to a high threshold of severity, hence only protecting very exceptional cases. The ‘very exceptional’ threshold was later clarified by the Court in the Case of Paposhvili v Belgium in order to guarantee that the Convention would stay practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory. Consequently, seriously ill migrants may benefit the protection of non-refoulement if they are subject to a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in its state of health, resulting in intense suffering or to significant reduction of life expectancy.
The examination finds that the Court has acted within some of its methods and principles of interpretation in determining the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3. While an examination of the travaux préparatoires as well as a meta-teleological interpretation may speak in favour of the scope of protection of medical non-refoulement cases, an evolutive interpretation may speak against the scope of protection due to the lack of European consensus. Furthermore, the examination finds that the application of a higher threshold of severity is inconsistent with the general jurisprudence of Article 3, as it undermines the notion of the non-refoulement principle and the absolute nature of the provision. An overall assessment thus reaches the conclusion that the Court has acted beyond the principles and methods governing the interpretation of the Convention in its legal development of the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3. (Less) - Abstract (Swedish)
- Uppsatsen undersöker, genom att använda en doktrinär forskningsmetod,
Europadomstolens roll i att utveckla skyddsomfånget för svårt sjuka
migranter enligt artikel 3 i den Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de
mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (4 november 1950,
ETS. 5). Genom utredningen besvarar uppsatsen frågan om Europadomstolen
har agerat inom de metoder och principer som styr tolkningen av
konventionen i sin rättsutveckling av skyddet för svårt sjuka migranter under
artikel 3. Uppsatsen utgår från antagandet att Europadomstolen styrs av de
tolkningsmetoder som följer av Wienkonventionen om traktaträtten (22 maj
1969, 1155 UNTS 331), samt domstolens allmänna rättspraxis.
Enligt domstolens rättspraxis... (More) - Uppsatsen undersöker, genom att använda en doktrinär forskningsmetod,
Europadomstolens roll i att utveckla skyddsomfånget för svårt sjuka
migranter enligt artikel 3 i den Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de
mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna (4 november 1950,
ETS. 5). Genom utredningen besvarar uppsatsen frågan om Europadomstolen
har agerat inom de metoder och principer som styr tolkningen av
konventionen i sin rättsutveckling av skyddet för svårt sjuka migranter under
artikel 3. Uppsatsen utgår från antagandet att Europadomstolen styrs av de
tolkningsmetoder som följer av Wienkonventionen om traktaträtten (22 maj
1969, 1155 UNTS 331), samt domstolens allmänna rättspraxis.
Enligt domstolens rättspraxis kan svårt sjuka migranter åtnjuta ett visst skydd
enligt artikel 3 utifrån principen om non-refoulement. Skyddsomfånget för
svårt sjuka migranter enligt artikel 3 erkändes för första gången av
Europadomstolen i fallet D v the United Kingdom. I målet fastslog domstolen
att skyddet för medicinska refouleringsfall skulle vara föremål för en hög
tröskel och därmed endast skydda fall som utgjorde exceptionella
omständigheter. Den ’exceptionellt höga’ tröskeln klargjordes senare i fallet
Paposhvili v Belgium i syfte att garantera att skyddet skulle förbli praktiskt
och effektivt och inte teoretisk och illusorisk. Följaktligen kan svårt sjuka
migranter gynnas av principen om non-refoulement om de löper en reell risk
att utsättas för en allvarlig, snabb och oåterkallelig försämring av deras
hälsotillstånd, vilket resulterar i intensivt lidande eller en betydande
minskning av den förväntade livslängden.
Sammanfattningsvis konstaterar utredningen att Europadomstolen har agerat
inom vissa tolkningsmetoder och tolkningsprinciper för att fastställa
omfattningen av skyddet för svårt sjuka migranter enligt artikel 3. Medan en
granskning av förarbetena samt en meta-teleologisk tolkning kan tala för
skyddsomfånget för medicinska refouleringsfall, kan en dynamisk tolkning
tala mot skyddsomfånget eftersom det saknas europeisk konsensus. Vidare
finner utredningen att tillämpningen av en högre tröskel är oförenlig med
domstolens allmänna rättspraxis av artikel 3 eftersom den underminerar
betydelsen av principen om non-refoulement och bestämmelsens absoluta
karaktär. En samlad bedömning leder således till slutsatsen att
Europadomstolen har agerat bortom de principer och metoder som styr
tolkningen av konventionen i sin rättsutveckling av skyddet för svårt sjuka
migranter enligt artikel 3. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9070002
- author
- Löfqvist, Julia LU
- supervisor
-
- Anna Nilsson LU
- organization
- course
- JURM02 20212
- year
- 2021
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Public international law, Human Rights, International Human Rights Law, Migration law, Non-refoulement.
- language
- English
- id
- 9070002
- date added to LUP
- 2022-01-26 00:12:55
- date last changed
- 2022-01-26 00:12:55
@misc{9070002,
abstract = {{The thesis examines, through the use of the doctrinal research method, the role of the European Court of Human Rights in developing the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (4 November 1950, ETS. 5). Through the examination, the thesis answers the question as to whether the Court has acted within the principles and methods governing the interpretation of the Convention in its legal development of the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3. The thesis is based on the assumption that the Court is governed by the means of interpretation that flows from the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (22 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331), as well as the Court’s general jurisprudence.
According to the Court’s case law, seriously ill migrants may benefit the protection of non-refoulement inherent in Article 3. The Court recognised the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants for the first time in the Case of D v the United Kingdom. In its judgment, the Court determined that medical non-refoulement cases would be subject to a high threshold of severity, hence only protecting very exceptional cases. The ‘very exceptional’ threshold was later clarified by the Court in the Case of Paposhvili v Belgium in order to guarantee that the Convention would stay practical and effective and not theoretical and illusory. Consequently, seriously ill migrants may benefit the protection of non-refoulement if they are subject to a real risk of being exposed to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in its state of health, resulting in intense suffering or to significant reduction of life expectancy.
The examination finds that the Court has acted within some of its methods and principles of interpretation in determining the scope of protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3. While an examination of the travaux préparatoires as well as a meta-teleological interpretation may speak in favour of the scope of protection of medical non-refoulement cases, an evolutive interpretation may speak against the scope of protection due to the lack of European consensus. Furthermore, the examination finds that the application of a higher threshold of severity is inconsistent with the general jurisprudence of Article 3, as it undermines the notion of the non-refoulement principle and the absolute nature of the provision. An overall assessment thus reaches the conclusion that the Court has acted beyond the principles and methods governing the interpretation of the Convention in its legal development of the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3.}},
author = {{Löfqvist, Julia}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{In accordance with its own rules?: The role of the European Court of Human Rights in developing the protection for seriously ill migrants under Article 3 ECHR}},
year = {{2021}},
}