France – Court of Appeal of Nîmes, 9 March 2018, n° 18/01183
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Detention
Description
"Restriction on freedom of movement through confinement that is ordered by an administrative or judicial authority(ies) in order that another procedure may be implemented. In an EU asylum context, this means confinement of an asylum seeker by a Member State within a particular place, where the applicant is deprived of his or her freedom of movement. This may occur during any stage of or throughout the asylum process, from the time an initial application is made up to the point of removal of an unsuccessful asylum seeker. In an EU Return context, Member States may only detain or keep in a detention facility a third-country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process, in particular when: (a) there is a risk of absconding; or (b) the third-country national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process. Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence." |
|
Return
Description
"In the context of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC), the process of going back - whether in voluntary compliance with an obligation to return, or enforced - to: - one's country of origin; or - a country of transit in accordance with EU or bilateral readmission agreements or other arrangements; or - another third country, to which the third-country national concerned voluntarily decides to return and in which he/she will be accepted. There are subcategories of return which can describe the way the return is implemented, e.g. voluntary, forced, assisted and spontaneous return; as well as sub-categories which describe who is participating in the return, e.g. repatriation (for refugees)." |
Headnote:
The Judge of the liberty and detention of the Nîmes Court of Appeal declared irregular the procedure during which the applicant, who couldn’t read, was not properly informed by the police of his rights to apply for asylum and his right to free access to the telephone at the detention centre.
Facts:
On 6 March 2018, the applicant, a Tunisian national, was notified with an order requiring him to leave French territory. He was placed in a detention centre the same day.
When he was notified of his rights at the detention centre, the police officer did not reread the reports relating to the rights to apply for asylum claim and to the right to free access to the telephone. As mentioned in the report, the applicant reread them himself.
However, based on the file, it appeared that the applicant couldn’t read.
All other reports had been read to the applicant.
Decision & reasoning:
The Judge of the liberties and detention considered that since the applicant was not able to read, the fact that when he was notified of his rights at the detention centre the police officer did not reread the reports relating to the rights to apply for asylum claim and his right to free access to the telephone was an infringement of his rights. Indeed the applicant could not have read and understood his rights.
The Judge declared the procedure irregular and denied any surveillance measure on the applicant. The request of extension of the duration of the administrative detention was denied.
Outcome:
The request for extension of the duration of the administrative detention was denied.
The applicant is reminded of his obligation to leave the French territory.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Art. L.552-1 to L552-6 |
| L561-2 and R552-1 to R552-10 of the Code on the entry and residence of foreigners (CESEDA) |