Article 18 - Right to asylum
Article 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition
Key facts of the case:
X (the father) and his companion Y have a common child W. X and his previous wife Z have common children Q and C. X together with other applicants left Russia in 2018 and arrived in Sweden, where they submitted applications for international protection. As the visas for entering the EU were issued by the Estonian Embassy, the applicants were transferred to Estonia. They submitted applications for international protection in 2019. The Police and Boarder Guard Board dismissed X’s application as unsubstantiated and ordered his return to Russia and imposed an entry restriction for three years. The Police and Boarder Guard considered X unreliable and assessed his statements concerning possible prosecution in Russia as untrue. Likewise, the statements of other applicants were considered not reliable. The Police and Boarder Guard Board considered the applications of other applicants also unsubstantiated and ordered their return to the Russian Federation. The applicants appread before the Tallinn Administrative Court which upheld their complaints partially. The Court agreed with most of the reasoning of the Police and Boarder Guard Board. However, the Circuit Court annulled the Administrative Court’s judgments partially. It further annulled the orders to leave the country. The Court noted that the father has made postings in social media which are critical of the Russian President Putin. The applicants therefore had to be issued residence permits. The Police and Boarder Guard appealed before the Supreme Court, which decided in a Grand Chamber formation.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The key legal question in relation to the Charter is, whether it is compatible with the Charter, when a court reviewing a complaint against expulsion order does not take into consideration factual circumstances which have appeared after the expulsion order was issued.
Outcome of the case:
The Supreme Court annulled the Tallinn Circuit Court judgment of 20 June 2022 and upheld the judgment of Tallinn Administrative Court of 7 September 2020.
Regarding the legal question related to the Charter, the Court concluded, that if during the court proceedings related to international protection it appears that the factual circumstances have changed and do not allow expulsion, then the expulsion order must be annulled.
32.3. Article 13 of Directive 2008/115/EU does not, contrary toArticle 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU, provides that when resolving the remedy evoked against an expulsion order (in Estonia the order to leave the country), the court of the member state need to consider circumstances which appeared after the order was issued. The same provision was contained in the Dublin Regulation (EU) no 604/2013 (the so-called Dublin III resolution) Article 27. At the same time, the Court of Justice of the EU noted that the prohibition in national legal system, which does not allow the court to take into consideration later facts, complies with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights only when there exist other remedies allowing ex nunc evaluation and there exists judicial protection (see C-194/19 Belgium, paras. 35 – 49), and also joint cases C-323/21, C-324/21 and C-324/21. Staatssecreteris van Justitie en Veiligheid, paras.92 and 94.
…
32.5. Article 5 of Directive 2008/115/EU provides that when implementing the directive, member states take into account the best interests of the child, family life circumstances, the health situation of the citizen from the third country and follow the principle of non-refoulement At the same time the right to private life has to be respected (C-69/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, para. 92). The principle of non-expulsion expressed in article 5 is absolute and the member states are obligated to follow it in all stages of the expulsion proceedings. Therefore a person cannot be ordered to leave to a country, where there are reasonable grounds to believethat in the event of implementation of the expulsion order the person would e subject to a real threat, that he is treated in a manner contrary to articles 18 or 19 (2) of the Charter. (C-69/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid para-s 55 and 56).
33. According to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, only extraordinary circumstances prevent the expulsion of a person due to health reasons. This prohibition applies when the person subject to expulsion has a serious physical or psychic illness, who has the imminence of death, or if it is justified to assume that in the target country health services are not available, or these services are not available to the concrete person, and the threat to the persons’s health situation is significant and subject to fast and irreversible deterioration, which will lead to serious sufferings or the significant shortening of expected life expectancy (Paposhvili v. Belgium 41738/10, para. 183, 13 December 2016; Savran v. Denmark 57467/15, paras. 129 and 137, 07 December 2021). The Court of Justice of the EU notedthat the EU Charter standard in expulsion cases is the same (see C-562/13 Abdida, paras. 47 and following; C-353/16 MP paras. 37 and following; C-69/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, paras 61 – 66). If the matter concerns a serious psychiatric disease, one cannot only limit oneself to the consequences, which may accompany the respective person’s transfer from one Member State to another, but one also needs to consider all serious or irreversible consequences which may be connected to such transfer (C-353/16 MP, para. 42).
