In limbo : divergent conceptualisations of ill-treatment by European courts and the creation of non-removable migrants

Abstract

Arts 2(f) and 15(b) of the EU Qualification Directive confer subsidiary protection to those third-country nationals in respect of whom there are substantial grounds to believe that, if expelled, would face a real risk of suffering “torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. These provisions mirror the wording and risk-assessment criteria of art. 3 of the European Conven-tion on Human Rights. This Article explores the possibility that protection from expulsion under art. 3 of the Convention is not followed by the award of subsidiary protection under EU law, leading to limbo-like situations of non-removability. By analysing the text of the Directive and the jurisprudence of both the Court of Justice of the EU and the European Court of Human Rights, and putting a par-ticular emphasis on the case of MP (C‑353/16 ECLI:EU:C:2018:276), this Article shows an asymmetric dialogue between both courts in this field. By ruling that, in medical cases, applicants will need to be intentionally deprived of treatment in the country of origin in order to access subsidiary protection, the Court of Justice attaches a narrower scope to the very same concept and leaves the door open to situations of non-removability. This Article contends that the Directive allows for a different inter-pretation that captures the most recent developments of the principle of non-refoulement.