France - Council of State, 7 November 2012, n° 350355
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Assessment of facts and circumstances
{ return; } );"
>
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. |
|
Manifestly unfounded application
{ return; } );"
>
Description
Member States may consider an application for protection as manifestly unfounded, where it is defined as such in the national legislation, and: (a) the applicant clearly does not qualify as a refugee or for refugee status in a Member State under Directive 2004/83/EC; or (b) in cases of unfounded applications for asylum where any of these circumstances apply: - the applicant, in submitting his/her application and presenting the facts, has only raised issues that are not relevant or of minimal relevance to the examination of whether he/she qualifies as a refugee by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC; or - the application is considered to be unfounded because the applicant is from a safe country of origin within the meaning of Articles 29, 30 and 31, or - the application is considered to be unfounded because the country which is not a Member State, is considered to be a safe third country for the applicant, without prejudice to Article 28(1);or - the applicant has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his/her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision; or - the applicant has filed another application for asylum stating other personal data; or - the applicant has not produced information establishing with a reasonable degree of certainty his/her identity or nationality, or it is likely that, in bad faith, he/she has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his/her identity or nationality; or - the applicant has made inconsistent, contradictory, improbable or insufficient representations which make his/her claim clearly unconvincing in relation to his/her having been the object of persecution referred to in Directive 2004/83/EC; or - the applicant has submitted a subsequent application which does not raise any relevant new elements with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin; or - the applicant has failed without reasonable cause to make his/her application earlier, having had opportunity to do so; or - the applicant is making an application merely in order to delay or frustrate the enforcement of an earlier or imminent decision which would result in his/her removal; or - the applicant has failed without good reason to comply with obligations referred to in Article 4(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/83/EC or in Articles 11(2)(a) and (b) and 20(1)of this Directive; or - the applicant entered the territory of the Member State unlawfully or prolonged his/her stay unlawfully and, without good reason, has either not presented himself/herself to the authorities and/or filed an application for asylum as soon as possible, given the circumstances of his/her entry; or - the applicant is a danger to the national security or public order of the Member State, or the applicant has been forcibly expelled for serious reasons of public security and public order under national law; or - the applicant refuses to comply with an obligation to have his/her fingerprints taken in accordance with relevant Community and/or national legislation; or - the application was made by an unmarried minor to whom Article 6(4)(c) applies, after the application of the parents or parent responsible for the minor has been rejected and no relevant new elements were raised with respect to his/her particular circumstances or to the situation in his/her country of origin. In line with UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusion No. 30 (XXXIV) of 1983, cases that are “clearly abusive” (i.e. clearly fraudulent), or “manifestly unfounded”, (i.e. not related to the grounds for granting international protection), may be considered for accelerated procedures. Similarly appeal or review procedures may also be more simplified than those generally available in the case of other rejected asylum applications. |
|
Procedural guarantees
{ return; } );"
>
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. |
Headnote:
The option for the CNDA to determine certain cases without involving a collegiate decision was consistent with French, European and International law and the Applicant did not need to be notified of the intention to use this procedure.
Facts:
The Applicant asked the Council of State to quash the order made by one of the CNDA Section Presidents who had rejected his application to quash the OFPRA’s refusal decision of 28 December 2009.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court did not consider that the provisions of CESEDA Article L.733 (2), which allowed CNDA Section Presidents to make orders in cases which did not justify a collegiate decision, were incompatible with the stipulations of the Geneva Convention, Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, or domestic legislation and administrative procedures. Consequently, the Court rejected the submission that, in the absence of prior notification of the use of this procedure, the disputed order was made following an irregular procedure.
In this particular case the Court considered that the Applicant, in his appeal, had not added anything to his previous statements that effectively challenged the OFPRA’s decision nor proved the facts alleged. Thus, the Court concluded that the issuer of the order, without any error of law, carried out a final assessment of the documents included in the file and found that it contained no evidence seriously capable of calling into question the grounds for the OFPRA’s decision to refuse.
Outcome:
Appeal rejected
Observations/comments:
The option for the CNDA to determine certain cases without a collegiate decision (i.e. before a single judge and by order without hearing the Applicant) was provided for in Articles L. 733(2) and R 733(16) of the CESEDA.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| France - Ceseda (Code of the Entry and Stay of Foreigners and Asylum Law) |
| France - CJA (Code of Administrative Justice) |