Indicators: Information on the Procedure
1. Is sufficient information provided to asylum seekers on the procedures, their rights and obligations in practice? Yes With difficulty No
Is tailored information provided to unaccompanied children? Yes No The provision of information is codified in Article R.751-2 Ceseda:
“The competent service of the Prefecture must inform the foreign national who would like to request refugee or subsidiary protection, of the asylum procedure, their rights and obligations over the course of this procedure, the potential consequences of failure to meet these obligations or any refusal to cooperate with the authorities and the measures available to them to help them present their request. This information should be provided in a language they can reasonably be expected to understand.”
Information is provided in a language that the asylum seeker understands or is likely to understand.283 This information have been compiled under a general “Guide for asylum seekers in France” (guide du demandeur d’asile en France).284 The guide is supposed to be provided by the Prefecture. The 2015 Asylum Seeker’s Guide is available in French and, at the time of writing, in 18 other languages on the Ministry of the Interior website. Practices used to vary from one Prefecture to another, and many fail to provide the guide. From the point of view of stakeholders supporting asylum seekers, even though this guide is a good initiative, it appears that most of asylum seekers cannot read or do not understand the meaning of the guide.
In April 2014, OFPRA published a guide on the right of asylum for unaccompanied minors in France.285 The guide is quite comprehensive, describing the steps of the asylum procedure, the appeals and the
282 Le Progrès, ‘Aujourd’hui réfugiés, ils s’impatientent’, 11 August 2016, available in French at:
http://bit.ly/2jRKjum.
283 Article R.741-4 Ceseda.
284 Ministry of Interior, Guide du demandeur d’asile en France, November 2015, available at:
http://bit.ly/2jRKjum.
285 OFPRA, Guide de l’asile pour les mineurs isolés etrangers en France (Guide on the right to asylum for unaccompanied minors in France), 30 April 2014, available in French at: http://bit.ly/1ep99xl.
73 procedure at the border. OFPRA has stated its intention to share this guide as widely as possible in Prefectures, in waiting zones at the border and with stakeholders working in children’s care. In practice, this guide is not available in all prefectures. In many regions, the prefecture agents recommend asylum seekers to download it on OFPRA’s website.
Information on the Dublin procedure
The information provided about the Dublin procedure varies greatly from one Prefecture to another. In the Rhône department, when they go to the prefecture to apply for asylum, all applicants are handed, at the desks, an information leaflet on the Dublin procedure (Leaflet A)286 together with the Asylum Seeker’s Guide. If the Prefecture decides at a later stage to channel the applicant into the Dublin procedure, the applicant receives a second information leaflet on the Dublin procedure (Leaflet B).287 The Prefecture asks the applicant to sign a letter written in French and listing all the information they have been given, as requested under Article 4 of the Dublin III Regulation, and the language in which it is given.
The asylum seeker knows when a take charge or a take back procedure has been initiated, due to information provided on the back of their Dublin notice, which is translated into the language of the asylum seeker. Translation is an obligation recently recalled by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux. According to the court, the absence of translation is a violation of the fundamental guarantees which much prevail in the framework of the Dublin procedure.288 There is, however, no information about the country to which a request has been sent, nor on the criteria that have led to this decision.
With regard to persons transferred out of Calais more specifically, it has been observed that the information provided to the asylum seekers accommodated in Reception and Orientation Centres (CAO) has not always beentransparent. Some of them have been told they would not be channelled to the Dublin procedure, even if they had already been previously registered in another country. Some of the people staying in CAO, who do not wish to submit an asylum claim, had been told, according to them, they would be issued a residence permit or would be allowed to the UK. It is really difficult to determine if this information, obviously wrong, was given on the part of the authorities, the volunteers working in the Calais “jungle” or if it reflected the hopes of the people living in the slums. It can clearly be stated there was a lack of communication.289 Many people arriving at the CAO have quickly fled or
“disappeared” when they realised they would not necessarily be authorised to stay in France, to go to the UK or that their asylum claim would not be automatically accepted.
