How does European human rights practice balance public security risks and a migrant's private and family life attachments when they've admitted to past serious crimes?
In VN. and Others v. Sweden, the Court upheld Sweden's refusal to grant short-term residence to a man with a criminal record, despite his wife's terminal illness. To reach this outcome, the majority accepted broadly defined risks to public order and security without requiring proof of a concrete, individualized threat.
In our blog post, Jens Vedsted-Hansen and I argue that a wide margin of appreciation does not release a state from its obligation to conduct a proper proportionality review. Public security is not a blank cheque justifying any interference with rights; past offences are not automatic proxies for present danger.
Whatever the outcome of V.N. might have been, cutting corners to get there undermines legal certainty and trust in the Court.
Attachments as mode of regulation: migrant inclusion in the welfare state
Jan 2026 - Dec 2029
