Case Law

The ECtHR considered it more appropriate to examine the complaints concerning the failure of France to comply with the interim relief orders of the Administrative Court ordering that the applicants must be taken into emergency accommodation and the absence of an effective emergency procedure for the enforcement of an interim relief order solely under Article 6 ECHR (§§ 91, 92). The ECtHR considered that the decision to grant or refuse emergency accommodation constituted a civil right and thus held that Article 6 § 1 ECtHR was applicable. The case concerned asylum-seekers who were without accommodation at the time of the events, and in whose favour the urgent-applications judge of the administrative court ordered the State to provide them with emergency accommodation.

30 December 2022 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Decision on admissibility - Effective remedy - Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Rule of law / Due process / Procedural fairness | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - France - Georgia

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 | 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

Effective domestic remedy: Effectiveness of a suspensive remedy, in respect of an asylum request submitted after the application had been lodged with the Court: admissible As to the merits, the Court went on to find, unanimously, that there would be no violation of Article 3 if the decision to deport the applicant to Algeria were implemented.

29 April 2019 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Exhaustion of domestic remedies - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures | Countries: Algeria - France

France – Council of State rules in case concerning the execution of an ECtHR judgment by the National Court of Asylum On 3 October, the French Council of State ruled in a case concerning the rejection of the asylum application of a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), despite a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) that considered him to be in a real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to his country. The applicant’s asylum request had been rejected both by the French Asylum Office and the National Court of Asylum. After two unsuccessful re-examination attempts, the domestic authorities issued a decision imposing an obligation on the applicant to leave the country. The applicant brought the case before the European Court of Human rights, where his claim of a possible violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), upon his return to the DRC, succeeded. The applicant requested another re-examination of his case, but that request was rejected by the French Asylum Office and, on appeal, by the CNDA. It was considered that the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment could not be considered as established. The applicant sought to annul that decision before the Council of State. The Court based its reasoning on Articles 41 and 46 of the ECHR, regarding consequences of violation of a Convention right and the execution of definitive judgments. It found that the execution of a judgment by the ECtHR entails both an obligation to remedy the consequences of the violation and to eliminate its source. In addition to that, the State has to ensure the applicant receives the sums decided by the ECtHR as just satisfaction. Moreover, a decision that declares a removal as violating Article 3 ECHR constitutes a novel element that would justify the re-examination of the case. During this re-examination, the domestic authorities should refrain from executing any removal measure, while ensuring that the applicant will be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment, by being granted subsidiary protection status according to French law. The Court annulled the decision and remitted the case back to the National Court of Asylum for reconsideration. Based on an unofficial translation by the ELENA Weekly Legal Update.

3 October 2018 | Judicial Body: France: Conseil d'Etat | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Human rights courts | Countries: Congo, Democratic Republic of the - France

26 September 2017 | Judicial Body: Belgium: Conseil du Contentieux des Etrangers | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Deportation / Forcible return - Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment - Non-refoulement | Countries: Belgium - France - Italy - Sudan

31 August 2010 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Adoption - Decision on admissibility - Right to family life | Countries: France

Article 8-1 Respect for family life - Adequacy of measures taken by authorities to enforce court decisions ordering return of children to their mother: violation

25 January 2000 | Judicial Body: Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights | Legal Instrument: 1950 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Topic(s): Family reunification | Countries: France - Romania