You are here
Home › France ›EDAL case summaries
Country of Decision: France
Country of Applicant: France
Keywords: Humanitarian considerations
According to the new 10 September 2018 French Law on Controlled Migration, there will be no criminal proceedings against individuals who have helped in the movement and illegal residence of undocumented migrants, when the aid consisted in providing legal, linguistic or social advice or assistance, or any other aid provided for an exclusively humanitarian purpose.
Criminal immunity is thus defined in a much less restrictive manner, and shall apply to acts committed before the entry into force of the new law.
Date: 12-12-2018
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: Eritrea
Keywords: Delay, Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Request to take back
The Council of State decided on the date from which the 6-month time limit provided by Article 29§1 of the Dublin regulation 604/2013 begins running or when it starts running again in case of an interruption. At the expiry of this deadline, the responsibility of the examination of an asylum claim falls back to the Member State which requested another Member State that charge be taken or to take back, as it did not proceed to the applicant’s transfer. The Council specified that this deadline starts running once the other Member State has accepted the request that charge be taken or...
Date: 24-09-2018
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: France
Keywords: Actors of protection, Humanitarian considerations
The Constitutional Council decided on the criminal exemptions in favour of persons involved in the crime of assisting aliens to irregularly stay in a country. The first sentence of article L. 622-4 of the code of entry and stay of foreigners and the right to asylum (CESEDA) is unconstitutional as it must include not only the assistance to irregular stay in a country but also the assistance to the movement of aliens being in an irregular situation. The Council also specifies, in relation to the third paragraph of the above-mentioned article, that it is to be applied to any act assisting...
Date: 06-07-2018
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
Country of Applicant: Afghanistan
Keywords: Dublin Transfer, First country of asylum, Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports, Real risk, Request that charge be taken, Responsibility for examining application
The impossibility to proceed with an asylum applicant’s transfer to another Member State responsible for examining the asylum application is established once there is a clear and real risk for the interested party to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments within the meaning of articles 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), even in the absence of having serious reasons to believe there are systemic failures in the Member State’s asylum system.
Date: 28-06-2018
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
Pages
Languages
Filter by case summary type
Filter by applicable legal provisions
Filter by keywords
- Dublin Transfer 35
- Procedural guarantees 35
- Persecution Grounds/Reasons 28
- Inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 27
- Responsibility for examining application 26
- Subsidiary Protection 26
- Membership of a particular social group 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
- Request to take back 8
- Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect) 8
- Actor of persecution or serious harm 7
- Actors of protection 7
- Country of origin 7
- Delay 7
- Effective remedy (right to) 7
- Legal assistance / Legal representation / Legal aid 7
- First country of asylum 6
- Gender Based Persecution 6
- Humanitarian considerations 6
- Internal protection 6
- Protection 6
- Relevant Documentation 6
- Sexual orientation 6
- Acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN 5
- Real risk 5
- Relevant Facts 5
- Request that charge be taken 5
- Safe country of origin 5
- Serious harm 5
- Trafficking in human beings 5
- Unaccompanied minor 5
- Vulnerable person 5
- 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
- Medical Reports/Medico-legal Reports 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
- 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 13
- 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
- Eritrea 4
- France 4
- Guinea 4
- Iran 4
- Sudan 4
- Turkey 4
- Mongolia 3
- Rwanda 3
- Angola 2
- Bangladesh 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
