Proceedings of the International scientific and practical conference ―The Hague Conference on Science and Public Policy‖ (May 8-10, 2026) / Publisher website: www.naukainfo.com. – The Hague, Netherlands, 2026. - 232 p.

160 The further development of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights has confirmed the absolute nature of the principle of non-refoulement. In the case of Chahal v . the United Kingdom, the applicant – a Sikh Indian national – challenged the decision to expel him from the United Kingdom to India, arguing that upon return he faced a real risk of torture and persecution by State authorities. In its examination of the case, the ECtHR reaffirmed the absolute nature of the prohibition enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and emphasized that it admits no exceptions, even in cases involving national security considerations. The Court concluded that the expulsion of an individual is incompatible with the Convention where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person faces a real risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment in the receiving State [7]. An important element of the Court‘s jurisprudence is also the assessment of risk. The ECtHR consistently applies the ―real risk‖ standard, which requires an individualized assessment of the circumstances of each case. In the case of Saadi v . Italy, the applicant, a Tunisian national, challenged his expulsion from Italy, claiming that he would face a risk of torture and ill-treatment upon return. The Court held that, for a finding of a violation of Article 3 ECHR, it is not necessary to prove that ill- treatment has actually occurred; it is sufficient to establish substantial grounds for believing that such a real risk exists. The Court further emphasized that the assessment of risk must take into account both the general situation in the country of destination and the applicant‘s individual circumstances, thereby ensuring a comprehensive approach to the application of the principle of non-refoulement. At the same time, the ECtHR stressed that State responsibility arises already at the stage of removal where such action creates a real risk of prohibited treatment, irrespective of whether the harm originates from State or non-State actors in the receiving country [8]. The case-law of the ECtHR also demonstrates the development of the principle of non-refoulement in the context of large-scale migration flows and border control operations. In Hirsi Jamaa and Others v . Italy, a group of migrants from Somalia and