Quick answer
In Paposhvili v. Belgium (Application no. 41738/10, Grand Chamber judgment of 13 December 2016), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that removing a seriously ill person to Georgia, without the Belgian authorities assessing the risk to his health, would have violated Article 3 and Article 8. The judgment refined the very restrictive earlier test in N. v. the United Kingdom.
Background and facts
The applicant, a Georgian national, was seriously ill (including chronic leukaemia and other grave conditions) and faced removal from Belgium. He argued that removal to Georgia, where he claimed appropriate treatment would not be available to him, would expose him to a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his health and to intense suffering. He died while the case was pending; his family pursued it.
The Court’s reasoning
A refined test for the seriously ill
Under N. v. the United Kingdom, only truly exceptional ‘deathbed’ cases engaged Article 3. In Paposhvili the Grand Chamber clarified that Article 3 also covers situations involving a real risk, on account of the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country, of a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health resulting in intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy.
Procedural obligations on the removing State
The Court set out the authorities’ duties: they must assess the risk on the basis of the general situation and the individual’s circumstances; verify, on a case-by-case basis, whether the care generally available in the receiving State is sufficient and accessible in practice; and, where doubt remains, obtain individual assurances. Because Belgium had not carried out any such assessment before ordering removal, there would have been a violation of Article 3, and of Article 8 (family life in the light of his health).
The judgment
The Grand Chamber held unanimously that there would have been a violation of Article 3, and of Article 8, if the applicant had been removed without the authorities assessing the risk in the light of his health and the availability of treatment in Georgia.
Why this case matters
Paposhvili substantially widened Article 3 protection for seriously ill migrants beyond the near-death threshold of N. v. the United Kingdom, and it created concrete procedural obligations on removing States to assess health risks and the accessibility of treatment abroad. It is the leading authority in medical-removal cases and was applied by the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts across Europe.
What this means for applicants
- Serious illness can bar removal. A real risk of a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health causing intense suffering can engage Article 3.
- The State must actually assess the risk. Failing to examine the availability and accessibility of treatment in the destination country is itself a breach.
- Accessibility, not just existence, of treatment matters. Care must be genuinely available to the individual in practice.
- Health and family life overlap. Removal may also engage Article 8 where it affects family life given the person’s condition.
This page summarises a leading judgment and is not legal advice on any individual case.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did Paposhvili v. Belgium decide?
That removing a seriously ill person without assessing the risk to his health would violate Articles 3 and 8, and it broadened the Article 3 test beyond the near-death threshold in N. v. the United Kingdom.
What is the Paposhvili test?
Article 3 is engaged where there is a real risk, due to the absence of appropriate treatment in the receiving country, of a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in health causing intense suffering or a significant reduction in life expectancy.
What must the removing State do?
Assess the individual risk, verify whether appropriate care is actually available and accessible in the destination country, and obtain assurances where doubt remains.
Why is the case significant?
It substantially widened protection for seriously ill migrants and imposed concrete procedural duties on removing States.
Convention Articles engaged
Cases against this state
Related ECHR cases
- Babar Ahmad and Others v. the United Kingdom
- Saadi v. Italy
- Chahal v. the United Kingdom
- Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy
- Trabelsi v. Belgium
- Rezmiveș and Others v. Romania
Facing a similar case?
Our lawyers represent individuals before the European Court of Human Rights. Speak to an ECHR lawyer, learn how to apply to the ECHR, check the admissibility criteria, or get a free assessment of your case.