France – Nice Judicial Tribunal, 25 January 2020, n° 20/00150
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 Nice Judicial Tribunal declared irregular the procedure during which the applicant was notified of his administrative detention more than an hour after the end of his police interrogation.
The Judge considered that the deprivation of liberty during that time had no legal foundation.
Facts:
On 23 January 2020, 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.
Two complaints of violence had previously been filed against him. Additionally, the applicant had not answered to a first convocation dated 6 January 2020. On 23 January, the applicant was held in police custody until 15h30. He was then notified of his administrative detention at 16h55.
The applicant challenged the regularity of the procedure arguing that between 15h30 and 16h55 the deprivation of his liberty was arbitrary and without legal basis.
The authorities claimed that that was the time needed at the end of the police interrogation to translate the documents to the applicant.
Decision & reasoning:
The Judge of the liberties and detention considered that, based on the file, the applicant police custody of the 23 January ended at 15h30 but he was notified of his administrative detention only at 16h55. Since no particular reason justified this delay of more than an hour, it resulted that the applicant’s deprivation of liberty between 15h30 and 16h55 had no legal foundation. Therefore, he was entitled to contest it.
The Judge declared the procedure irregular. The request of extension of the duration of the administrative detention was denied. The applicant was reminded of his obligation to leave the French territory.
Outcome:
The request of extension of the duration of the administrative detention was denied.