France – Council of State, 27 July 2016, Mr. C., No. 386797
| Country of Decision: | France |
| Court name: | Council of State (‘Conseil d’État’) |
| Date of decision: | 27-07-2016 |
| Citation: | France – Council of State, 27 July 2016, OFPRA v CNDA (Mr. C.), No. 386797 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Relevant Facts
Description
An assessment of an application for international protection must take into account all relevant facts, including those relating to: the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, including laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied; relevant statements and documentation presented by the applicant; the individual position and personal circumstances of the applicant; and other matters set out in Article 4 of the Qualification Directive |
|
Relevant Documentation
Description
“All documentation at the applicants disposal regarding the applicant's age, background, including that of relevant relatives, identity, nationality(ies), country(ies) and place(s) of previous residence, previous asylum applications, travel routes, identity and travel documents and the reasons for applying for international protection.” |
Headnote:
In assessing asylum applications, national authorities are entitled to consider material contained in the files of third parties. In reviewing such cases, national courts will be under a duty to consider the same material. This does not conflict with the applicant’s right to confidentiality.
Facts:
The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless People (‘OFPRA’) appealed a decision by the National Court of Asylum (‘CNDA’), given on 23 September 2014, which granted Mr. C. refugee status. The OFPRA had previously refused Mr. C.’s application, in its decision of 31 October 2012, on the basis of the exclusion clause provided by Article 1F(a) of the 1951 Geneva Convention.
In deciding to allow Mr. C.’s appeal, the CNDA refused to consider material contained in the files of his wife, Mrs. D., because she did not want the material to be shared. However, the OFPRA had relied upon this same material in applying the exclusion clause to deny Mr. C refugee status.
Decision & reasoning:
The Council held that, in refusing to consider the material, the CNDA had not acted in its proper capacity and had tainted its decision with a legal error.
The Council first established that the OFPRA has a duty to guarantee the confidentiality of any information that might endanger applicants, as well as to protect the respect for private life and medical confidentiality. However, this does not prevent the OFPRA from considering material from the files of a third party in order to assess asylum applications.
By extension, the Council held that where the OFPRA has relied upon material from the files of a third party in coming to a decision, the CNDA will be under a duty to review the same material when hearing appeals.
In not doing so, the CNDA had tainted its decision with a legal error. This alone was a sufficient basis for allowing the OFPRA’s appeal.
Outcome:
The appeal was granted and the case was sent back to the CNDA for re-examination.
Observations/comments:
This case summary was written by Georgia Kandunias, GDL student at BPP University.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| France - • Code of Entry and Residence of Foreigners and of the Right of Asylum ('CESEDA’) |
| France - • Code of Administrative Justice (‘CJA’) – Article L. 761-1 |