France - Council of State, 16 June 2010, Ms. A., n°340250
| Country of Decision: | France |
| Court name: | Council of State / Conseil d’Etat |
| Date of decision: | 16-06-2010 |
| Citation: | CE, réf., 16 juin 2010, Mme A., n° 340250 |
| Additional citation: | Conseil d’Etat, référés, 16 juin 2010, Mme A., n° 340250 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Accelerated procedure
Description
Prioritisation or acceleration of any examination in accordance with the basic principles and guarantees of Chapter II of the Asylum Procedures Directive, including where the application is likely to be well-founded or where the applicant has special needs or for any of the reasons in Article 23(4) of the Asylum Procedures Directive |
|
Right to remain pending a decision (Suspensive effect)
Description
According to Asylum Procedures Directive, Article 7 "Applicants shall be allowed to remain in the Member State, for the sole purpose of the procedure, until the determining authority has made a decision in accordance with the procedures at first instance set out in Chapter III. This right to remain shall not constitute an entitlement to a residence permit. Member States can make an exception only where, in accordance with Articles 32 and 34, a subsequent application will not be further examined or where they will surrender or extradite, as appropriate, a person either to another Member State pursuant to obligations in accordance with a European arrest warrant or otherwise, or to a third country, or to international criminal courts or tribunals." Art 39 APD requires applicants for asylum to have the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal, against a number of listed decisions. Member States must, where appropriate, provide for rules in accordance with their international obligations dealing with the question of whether the remedy shall have the effect of allowing applicants to remain in the Member State concerned pending its outcome. |
|
Safe country of origin
Description
"A country where, on the basis of the legal situation, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political circumstances, it can be shown that there is generally and consistently no persecution as defined in Article 9 of Directive 2004/83/EC, no torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and no threat by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict. In making this assessment, account is taken, inter alia, of the extent to which protection is provided against persecution or mistreatment by: (a) the relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which they are applied; (b) observance of the rights and freedoms laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and/or the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights and/or the Convention against Torture, in particular the rights from which derogation cannot be made under Article 15(2) of the said European Convention; (c) respect of the non-refoulement principle according to the Geneva Convention; (d) provision for a system of effective remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms.” |
|
Reception conditions
Description
The full set of measures that Member States grant to asylum seekers in accordance with Directive 2003/9/EC. |
Headnote:
French legislative provisions concerning the non suspensive effect of the judicial remedy under the accelerated procedure are not manifestly incompatible with the Asylum Procedures Directive and the Reception Conditions Directives.
Facts:
The applicant, from Mali, requested a temporary residence permit at the Prefecture in order to lodge an asylum application at the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (Ofpra). The Prefecture rejected her request on the ground that Mali was [at that time] a safe country of origin and the file was thus submitted to the Ofpra under the accelerated procedure. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision under an emergency procedure before the administrative tribunal because she considered that it constituted a serious and manifestly illegal breach of the right of asylum. The administrative tribunal rejected her claim. The applicant then lodged an appeal against this decision before the Council of State.
Decision & reasoning:
The Council of State considered that:
- French legislative provisions regarding the non suspensive effect of the remedy under the accelerated procedure, which is applicable in particular to the persons originating from safe countries of origin, did not reveal any manifest incompatibility with the Procedures and Reception Conditions Directives.
The Council of State considered that:
- the decision of the Prefecture to channel the application into the accelerated procedure was not manifestly illegal;
- the inclusion of Mali in the list of safe countries of origin decided by the board of the Ofpra was not manifestly illegal;
- the possibility of exercising an effective judicial remedy was not seriously and manifestly illegally denied to the applicant;
- and the applicant, together with her daughter, was housed in emergency accommodation, received a financial allowance and support from the Departement.
The Council of State therefore concluded that, in these circumstances, there was no manifest breach of the obligations required in terms of reception conditions of asylum applicants.
Outcome:
The applicant’s claim was rejected.
Observations/comments:
Since this decision, the Council of State has removed Mali from the list of safe countries of origin as far as women are concerned (see CE, 23 juillet 2010, n°336034; also summarized in this database).