Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition
Key facts of the case:
The applicant I. K. I. A. applied for international protection in the Republic of Lithuania based on a threat in his country of origin posed by an internal armed conflict, and increased criminality and violence. However, the Migration Department refused his application for asylum and decided that he should be deported to his country of origin. The applicant appealed to the regional district court. The regional district court upheld the Department’s decision, arguing that the applicant relied on subjective and abstract circumstances and failed to provide evidence of an individualised threat. The applicant appealed this decision before the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
The Supreme Administrative Court held that the Migration Department failed to take into account all the essential circumstances of the case as well the applicant’s health condition, and, when taking the decision on the necessity of subsidiary protection, the Department failed to examine the common criteria for identification of persons genuinely in need of international protection. These criteria have been formulated by the CJEU in MP, C-353/16 and they were necessary to be taken into account under the national legislation. The court further held that the Migration Department failed to assess whether after returning to his country of origin, the applicant would be treated humanely and his fundamental rights respected. According to the court, it is clear from the contested decision that the Migration Department took into account only the fact that the applicant was in the country illegally, contrary to the purpose of Directive 2008/115 which requires consideration of each individual case separately and applying objective criteria, i.e. not solely relying on the circumstance that the person has entered illegally.
Holding that the Migration Department’s decision was unlawful and ill-founded, the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision as well as the first instance court’s ruling, and ordered the respondent to examine afresh the applicant’s request for international protection.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The key legal question raised was the lawfulness of the decision of the Migration Department refusing an application for international protection.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Administrative Court found that the Migration Department’s decision was unlawful as it failed to properly consider the criteria (requirements) for a person to be granted subsidiary protection as well as examine whether the applicant would be subject to inhuman treatment if returned to his country of origin. The Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Migration Department and ordered it to examine afresh the applicant’s request for international protection.
50. Article 19(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that no one may be removed, expelled or extradited to a State where there is a serious risk that he or she would be subjected to the death penalty, torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
…
57. The Court of Justice noted in its judgment of 24 April 2018 that the it had previously decided that in such exceptional cases the deportation of a third country citizen who has a serious illness, to a country, where no appropriate medical service is provided, the principle of non-refoulement may be violated, therefore, Article 5 of the Directive 2008/115 relates to Article 19 of the Charter (for this question see para. 48 in the judgment of 18 December in Abdida, C562/13, EU:C:2014:2453) (see para. 44 in judgement of 24 April 2018 MP, C-353/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:276).
50. Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos 19 straipsnio 2 dalyje nustatyta, kad niekas negali būti perkeltas, išsiųstas ar išduotas į valstybę, kurioje jam gresia mirties bausmė arba kurioje jis gali patirti kankinimų ar kitokį nežmonišką ar žeminantį elgesį arba būti taip baudžiamas.
...
57. Teisingumo Teismas 2018 m. balandžio 24 d. sprendime pažymėjo, kad Teisingumo Teismas jau yra nusprendęs, kad tokiais išskirtiniais atvejais sunkia liga sergančio trečiosios šalies piliečio išsiuntimas į šalį, kurioje neteikiamos tinkamos gydymo paslaugos, gali būti pažeistas negrąžinimo principas, vadinasi, ir Direktyvos 2008/115 5 straipsnis, siejamas su Chartijos 19 straipsniu (šiuo klausimu žr. 2014 m. gruodžio 18 d. Sprendimo Abdida, C562/13, EU:C:2014:2453, 48 punktą) (žr., Teisingumo Teismo 2018 m. balandžio 24 d. sprendimo MP, C-353/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:276, 44 p.).
