UNHCR is not responsible for the content and availability of non-UNHCR websites. Content displays in a new window.
Case n°20029676
15 June 2021 | Judicial Body: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) | Countries: France - Mali |
Bivolaru and Moldovan v. France (applications nos. 40324/16 and 12623/17)
From the press release (attached): The Court held that the presumption of equivalent protection applied in Mr Moldovan’s case in so far as the two conditions for its application, namely the absence of any margin of manoeuvre on the part of the national authorities and the deployment of the full potential of the supervisory mechanism provided for by European Union (EU) law, were met. The Court therefore confined itself to ascertaining whether or not the protection of the rights guaranteed by the Convention had been manifestly deficient in the present case, such that this presumption was rebutted. To that end it sought to determine whether there had been a sufficiently solid factual basis requiring the executing judicial authority to find that execution of the EAW would entail a real and individual risk to the applicant of being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 on account of his conditions of detention in Romania. In Mr. Bivolaru's case: The Court considered that the executing judicial authority, following a full and in-depth examination of the applicant’s individual situation which demonstrated that it had taken account of his refugee status, had not had a sufficiently solid factual basis to establish the existence of a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to refuse execution of the EAW on that ground. The Court also considered that the description of conditions of detention in Romanian prisons provided by the applicant to the executing judicial authority in support of his request not to execute the EAW had not been sufficiently detailed or substantiated to constitute prima facie evidence of a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in the event of his surrender to the Romanian authorities. In the Court’s view, the executing judicial authority had not been obliged to request additional information from the Romanian authorities. Accordingly, it held that there had not been a solid factual basis for the executing judicial authority to establish the existence of a real risk of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention and to refuse execution of the EAW on those grounds. 25 March 2021 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment | Countries: France - Romania |
AFFAIRE N.H. ET AUTRES c. FRANCE
(Requête no 28820/13 et 2 autres)
The French authorities had failed in their duties under domestic law. They were found responsible for the conditions in which the applicants had been living for several months: sleeping rough, without access to sanitary facilities, having no means of subsistence and constantly in fear of being attacked or robbed. The applicants had thus been victims of degrading treatment, showing a lack of respect for their dignity. The Court found that such living conditions, combined with the lack of an appropriate response from the French authorities and the fact that the domestic courts had systematically objected that the competent bodies lacked resources in the light of their status as single young men, had exceeded the threshold of severity for the purposes of Article 3 of the Convention. The three applicants N.H., K.T. and A.J. had thus found themselves, through the fault of the French authorities, in a situation that was incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention. 2 July 2020 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Reception - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Afghanistan - France - Georgia - Iran, Islamic Republic of - Russian Federation |
Good Practices Paper – Action 6: Establishing Statelessness Determination Procedures to Protect Stateless Persons
July 2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Options Paper 2: Options for governments on open reception and alternatives to detention (first published 2015, revised version 2020)
2020 | Publisher: UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) | Document type: Thematic Reports |
Contentieux des réfugiés: Jurisprudence du Conseil d'État et de la Cour nationale du droit d'asile - Année
2020 | Publisher: France: Cour nationale du droit d'asile | Document type: Case Law Compilations/Analyses |
USING CRIMINAL LAW TO RESTRICT THE WORK OF NGOS SUPPORTING REFUGEES AND OTHER MIGRANTS IN COUNCIL OF EUROPE MEMBER STATES
December 2019 | Publisher: Council of Europe | Document type: Thematic Reports |
France: Décret N° 2011-1031 du 29 août 2011 relatif aux conditions d'exercice du droit d'asile
5 August 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Decrees, Circulars, Regulation, Policy Documents |
France: Décret N° 2015-614 du 4 juin 2015 relatif à la compétence du préfet pour statuer sur les demandes d'admission au séjour, au titre de l'asile, présentées par des étrangers placés en rétention administrative
5 August 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Decrees, Circulars, Regulation, Policy Documents |
France: Arrêté du 23 octobre 2015 relatif au questionnaire de détection des vulnérabilités des demandeurs d'asile prévu à l'article L. 744-6 du code de l'entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d'asile
5 August 2019 | Publisher: National Legislative Bodies / National Authorities | Document type: National Decrees, Circulars, Regulation, Policy Documents |