The Court adopted the view that a return decision or removal order does not infringe the right to respect for the private life of a third-country national concerned on the sole ground that, if he or she were returned to the receiving country, that national would be exposed to the risk that his or her state of health deteriorates, where such a risk does not reach the severity threshold required under Article 4 of the Charter. Nonetheless, the Court ruled that the national's state of health and the care received must be considered by the competent national authority, along with other relevant factors (such as social ties, dependency, and health fragility), when determining whether the national's right to respect for private life precludes removal.
Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 13 (right to an
effective remedy), the applicant complained that if removed to Sudan he would be at risk of forced
recruitment, persecution because he belonged to a non-Arab ethnic group from Darfur, and more
generally, on account of the humanitarian situation in Sudan as a result of the conflict in Darfur.
No violation of Article 3 – in the event of the applicant’s removal to Sudan
No violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3
Art 3 ECHR • Expulsion • No risk of ill-treatment in case of removal of Afghan Sikhs to Afghanistan • Adequate assessment of the risks by the domestic authorities • No compelling humanitarian grounds against removal. See also joint partly dissenting opinion on the assessment by the domestic authorities of the foreseeable consequences of the applications to Afghanistan.