Information at the border
In the waiting zones at the border, Forum réfugiés – Cosi notes a serious lack of information on the possibility of requesting admission to French territory on asylum grounds (see section on Border Procedure). When a person is arrested at the border, he or she is notified of an entry refusal, in theory with the presence of an interpreter if necessary.290 However, many stakeholders doubt that the information provided and the rights listed therein are effectively understood. For example, it is very surprising to note that those intercepted nearly all agree to renounce their right to a “clear day” notice period (“jour franc”) i.e. 24 hours during which the person cannot be returned, and tick the box confirming their request to leave as soon as possible.
286 European Commission and Migrationsverket, Leaflet A: “I have asked for asylum in the EU – Which country will handle my claim?” 2014, available at: http://bit.ly/1PSuhgz.
287 European Commission and Migrationsverket, Leaflet B: “I am in the Dublin procedure – What does this mean?”, 2014, available at: http://bit.ly/1dBoCd2.
288 Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux, Decision No 16BX01854, 2 November 2016.
289 See also UNHCR, L’expérience des centres d’accueil en France, October 2017, available in French at:
http://bit.ly/2itnWP4.
290 Article L.213-2 Ceseda.
74 In addition, as the telephone in certain waiting zones is not free of charge, contact with NGOs or even UNHCR is not easy. Several decisions by the Courts of Appeal have highlighted the irregularity of the procedure for administrative detention in a waiting zone, due to the restrictions placed on exercising the right to communicate with a lawyer or any person of one's choice.291 The fact that asylum seekers may have no financial means of purchasing a phone card is therefore a restriction on this fundamental right.
2. Access to NGOs and UNHCR
Access of NGOs to asylum seekers is described in the section on Access to Detention Facilities.
I. Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure
Indicators: Treatment of Specific Nationalities
1. Are applications from specific nationalities considered manifestly well-founded? Yes No
If yes, specify which:
2. Are applications from specific nationalities considered manifestly unfounded?292 Yes No
If yes, specify which: Albania, Armenia, Benin, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Georgia, Ghana, India, FYROM, Kosovo, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Senegal, Serbia
There is no explicit policy of considering specific nationalities as manifestly well-founded. At most, we observe that some nationalities obtain higher rates of protection than the average rate (Saudi Arabia 100%, Syria 97.3%, Burundi 93.9%, Yemen 93.8%, Koweit 91.7%, Afghanistan 80.9% at OFPRA level in 2016).293 This has continued into 2017 for nationalities such as Syria (95.2%) and Afghanistan (83.1%) at OFPRA level.294
Asylum seekers that are nationals of countries listed as safe are dealt with most of the time under an accelerated procedure (see section on Safe Country of Origin). However, protection rates for such nationalities are not extremely low. For example, in 2016, asylum seekers from Kosovo had a rate of 10.4% at OFPRA and 12.4% at CNDA level, while asylum seekers from Albania had 11.4% at OFPRA and 9.8% at CNDA.295 In 2017, however, OFPRA granted protection only to 6.5% of Albanians, who were the top nationality of applicants in France.296 Similarly before the CNDA, where Albanians were also the top nationality of appellants, protection was granted to 8.9% of cases.297
291 Article L.221-4 Ceseda.
292 Whether under the “safe country of origin” concept or otherwise.
293 OFPRA, 2016 Activity report, 113-114.
294 OFPRA, ‘Les données de l’asile 2017 à l’OFPRA, 8 January 2018, available at: http://bit.ly/2EVQB5y.
295 OFPRA, 2016 Activity report, 113-114.
296 OFPRA, ‘Les données de l’asile 2017 à l’OFPRA, 8 January 2018, available at: http://bit.ly/2EVQB5y.
297 CNDA, 2017 Activity report, 41.