32.2. Direktiivi 2008/115/EÜ art 13 ei näe erinevalt direktiivi 2013/32/EÜ art st 46 ette, et tagasisaatmisotsuse (Eestis lahkumisettekirjutuse) peale õiguskaitsevahendi kasutamisel tuleks liikmesriigi kohtul asja lahendamisel võtta arvesse tagasisaatmisotsuse andmisest hilisemaid asjaolusid. Sama kehtib ka näiteks Dublini määruse (EL) nr 604/2013 (nn Dublin III määrus) art 27 kohta. Samas on Euroopa Kohus viimati nimetatu kohta selgitanud, et liikmesriigi õiguses sisalduv keeld, mis ei luba kohtul üleandmisotsusest hilisemaid asjaolusid arvesse võtta, on kooskõlas Euroopa Liidu (EL) põhiõiguste hartaga üksnes juhul, kui liikmesriigi õiguses on olemas muud ex nunc hindamist võimaldavad õiguskaitsevahendid ja kohtulik kaitse (vt C-194/19 Belgia riik, p d 35 49, samuti liidetud kohtuasjad C-323/21, C-324/21 ja C-325/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, p-d 92 ja 94).
32.5. Direktiivi 2008/115/EÜ art 5 sätestab, et direktiivi rakendamisel võtavad liikmesriigid arvesse lapse parimaid huve, perekonnaelu, kolmanda riigi kodaniku tervislikku seisundit ning järgivad mittetagasisaatmise põhimõtet. Samuti tuleb austada eraelu (C-69/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, p 92). Art s 5 sätestatud mittetagasisaatmise põhimõte on absoluutne ning liikmesriigid on kohustatud seda järgima tagasisaatmismenetluse kõikides etappides. Seetõttu ei või ka tagasisaatmisotsuses kohustada isikut lahkuma riiki, mille puhul on põhjendatult alust arvata, et tagasisaatmisotsuse täitmise korral ähvardab seda isikut reaalne oht, et teda koheldakse viisil, mis on harta art ga 18 või art 19 lg ga 2 vastuolus. (C-69/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, p d 55 ja 56.)
33. Euroopa Inimõiguste Kohtu praktika järgi on isiku väljasaatmine tema tervisliku olukorra tõttu keelatud vaid väga erandlikel juhtudel. Keeld kohaldub, kui väljasaadetav on füüsiliselt või psüühiliselt raskelt haige isik, kellel esineb peatse surma oht, või kui on põhjendatud alus arvata, et sihtriigis sobiva ravi puudumise tõttu või selle tõttu, et ravi pole isikule seal kättesaadav, esineb reaalne oht välismaalase terviseseisundi olulisele, kiirele ja pöördumatule halvenemisele, mis toob kaasa suuri kannatusi või tema oodatava eluea olulise lühenemise (vt 13. detsembri 2016. a otsus Paposhvili vs. Belgia (41738/10), p 183; 7. detsembri 2021. a otsus Savran vs. Taani (57467/15), p d 129 ja 137). Euroopa Kohus on selgitanud, et EL põhiõiguste harta alusel on väljasaatmiskeelu standard sama (vt nt C-562/13 Abdida, p d 47 jj; C-353/16 MP, p d 37 jj, C-69/21 Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, p-d 61 66). Kui tegemist on raske psühhiaatrilise haigusega, ei saa seejuures piirduda üksnes nende tagajärgedega, mis võivad olla asjaomase isiku füüsilisel toimetamisel ühest liikmesriigist teise, vaid arvesse tuleb võtta kõiki selle väljasaatmisega kaasnevaid tõsiseid ja parandamatuid tagajärgi (C-353/16 MP, p 42).
