France – Lille Judicial Tribunal, 17 March 2020, n° 20/00633

Facts:

On 15 March, in the midst of the COVID-19 health crisis, the Applicant, a Colombian national, was placed in administrative detention in view of his removal to his country of origin.

On 16 March, the administrative authority requested the extension of his detention for a duration of 28 days.

The Applicant had no antecedent and had been condemned with a minor offence through a summary penalty order procedure. 

Decision & reasoning:

The administrative authority supported his request on the irregular situation of the Applicant, the lack of effective and permanent residence and the absence of travel documents. The applicant argued that the detention measure was incompatible with the current health crisis (Covid-19), there was no prospect of removal, including due to the international travel restrictions in response to the pandemic, and there was no possibility for an effective execrise of their detention rights.

The Judge of the liberties and detention firstly referred to a decision in which the Constitutional Council had held that the judicial authority always has the possibility to interrupt the detention, when the legal or factual circumstances justify it. (Constitution Council, decision n° 2003-484 DC, 20 November 2003)

The judge then stated that the World Health Organization guidelines, qualifying the COVID-19 global situation as a pandemic recommends the enforcement of measures to prevent the spread of the disease. As a consequence, the Judge considered that the extension of the detention in a state of promiscuity and confinement, with some detainees arriving from highly contaminated regions, in view of removal of the Applicant in his country of origin, necessarily contravenes the World Health Organization guidelines to prevent the spread of the disease.

Moreover, the Judge observed that in a context where many countries have closed their borders, the prospect of removal of the Applicant in the period of detention appeared highly hypothetical. As a result, the Judge held that the health risk generated by keeping the Applicant in detention was clearly disproportionate to the prospects of removal.

Finally the Judge noted that the administrative authority reported no risk of disruption of public safety or public endangerment, as the Applicant has no antecedent and had committed a minor offence.

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. The Applicant is reminded of his obligation to leave the French territory.

Observations/comments:

In the midst of the COVID-19 health crisis, the French government announced the suspension of all international flights to and from third countries. As a result, the detention of foreigners subject to a deportation/removal order was no longer possible due to the lack of reasonable prospects for removal[1].

In this specific context, the Paris Court of Appeal issued on 16 March 2020 a similar decision to the judge of liberty and detention of the Lille Judicial Tribunal:

The Court rejected a request, from the public prosecutor, of suspensive effect of an appeal against a release order. The judge considered that, keeping the applicant in detention would be in conflict with the World Health Organization guidelines. In accordance with these guidelines, and in view to tackle the spread of the disease, most borders had closed and the return flights had been cancelled. In these conditions, no suspensive effect was to be granted. The request was denied (Paris Appeal Court, 16 March 2020, RG 20/01182).

The Paris Court of Appeal decision can be found as an additional attachment on this webpage, along with the Lille Court decision.

Other sources:

Domestic Case Law cited

Constitution Council, decision n° 2003-484 DC, 20 November 2003, § 66