[ ]

Tag: ECHR

Posted on

Urgenda Foundation v. the State of the Netherlands 

Date: 20 December 2019 

Court: Supreme Court of the Netherlands 

Citation(s): ECLI:NL:HR:2019:2007 

Short summary  

The Supreme Court of the Netherlands held that the Dutch State was obliged to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020, compared to 1990 levels. This obligation stemmed from the Netherlands’ commitments under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Dutch citizens’ rights to life and respect for private and family life. 

Summary by: Clarrisa Burki

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, the highest judicial body within that nation. It is binding within the Netherlands and compels the government to act. 

Key facts 

The Urgenda Foundation (“Urgenda”), a Dutch environmental group, brought an action to require the Dutch government to take measures to combat climate change. Urgenda based their action on the right to life and the right to a healthy environment. The European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) requires the State to protect these rights for their residents. Article 2 guarantees the right to life and Article 8 ensures the right to respect for private and family life. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the ECHR places an obligation on a State to act and take the appropriate measures when there is a real and immediate risk to people’s lives or welfare and when the State is aware of this. This obligation equally applies when it comes to wide-reaching environmental risks threatening large groups or the population as a whole even if these threats will only materialise over the long term. 

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), each country is responsible for its own share of emissions; each state is therefore obliged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in proportion to its share of the responsibility. 

In this case, the State asserted that it is not for the courts to undertake the considerations required for a decision on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, and that doing so would amount to an order to create legislation, violating the separation of powers. 

Previous instances  

In the District Court, Urgenda sought a court order to order the Netherlands to reduce its emission of greenhouse gasses such that, by the end of 2020, emissions would be reduced by 40% compared to 1990 levels. The District Court upheld the plaintiff’s claim in part and ordered the State to reduce emissions by at least 25% compared to 1990 by 2020.  

The District Court’s order was upheld by the Court of Appeal. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Paposhvili v. Belgium, [2016] ECHR 1113 (13 December 2016)

Date of judgement: 13 December 2016

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s):  Paposhvili v. Belgium – 41738/10 (Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) : Court (Grand Chamber)) [2016] ECHR 1113 (13 December 2016)

Short summary 

The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) memorably reshaped its Art. 3 case law on the expulsion of seriously ill migrants in leaving behind the restrictive application of the high Art. 3 threshold set in N v. the United Kingdom Appl. No. 26565/05, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 27 May 2008, and pushed for a more rigorous assessment of the risk of ill-treatment. 

Summary by: Claudia Broadhead

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Categorisations

Private v State, International Law, Refugee Law, Civil Rights Law, Migration and Health, Right to Family, Issues in Litigation, Evidence Admissibility

Weight of decision 

The decision handed down by the ECtHR bears significant weight upon the interpretation of Art. 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Key facts

The applicant, a Georgian national facing removal from Belgium due to criminal activity, suffered from leukaemia and recurrent tuberculosis which had caused lung disease. The applicant claimed that, if removed to Georgia, he would be unable to access adequate medical treatment and was therefore at risk of ill-treatment in violation of his rights under Art. 3 ECHR (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), and accelerated death in breach of his right to life under Art. 2 ECHR. The applicant also argued that his removal to Georgia in conjunction with a ten-year ban on re-entering Belgium would result in separation with his family, who had leave to remain in Belgium. 

Previous instances 

The Fifth Section Chamber judgment of April 2014 held that the applicant’s removal would not encroach upon his Art. 3 or Art. 8 (right to private and family life) rights under the ECHR. The case was later referred to the Grand Chamber, and the applicant died pending these proceedings. The applicant’s family continued proceedings before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. 

The ECtHR found that there would have been a violation of Art. 3 and 8 ECHR if the Applicant had been removed to Georgia without the Belgian authorities having assessed the risk that he faced from removal in light of the information concerning the state of his health and the existence (or lack thereof) of appropriate treatment in Georgia.

Summary of holding

The ECtHR held that the severity of ill-treatment under Art. 3 must attain a minimum level and that the suffering flowing from a natural occurring illness may be (or risks being) exacerbated by treatment, whether flowing from conditions of detention, expulsion, or other measures for which the authorities could be held responsible. 

The ECtHR highlighted that since its decision in N v. the United Kingdom, an extremely high threshold (exceptional circumstances) had been set when applying Art. 3 to seriously ill persons. Indeed, only those close to death appear to be covered by the provision. In this case, the ECtHR determined that Art. 3 is triggered where “the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country or the lack of access to such treatment, exposes the individual 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” (para. 183). The ECtHR recognised here that the application of Art. 3 only to persons close to death had deprived those whose condition was less critical, but who were still seriously ill, from “the benefit of that provision” (para. 181).

In ensuring that Art. 3 is respected, the ECtHR went on to highlight that appropriate procedures need to be put in place to allow the individual to adduce evidence of the potential risk upon return to the country of origin, and for the State to examine the foreseeable consequences of return with regard to both the general situation and the individual’s circumstances. Thus, the applicant is not obliged to present clear proof that they would be exposed to proscribed treatment. 

