France – Council of State, 25 August 2017, N° 413549

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
25-08-2017
Court Name:
Council of State, interim relief judge
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
France – Civil Code
France – Code of Social Action and Families
France – Law 91-647 of 10 July 1991 on Legal Aid
France – Code of Administrative Justice
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

A lack of the State authorities’ fulfilment of obligations under article L.223-2 of the Code of Social Action and Families can create serious harm to a fundamental right.

The obligation by the applicant to put in place emergency accommodation is reinforced when a child’s health, security or morality is put in danger. 

Facts: 

The Applicant, the département of Isère, appeals the order of 4 August 2017 by which the interim relief judge of the Administrative Tribunal of Grenoble instructed the President of the General Council of Isère to organise the temporary accommodation of M. A…, an unaccompanied minor from Angola who arrived in France on 10 July 2017, and to immediately notify the public prosecutor, within 48 hours, with a penalty of 100 euros per days of delay.

Neither the temporary accommodation, nor the assessment of M.A … necessary to determine his eligibility to be placed in the children welfare service, in accordance with article L.223-2 of the Code Social Action and Families, have been made by ADATE.

Decision & Reasoning: 

The Applicant believes that the refusal to give access to temporary accommodation and the assessment of unaccompanied minors, in accordance with the provisions of article L.223-2 of the Code Social Action and Families, does not  constitute serious harm to a fundamental right on the ground that the département of Isère does not have sufficient means to allow it to satisfy every request in the context of significant growth of the number of unaccompanied minors every year.

The Applicant’s obligation to implement the right to emergency accommodation is reinforced when it is owed to minors whose health, safety and morals are in danger. The Council of State rejects the Applicant’s ground because it does not provide evidence to show that the increase in accommodation capacities and in the speed of assessment procedures would exceed its means to a certain degree that would justify its refusal to exercise this responsibility, noting that the cost of the first five days of care is reimbursed by the National Fund for Child Protection.

Outcome: 

Application denied.

Observations/Comments: 

This case summary was written by Clara Gautrais, LPC student at BPP University.