(Grand Chamber) The appellant was found after her arrival in this country from Uganda to have an AIDS-defining illness for which she was still receiving treatment. She claimed that the treatment would not be available in Uganda and she would die within a matter of months if returned, but she could expect to live for decades in this country. That being so, it was argued, the United Kingdom would be in breach of its obligations under article 3 of the Convention if she were to be returned to Uganda.
Held: The claim was inadmissible.
‘Aliens who are subject to expulsion cannot in principle claim any entitlement to remain in the territory of a Contracting State in order to continue to benefit from medical, social or other forms of assistance and services provided by the expelling State. The fact that the applicant’s circumstances, including his life expectancy, would be significantly reduced if he were to be removed from the Contracting State is not sufficient in itself to give rise to breach of article 3. The decision to remove an alien 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 article 3, but only in a very exceptional case, where the humanitarian grounds against the removal are compelling.’ and
‘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. While it is necessary, given the fundamental importance of article 3 in the Convention system, for the court to retain a degree of flexibility to prevent expulsion in very exceptional cases, article 3 does not place an obligation on the Contracting State to alleviate such disparities through the provision of free and unlimited health care to all aliens without a right to stay within its jurisdiction. A finding to the contrary would place too great a burden on the Contracting States.’
Citations:
26565/05, [2008] ECHR 453, Times 06-Jun-2008, [2008] INLR, [2008] Imm AR 657, 25 BHRC 258, (2008) 47 EHRR 39
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 3
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimant challenged the respondent’s decision to order the return of herself and her son to Lebanon.
Held: The test for whether a claimant’s rights would be infringed to such an extent as to prevent their return home was a strict one, but . .
Cited – Austin and Another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis HL 28-Jan-2009
Movement retsriction was not Liberty Deprivation
The claimants had been present during a demonstration policed by the respondent. They appealed against dismissal of their claims for false imprisonment having been prevented from leaving Oxford Circus for over seven hours. The claimants appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.268091