Sahiti v. Belgium (Application no. 24421/20). [9.11.2025]

Date: 9 October 2025

 

Jurisdiction: European Court of Human Rights (First Section, Chamber)

 

Articles: Article 3 (Prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), article 8 – Right to respect for private life and article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

 

The case concerns Mr Sahiti, a Kosovo national who suffers from severe chronic post-traumatic anxiety psychoneurosis. His repeated applications for regularisation in Belgium were rejected by the national authorities. He alleged that his removal to Kosovo would expose him to a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention due to the unavailability and inaccessibility of the necessary medical treatment in his country of origin. He also complained about the lack of an effective remedy against the decisions refusing him permission to stay on medical grounds, in breach of Article 13 of the ECHR.

 

Decision / Key principles:

• The Court declared the complaint under Article 3 ECHR inadmissible, finding that the applicant had not substantiated a real and immediate risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 upon return.

• However, the Court found a violation of Article 8 ECHR, considering that the Belgian authorities had not ensured sufficient procedural guarantees in handling medical residence applications. The complexity and excessive duration of the proceedings, combined with the applicant’s vulnerable state, meant that the authorities had failed to adequately assess the impact of removal on his private life and health.

• The judgment reiterates that Article 8 ECHR entails positive obligations for States to ensure that decisions affecting seriously ill persons are taken with due regard to their health and dignity.

• However, it is regrettable that the Court limited its findings to a violation of Article 8 ECHR, without recognising that the applicant’s fifteen-year situation of extreme vulnerability, legal uncertainty and lack of continuous access to medical care also raised serious concerns under Article 3. The prolonged destitution, psychological suffering and institutional inaction endured by the applicant go beyond an interference with private life: they touch upon the minimum core of human dignity that Article 3 is intended to protect. By avoiding a clear acknowledgment of this dimension, the judgment risks normalising long-term administrative limbo and weakening the protection owed to individuals whose living conditions reach a level of degradation incompatible with respect for human rights.

Full text of the ruling:

Judgment in Sahiti v. Belgium (Application no. 24421/20) – European Court of Human Rights (HUDOC). (Only in French)