Case summaries

The Constitutional Council decided on the criminal exemptions in favour of persons involved in the crime of assisting aliens to irregularly stay in a country. The first sentence of article L. 622-4 of the code of entry and stay of foreigners and the right to asylum (CESEDA) is unconstitutional as it must include not only the assistance to irregular stay in a country but also the assistance to the movement of aliens being in an irregular situation. The Council also specifies, in relation to the third paragraph of the above-mentioned article, that it is to be applied to any act assisting aliens to irregularly stay when motivated by humanitarian purposes. The Council hence enshrines the constitutional value of the fraternity principle. 

Following on from a Rule 39 measure from the European Court of Human Rights preventing the transfer of the applicant to Bulgaria under the Dublin Regulation, the Tribunal ordered the police prefect to register the applicant's claim for asylum in France. 

The case concerned the application of a take back request under the the Dublin III Regulation where an asylum applicant has lodged multiple asylum applications in two different Member States and is the subject of a European Arrest Warrant.

The applicant, an Algerian national convicted in France for terrorism and banned from entering French territory in 2006, was sent back to Algeria in 2014, on the day he was notified of the rejection of his asylum claim and of the issuance of his return order. The Court found that the French authorities violated Article 34 of the Convention by carrying out the applicant’s transfer despite the Court’s interim measure. It also found that France violated Article 3, in the light of the general information regarding the situation of people suspected of international terrorism in Algeria.

The impossibility to proceed with an asylum applicant’s transfer to another Member State responsible for examining the asylum application  is established once there is a clear and real risk for the interested party to be subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatments within the meaning of articles 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU), even in the absence of having serious reasons to believe there are systemic failures in the Member State’s asylum system. 

In the lack of audiovisual recording of the interview, the Judge must set the appearance hearing, otherwise being the decree issued null and void for the breach of the adversarial principle.

In direct application of Art. 15 (2) of the Reception Conditions Directive, according to which asylum applicants must be given effective access to the labour market, the requirements of the Act Governing the Employment of Foreign Nationals (AuslBG) must be modified. The non-existence of a unanimous approval by the Regional Council pursuant to Art. 4 (3) AuslBG does not preclude the granting of employment permits to asylum applicants.

The case deals with the illegitimacy of denying the registration of an international protection request on the basis of the request being issued before a non-competent authority and lacking the criterion of “autonomous accommodation”.

The ECtHR ruled that the detention of a Syrian national was unlawful as his return to Syria was impracticable, which the authorities should have known at that time. It was incumbent on the domestic authorities to consider alternative measures in respect of the applicant. The applicant did not have the benefit of an examination of the lawfulness of his detention to a sufficient degree. Therefore, there was a violation of Articles 5(1) and (4) ECHR.

The ECtHR also ruled that his detention at the Zografou police station led to a violation of his rights under Article 3 ECHR, since it lacked the amenities required for prolonged periods of detention.

Member States can issue a return decision together with, or right after, a negative decision on an asylum application at first instance, as long as they ensure that all judicial effects of the return decision are suspended during the time allowed to appeal and pending that appeal.

During that period, and despite being subjected to a return decision, an asylum applicant must enjoy all the rights under the Reception Conditions Directive. The applicant can rely upon any changes in circumstances affecting his claim that came up after the return decision, before the appeals authority.