France - Council of State, 22 October 2012, n° 328265

Country of Decision:
Country of Applicant:
Date of Decision:
22-10-2012
Citation:
CE, 22 octobre 2012, n° 328265, M.C.
Court Name:
Council of State
Relevant Legislative Provisions:
International Law
International Law > 1951 Refugee Convention
European Union Law
European Union Law > EN - Asylum Procedures Directive, Council Directive 2005/85/EC of 1 December 2005
National / Other Legislative Provisions:
France - Ceseda (Code of the Entry and Stay of Foreigners and Asylum Law)
France - CJA (Code of Administrative Justice)
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Headnote: 

Where information used by the National Asylum Court (CNDA) to reach its decision is information concerning the asylum seeker’s specific situation, it must be kept on file so that the parties can take note of it and discuss it.

Facts: 

The applicant requested the Council of State to quash the CNDA’s decision rejecting his application to quash the decision of the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra).

Decision & Reasoning: 

Firstly, the Council of State held that it is for the CNDA, in exercising its power of inquiry, to investigate all useful information allowing the facts to be established on which its decision will be based. To this end, the Court may use general information readily available to the public (the source of which it must state in its decision) without filing it.

However, the CNDA may not then base its decision on the results of its investigations until it has filed those documents containing information capable of confirming or invalidating circumstances of fact relating to the particular asylum seeker or specific to his account, in order that the parties may take note of them and discuss them.

In the case in point, the Council of State held that the CNDA had based its decision on information capable of confirming or invalidating circumstances of fact relating to the particular asylum seeker or specific to his account, which had not been submitted inter partes, and had therefore vitiated its decision through an irregularity.

Outcome: 

The decision of the CNDA was quashed.

The case was referred back to the CNDA.