France - Administrative Tribunal of Paris, 25 May 2016, ASSOCIATION CIMADE et al., No. 1602395/3-2
| Country of Decision: | France |
| Court name: | Administrative Tribunal of Paris |
| Date of decision: | 25-05-2016 |
| Citation: | No. 1602395/3-2 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
Description
The duty of the state to carry out an individual assessment of all relevant elements of the asylum application according to the provisions of Article 4 of the Qualification Directive, including considering past persecution and credibility; and the duty of the applicant to submit as soon as possible all statements and documentation necessary to substantiate the application. |
|
Effective access to procedures
Description
Effective access to legal and administrative procedures undertaken by UNHCR and/or States in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive to determine whether an individual should be recognized as a refugee in accordance with national and international law. |
|
Procedural guarantees
Description
“In the interests of a correct recognition of those persons in need of protection … every applicant should, subject to certain exceptions, have an effective access to procedures, the opportunity to cooperate and properly communicate with the competent authorities so as to present the relevant facts of his/her case and sufficient procedural guarantees to pursue his/her case throughout all stages of the procedure.” Procedures should satisfy certain basic requirements, which reflect the special situation of the applicant for refugee status, and which would ensure that the applicant is provided with certain essential guarantees. Some of these basic requirements are set out in on p.31 of the UNHCR Handbook as well as the APD Arts. 10, 17 and 34 and include: a personal interview, the right to legal assistance and representation, specific guarantees for vulnerable persons and regarding the examination procedure, and those guarantees set out in the Asylum Procedures Directive. |
|
Reception conditions
Description
The full set of measures that Member States grant to asylum seekers in accordance with Directive 2003/9/EC. |
Headnote:
The application was in three parts: the applicants asked the tribunal to annul the police commissioner’s decision on how the registration of asylum requests was carried out in Paris; to compel the police commissioner to re-examine the methods of registration; to fine the state €1500. The first two parts of the application were granted but the third was not.
Facts:
The applicants are a group of organisations (l’association Cimade, Gisti, JRD France and Dom’Asile) which strive to protect asylum seekers. They brought an application against the police commissioner seeking to annul a decision to limit to fifty the number of daily appointments afforded to the relevant asylum organisations for processing asylum requests.
Decision & reasoning:
Firstly, the tribunal held that since the police commissioner’s decision was in force at the time the application was made, the commissioner was not justified in arguing that the application was purposeless. Secondly, the commissioner had argued that the application was inadmissible since it was only signed by the president of l’association Cimade and did not include the signatures of the presidents of the other organisations making the application (l’association Gisti, JRS France and Dom’Asile.) The tribunal rejected this argument since l’association Cimade regularly acts as an authorised representative for these other organisations.
Thirdly, the tribunal held that in principle, national organisations do not have the requisite standing to seek that administrative decisions applicable in certain areas of France are annulled. However, this is not the case where the decision in question raises issues which extend beyond the area in question. The tribunal held that this was one such case.
Fourthly, the tribunal rejected the commissioner’s argument that the decision in question was simply an organisational method, rather than a decision capable of having legal proceedings issued against it for excess of power. In particular, the tribunal cited a press article presented by the applicants reporting that delays of four months had taken place for registration of asylum claims.
Fifthly, the tribunal held that in limiting the daily number of appointments to fifty, the commissioner had not respected Article L741-1 of the Code of Entry and Residence of Foreigners and of the Right of Asylum (which holds that registration of asylum requests must take place at most three working days after the request is made, though this can in certain circumstances be extended to ten working days.) The applicants therefore had grounds to seek legal action against the commissioner’s decision.
Finally, Article 911-2 of the Administrative Justice Code meant that the tribunal’s decision necessarily required the commissioner to re-examine the way in which registration of asylum requests were organised. The second element of the application was therefore also granted by the tribunal. However, the tribunal simply stated that Article 761-1 of the Administrative Justice Code was not relevant in this case so the fine was not granted.
Outcome:
Application granted, save for the fine.
Subsequent proceedings:
This case follows on from a decision on 22 February 2016 by the Paris Administrative Tribunal which found that the considerable delays for appointments at the Prefecture in order to register an asylum application breached the right to asylum.
Observations/comments:
This case summary was written by Calypso Blaj, BPTC student at BPP University.
This case summary was written by Nick Harrison, a LPC student at BPP University.