France - Judiciary Tribunal of Perpignan, 18th March 2020, No RG20/00356

Facts:

On 6th February 2020, the national administration gave a return order against the applicant and put the applicant in immigration detention.

On 8th February 2020, the judge of liberties and detention of Perpignan ordered an extension of the immigration detention. From that moment, the applicant remained in detention for 28 days. 

On 7th March 2020, the judge of liberties and detention of Perpignan ordered another extension. The applicant should remain 30 more days in detention. However, the applicant appealed against this order before the Court of Appeal (CA) of Montpellier. 

On 10th March 2020, the CA rejected the applicant’s appeal and confirmed the judge’s order of the 7th March 2020. 

Later, on the 17th of March 2020, the applicant requested the end of this detention. 

Decision & reasoning:

The applicant argued that the closure of international borders and the health crisis made the applicant’s return no longer likely. The return could not be considered anymore as a reasonable prospect. 

The representative of the national administration stated that a flight on the 10th of March 2020, assigned to the applicant for returning to Turkey, was cancelled due to Turkish authorities’ refusal to accept the flights from France.  

According to article L554-1 of the French Code for the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the right to asylum, immigration detention should be applied only for the time necessary to prepare the return. The administration should act with due diligence. 

The Judge of liberties and detention (JLD) accepted the applicant’s argument. The judge noted the attempt of national authorities to plan another flight for the applicant return on the 16th March 2020 which was also cancelled. Moreover, the JLD assessed the total absence of any prospect of return before the end of the immigration detention. Lastly, the judge emphasised the lack of another proceeding for the enforcement of the applicant’s return which might justify remaining the applicant into detention. 

Hence, the release of the applicant was ordered. 

Outcome:

Application granted

Subsequent proceedings:

The national administration could appeal against the judgment which ends the applicant’s immigration detention. 

Observations/comments:

This judgement highlights the need for available flights as a requirement of immigration detention pre-removal. 

Besides, the judgment emphasises the impact of COVID and the remaining travel restrictions on the effective implementation of return.