EHRM: beter onderzoek nodig naar beschikbare ambulante psychiatrische hulp in Turkije

The applicant, a Turkish national, entered Denmark in 1991, at the age of six, with his mother and four siblings for family reunification with his father. In 2007, he was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment for assault under highly aggravating circumstances, resulting in the death of the victim. His expulsion to Turkey was subsequently ordered.

During appeal proceedings, he underwent psychological evaluations and was transferred to a secure residential institution for the severely mentally impaired. The applicant's guardian requested a review of the expulsion order on the basis of his mental state. The High Court reversed a positive initial decision of the City Court on the basis that the applicant could access to the same medical treatment for free in Konya, his region of origin. The applicant subsequently complained that his return to Turkey would be in violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

The Court reiterated its position in previous case law regarding the factors to be taken into consideration when assessing exceptional removal cases related to a naturally occurring illness covered by Article 3 ECHR. The authorities in the returning State must verify on a case-by-case basis whether the care generally available in the receiving State is sufficient and appropriate in practice for the treatment of the applicant's illness so as to prevent him or her being exposed to treatment contrary to Article 3. They must also consider, inter alia: the extent to which the individual in question will have access to this care and related facilities in the receiving State, including the distance the patient will need to travel; the cost of medication and treatment; and the existence of a social and family support network.

The Court affirmed that a follow-up and control scheme was essential for the applicant's psychological outpatient therapy and for the prevention of any degeneration of his immune system, a potential side effect of his medication. For that reason he would, at least, need assistance in the form of a regular and personal contact person. The Danish authorities ought to have assured themselves that, upon his return to Turkey, such assistance would have been available to the applicant. Accordingly, the Court found it was unclear whether the applicant had a real possibility of receiving the relevant psychiatric treatment, including the necessary follow-up and control in connection with intensive outpatient therapy, if returned to Turkey. That uncertainty raised serious doubts as to the impact of removal on the applicant. When such serious doubts persisted, the returning State had to either dispel such doubts or obtain individual and sufficient assurances from the receiving State, as a precondition for removal, that appropriate treatment would be available and accessible to the persons concerned so that they did not find themselves in a situation contrary to Article 3.

EHRM Savran v Denmark (Application No. 57467/15), 1.10.19
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-196152