The applicant alleged that, due to his health condition, expulsion to Kosovo would expose him to inhuman or degrading treatment, invoking Article 3 ECHR. The Court found that, as no removal order was currently in force, there was no imminent risk and therefore no Article 3 violation.

He also claimed that the “procedural ping-pong” between the Immigration Office and the Council for Alien Law Litigation prevented him from having an effective remedy under Article 13 ECHR. The Court, emphasising the principle of subsidiarity, held that it is not for the ECtHR to dictate the form of domestic remedies, and that the Council’s lack of power to substitute its own decision is not, in itself, contrary to the Convention.

Turning to Article 8 ECHR, the Court noted that the applicant had been waiting fifteen years without a final decision, losing access to social assistance except for urgent medical care, which did not cover all necessary treatments. This prolonged uncertainty placed him in a precarious and vulnerable position, with serious repercussions for his private and family life. The Court concluded that Belgium had failed in its positive obligation to ensure the effective protection of the applicant’s rights, thereby violating Article 8.

Under Articles 41 and 46 of the Convention, the Court addressed the consequences of the violation. It noted that under Article 41, it could not order the issuance of a residence permit or specific compensation, as the applicant had benefited from legal aid and had not incurred fees for representation. Under Article 46, Belgium is required to take all necessary measures, under the supervision of the Committee of Ministers, to ensure that the applicant obtains a final decision on his medical residence permit within a reasonable time, fully respecting domestic law and his Convention rights.

For further details, please read the judgment in French.