You are here
Home › France ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Nigeria
Keywords: Assessment of facts and circumstances, Dublin Transfer, Effective remedy (right to), Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Reception conditions, Responsibility for examining application, Trafficking in human beings, Vulnerable person
As a result of a transfer order to Italian authorities joined with house arrest, the applicant lodged an appeal. She argued she would be at risk of being exposed to inhuman and degrading treatments, as well as to systemic lapses of the Italian asylum system. In this case, the administrative tribunal granted annulment of those orders issued by the prefect of la Haute-Garonne in the light of the current Italian asylum conditions and the reasons motivating the applicant to reach France after having stayed in Italy.
Date: 09-11-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: France
Keywords: Delay, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Procedural guarantees, Return
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the 48H limit under national law for a third-country national to appeal against an order to be escorted to the border. The Council found that the deadline is in line with the French Constitution, as it guarantees the right to an effective remedy.
Date: 19-10-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Congo (Republic of)
Keywords: Country of origin, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Real risk, Refugee Status, Return, Subsidiary Protection
The French National Court on Asylum has made an error of law by refusing to grant at the very least subsidiary protection to the applicant following his new request to re-examine his situation, despite a condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) for the violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Date: 03-10-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Somalia
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, Indirect refoulement, Obligation to give reasons, Personal circumstances of applicant, Procedural guarantees, Responsibility for examining application, Subsidiary Protection
The Dublin Regulation does not prevent France from being competent to examine the applicant's asylum application, given the existence of orders from the German authorities imposing an obligation to return to Somalia, where risk of inhuman treatment cannot be excluded.
Any decision must be reasoned and translated into a language understandable to the applicant.
Date: 24-09-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Detention, Dublin Transfer, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Following on from a Rule 39 measure from the European Court of Human Rights preventing the transfer of the applicant to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, the Tribunal ordered the police prefect to register the applicant's claim for asylum in France.
Date: 06-07-2018
Country of Decision: France
Keywords: Delay, Detention, Effective access to procedures, Effective remedy (right to), Procedural guarantees
The Constitutional Council decides on the constitutionality of the deadline to appeal against a return order, as applicable to a third-country national being detained, under paragraph 4 of Article L. 512-1 of the Code of Entry and Stay of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA). The Council decides hereby that the deadline proves to be too short- consequently unconstitutional- to effectively exercise the right to remedy in the context of detention.
Date: 01-06-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Russia
Keywords: Exclusion from protection, Personal interview, Procedural guarantees
The Council of State annulled the decision from the French national court on asylum (CNDA) after noting it had not examined the applicant’s submission that he did not have access to an interpreter during his personal interview for a re-examination of his asylum application. He had indeed appealed against the decision of the French immigration authorities (OFPRA) rejecting his claim despite his inability to be understood.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Turkey
Keywords: Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN, Exclusion from protection, Refugee Status, Terrorism
The applicant’s asylum claim has been rejected on the grounds of Article 1F(c) of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The act he committed would amount to being contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN. However, the Council of State hereby decided that in failing to seek and qualify the severity of this act in the light of its effects internationally, the lower court made an error of law.
Date: 11-04-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Request to take back
The Council of State grants the appeal lodged by the Minister of the Interior, who asked for the annulment of the order issued by the administrative tribunal’s relief judge. The latter had suspended not only the execution of the decision refusing to register M. A…’s asylum application, but also the execution regarding his transfer, by ruling ultra petita. After qualifying M. A…’s non-attendance to the repeated notifications sent for the purpose of his transfer as being intentional and systematic, the Council of State concludes in this case that no violation was found against M. A...
Date: 16-03-2018
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Country of origin information, Dublin Transfer, Indiscriminate violence, Request to take back, Subsidiary Protection
An internal armed conflict, characterised by armed clashes, prevails throughout the whole territory of Afghanistan. The situation in the Kabul region and the city itself constitutes indiscriminate violence resulting from this internal armed conflict.
Transferring a family to Finland under the Dublin Regulation where their asylum application and subsequent appeals have been rejected is unlawful on account of the humanitarian and security situation in Afghanistan.
Date: 13-03-2018
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Procedural guarantees 35
- Dublin Transfer 33
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 28
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 26
- Subsidiary Protection 26
- Membership of a particular social group 25
- Responsibility for examining application 25
- Assessment of facts and circumstances 22
- Effective access to procedures 22
- Reception conditions 19
- Refugee Status 16
- Indiscriminate violence 12
- Exclusion from protection 11
- Individual assessment 11
- Material reception conditions 11
- Detention 10
- Personal interview 10
- Well-founded fear 10
- Individual threat 9
- Personal circumstances of applicant 9
- Political Opinion 9
- Subsequent application 9
- Country of origin information 8
- Family unity (right to) 8
- Internal armed conflict 8
- Persecution (acts of) 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 7
- Country of origin 7
- Effective remedy (right to) 7
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 7
- Request to take back 7
- Actors of protection 6
- Delay 6
- Gender Based Persecution 6
- Internal protection 6
- Protection 6
- Relevant Documentation 6
- Sexual orientation 6
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Safe country of origin 5
- Serious harm 5
- Trafficking in human beings 5
- Unaccompanied minor 5
- Vulnerable person 5
- First country of asylum 4
- Humanitarian considerations 4
- Real risk 4
- Request that charge be taken 4
- Return 4
- Visa 4
- Accelerated procedure 3
- Armed conflict 3
- Family member 3
- Female genital mutilation 3
- Health (right to) 3
- Manifestly unfounded application 3
- Nationality 3
- Obligation to give reasons 3
- Residence document 3
- Terrorism 3
- Accommodation centre 2
- Best interest of the child 2
- Burden of proof 2
- Child Specific Considerations 2
- Credibility assessment 2
- Discrimination 2
- Duty of applicant 2
- Genocide 2
- Inadmissible application 2
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 2
- Previous persecution 2
- Religion 2
- Benefit of doubt 1
- Cessation of protection 1
- Circumstances ceased to exist 1
- Country of former habitual residence 1
- Dependant (Dependent person) 1
- Final decision 1
- Freedom of movement (right to) 1
- Indirect refoulement 1
- International armed conflict 1
- Non-state actors/agents of persecution 1
- Race 1
- Serious non-political crime 1
- Stateless person 1
Filter by date
Filter by country of applicant
- Afghanistan 12
- Unknown 12
- Sri Lanka 11
- Congo (DRC) 9
- Russia 9
- Kosovo 8
- Nigeria 7
- Armenia 6
- Iraq 6
- Algeria 5
- Russia (Chechnya) 5
- Somalia 5
- Guinea 4
- Iran 4
- Sudan 4
- Turkey 4
- Eritrea 3
- Mongolia 3
- Rwanda 3
- Angola 2
- Bangladesh 2
- France 2
- Georgia 2
- Haiti 2
- Ivory Coast 2
- Mali 2
- Benin 1
- Bhutan 1
- Bosnia and Herzegovina 1
- Cameroon 1
- Central African Republic 1
- Chad 1
- Comoros 1
- Congo (Republic of) 1
- Ethiopia 1
- Ghana 1
- India 1
- Macedonia 1
- Madagascar 1
- Mauritania 1
- Morocco 1
- Namibia 1
- Niger 1
- North Korea 1
- Saudi Arabia 1
- Senegal 1
- Serbia 1
- South Korea 1
- Syria 1
- Tanzania 1
- Tunisia 1
- Ukraine 1
Filter by country of decision
- (-) Remove France filterFrance