The authorities should assess whether the care generally available in the receiving State is sufficient and appropriate in practice for the treatment of the applicant’s illness. So, states must assess the impact of removal upon the individual by comparing their health prior to removal and how it would evolve after transfer. 

Factors to be considered in this assessment include whether the care is generally available in the receiving State, whether it is sufficient and appropriate in practice for the applicant’s treatment, and whether the individual will actually have access to this care and these facilities in the receiving State. This includes considerations relating to costs, existence of social networks and distances to access the relevant treatment.

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation

  • Threshold for breach of Art.3 ECHR. The ECtHR established in N v. United Kingdom that removing a non-national suffering from a serious illness to “a country where the facilities for the treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the Contracting State may raise an issue under Article 3, but only in a very exceptional case” (para. 42). The case set a very high threshold to finding breaches of Art. 3 where the issue was attributable to the State’s lack of resources to deal with a naturally occurring phenomenon. 
    • By contrast, in the case at hand, the ECtHR left behind the restrictive application and pushed for a more rigorous assessment of the risk of ill-treatment. 
  • Practice access to treatment. The judgement does not simply discuss whether adequate treatment is generally available in the receiving State but, crucially, whether the treatment would be accessible to the person concerned, addressing practical as opposed to theoretical access to sufficient care.
Posted on

AL v. Austria, Appl. No. 7788/11, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 10 May 2012

Date of judgement: 10 May 2012

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s): A.L. v. Austria, Appl. No. 7788/11, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 10 May 2012

Short summary 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) reiterated the obligation of Contracting States to protect individuals from deportation which would place them at risk of treatment contrary to Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (prohibition of torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment), noting that Contracting States retained the right to control the entry and expulsion of aliens and that there was no obligation to grant political asylum. The ECtHR stressed that to have an indication as to whether an expulsion would violate Art. 3, from now on, an assessment of the situation in the country would have to be carried out, as the historical situation would offer little more than some help towards understanding the present conditions.

Summary by: Yusuf Lahham

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

The decision handed down by the ECtHR bears significant weight upon the interpretation of Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). 

Key facts

A Togolese national (“the applicant”) brought a case against the Republic of Austria seeking to overturn the decisions of the Federal Asylum Office and the Asylum Court in denying him asylum claim and ordering his return to Togo. As a member of the prominent opposition political party, Union des Forces de Changement (UFC), the applicant alleged that upon his return, he would face a risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to Art. 3. 

In addition to this, he claimed that he had been threatened by soldiers in Togo during protests organised in a camp for flood victims due the unequal distribution of relief. The applicant further claimed that another Togolese national (“M.A”) had been granted asylum, relying on very similar evidence to that which had been put forward in his application. He argued that on the basis of M.A’s application result, he too should be granted asylum.

Previous instances 

On 6 July 2009, the applicant’s request for asylum and subsidiary protection was denied by the Federal Asylum Office on the basis that his submission of fear and persecution was not credible and appeared to be a fabrication around what had really happened. The Office noted that parliamentary elections had taken place in 2007, with the UFC winning 27 seats, and that although Togo could not be considered a representative democracy, opposition parties were generally free to act. The Office went on to conclude that whilst the applicant had been truthful regarding his account of the flood and the tensions between soldiers within the flood victim camp, the alleged threats and the applicant’s subsequent fear was contradictory to the applicant’s statements. 

In light of the above, the Office rejected the application for asylum and subsidiary protection on the grounds that the persecution awaiting the applicant in Togo was nothing more than speculation on his part, and that there would be no risk of persecution as recognised under Art. 1(A)(2) of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

On 29th April 2010, the Asylum Court held a hearing to address the applicant’s appeal, which was based upon the following grounds: that he was unaware of the possibility of submitting more than three pieces of evidence, he had issues understanding the interpreter and as such had not given a full account of police violence towards him at the camp, that members of the UFC were still subject to persecution notwithstanding the 2007 parliamentary elections, and that M.A, another organiser of the demonstrations had been granted asylum. The Court held that the applicant’s statements were contradictory and not due to any translation errors. It was also found that the evidence put forward appeared to be fabricated and that no actual violence towards his person had occurred at the camp. The court ordered his expulsion to Togo, and dismissed his claim. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

N v. United Kingdom, Application No. 26565/05

Date of judgement: 27 May 2008

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s): N v. The United Kingdom, Appl. No. 26565/05, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 27 May 2008

Short summary 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) formerly established a very high threshold for the protection of asylum seekers with severe health conditions under Art. 3 of the European Convention on Human RIghts in the case of an Ugandan woman suffering from HIV. 

Summary by: Claudia Broadhead

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

The decision handed down by the ECtHR bears significant weight upon the interpretation of Art. 3 right to prevent of inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). See the Paposhvili decision for further elaboration upon this notion. 

