Summary of holding
The court relied on Provision 11 and, notably, the high levels of air pollution and lack of access to appropriate healthcare services in Bangladesh to find in favour of Mr. Sheel. The Prefect was ordered to issue a residence permit and pay 1200€ to Mr. Sheel.
Provision 11 establishes the circumstances under which a foreign national, suffering from a medical condition, must be issued a residence permit.
These circumstances are:
(i) his health condition requires medical care and the lack of provision of this medical care could have exceptionally serious consequences to his condition; and
(ii) the provision and characteristics of the country of origin’s healthcare system would not allow for him to effectively benefit from the appropriate treatment.
The court determined that Mr. Sheel would not have access to the quality of healthcare services, medication and respiratory assistance equipment necessary to treat his asthma and sleep apnea in Bangladesh. In particular, the court noted that the high levels of air pollution would aggravate his asthma and that the difficulties in sourcing replacement parts for the respiratory assistance device means he would not be able to obtain the appropriate treatment in Bangladesh.
By failing to take all these factors into consideration, the Prefect disregarded Provision 11 in its decision to deport Mr. Sheel.
Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation
- The court reaffirmed that it is necessary for the Prefect to consider environmental circumstances when issuing deportation orders. Future similarly situated litigants in France should request the relevant immigration authorities to consider environmental factors when deciding whether to grant residency. It also provides precedent to be invoked by climate migrants around the world who fear returning due to high levels of air pollution, lack of appropriate healthcare services, or other intertwined medical and environmental factors.
- The court heard evidence personal to Mr. Sheel when determining whether or not the decision to deport him was lawful. For example, Mr. Sheel’s father died of an asthma attack at the age of 54, and his respiratory capacity had increased from 58% to 70% since he began his treatment in France. It would be useful for future litigants to obtain and gather medical information to support their case, as well as personal stories which demonstrate the real risk of harm they face if deported.
- The court also took into account statistics regarding the high levels of air pollution in Bangladesh: “… in Bangladesh, where the rate of fine pollutant particles is one of the highest in the world, asthma-related mortality is 12.92 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 0.82 in France.” (para. 4 in the merits of the judgement section) Therefore, future litigants should bolster their case by drawing on findings and research conducted by reputable organisations. Data can demonstrate the severity of the environmental degradation in the country the migrant has left, as well as the real risk of harm they face if forced to return.