Key facts

The applicant was an Ugandan woman who entered the UK in 1998 under a false identity. Within days, she applied for asylum, claiming that she had been raped by the National Resistance Movement in Uganda because she was associated with the Lord’s Resistance Army. She was diagnosed as being HIV positive and developed Kaposi’s sarcoma, an AIDS defining illness. Medication was only available in Uganda at considerable expense and not easily accessible from her hometown. The applicant claimed that her removal to Uganda would violate her Art. 3 ECHR right (prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment).

The Secretary of State refused the asylum claim on 28 March 2001 on grounds of credibility, and also because it was not accepted that the Ugandan authorities were interested in the applicant. The applicant’s Art. 3 claim was also rejected, with the Secretary of State noting that treatment of AIDS in Uganda was comparable to any other African country, and all the major anti-viral drugs were available in Uganda at highly subsidized prices. 

Summary of holding

The ECtHR first stated that AIDS drugs available under the National Health Service (NHS) in the U.K. could also be obtained locally in Uganda, and most were also available at a reduced price through UN-funded projects. The applicant’s return would not, therefore, be to a complete absence of medical treatment, and so would not subject her to acute physical and mental suffering. 

The ECtHR found that the decision to remove someone who is suffering from a serious mental or physical illness to a country where the facilities for the treatment of that illness are inferior to those available in the contracting state may raise an issue under Art. 3, but only in a very exceptional case where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are compelling (para. 42). 

In particular, the court found that for ill-treatment to fall within the scope of Art. 3, it must attain a minimum level of severity that is relative and dependent on all the circumstances of the case, including the duration of treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age, and state of health of the victim.

Further, the ECtHR stated that although advances in medical science – together with social and economic differences between countries – entail that the level of treatment available in the contracting state and the country of origin may vary considerably, Art. 3 does not place an obligation upon the contracting state to alleviate such disparities through the provision of free and unlimited health care to all people without a right to stay within its jurisdiction. 

If humanitarian conditions are solely or predominantly attributable to poverty or to the state’s lack of resources to deal with a naturally occurring phenomenon (in this case HIV illness), the higher threshold of exceptional circumstances is applied and therefore deportation is more likely. 

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation

  • Thresholds. In the absence of cases specifically related to climate migration, non-refoulement cases with a medical basis for argument are generally a realistic indicator of thresholds, the interpretation of the articles, and requirements under which protection can be expected from courts. 
  • This case set an absurdly high threshold, and thus should be seen as an unfavourable case for climate migration. For further development (and reduction) of the principles in the case, see the case of Paposhvili v. Belgium. 
Posted on

Taskin and Ors. v. Turkey (2006) 42 EHRR 50

Date of judgement: 3 March 2005

Court: European Court of Human Rights

Citation(s): Application no. 46117/99, (2006) 42 EHRR 50

Short summary

The European Court of Human Rights held that environmental pollution could affect Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to private and family life). The Turkish Government had violated Art. 8, even if such pollution did not have serious health-related consequences.

Summary by: Makaela Fehlhaber

Link to original Judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

Given the jurisdiction of the Court of Human Rights, the Taskin judgement is significant and bears considerable weight.

Key facts

The applicants were residents of Bergama. In 1992, the respondent had granted permits to operate a gold mine in Ovacik, a district within Bergama. The applicants contended that as a result of the granting of these permits, they had suffered and continued to suffer the effects of environmental damage – namely the inability to move freely and noise pollution – from the use of machinery and explosives. 

Previous instances

Subsequently, the applicants sought judicial review in the Administrative Court of the Ministry of Environment’s of the decision to issue the permits on the grounds of the risks posed to human health and safety. The application was dismissed by the Court in 1996, but the provincial governor of the area agreed to suspend mining operations for one month in the subsequent year in the interests of the public. 

In 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court overturned the Administrative Court’s decision, finding that the mining activities did not serve the public interests towards health and safety measures. This was later upheld by the Administrative Court. However, irrespective of these decisions and subsequent orders, the mine reopened in an experimental capacity in 2001. 

Ten Turkish nationals lodged an application (no. 46117/99) against the Republic of Turkey to the European Commission of Human Rights in 1998 under Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention). The applicants contended that the actions of the respondent violated Art. 2 (right to life) and Art. 8 (right to private and family life) of the Convention. Under Art. 8, the applicants alleged that the use of cyanidation operating processes violated their right to private and family life as its uses posed a significant risk (para. 104). The applicants further stated that their judicial rights had not been upheld in accordance with Art. 6 (right to a fair trial) and Art. 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention. Accordingly, they sought compensation for infringement of these rights, and for failure to enforce a judgement. 

The respondents contended that the arguments submitted in respect of Art. 8 were based on hypothetical risks that may or may not materialise. Accordingly, this could not be categorised as a serious and imminent risk (para. 107) as there needed to be a direct effect (para. 108) upon the lives of the applicants. Furthermore, the respondents submitted that Art. 8 was inapplicable as it had previously been determined that the risks of mining did not present any danger for the health of the local population (para. 9), as the government had conducted an Environmental Impact Assessment. The respondent further submitted that Art. 6 of the Convention did not apply for the same reasons (para. 128). 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Proudly powered by WordPress