Statewatch News Online: France: UN Committee Against Torture suspends deportation of Somali woman
28 March 2012
Support our work: become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
France 
UN Committee Against Torture suspends deportation of Somali woman
On 3 July 2011,
French authorities decided to remove a Somali woman whose asylum
claim had been rejected less than 24 hours after her arrival.
The French support organisation to foreigners at the borders
(Anafé - Association nationale d'aide aux étrangers
aux frontières) claims this woman was at risk of persecution
and that her removal would amount to "refoulement".
On 11 July 2012, the UN Committee Against Torture upheld the
Anafé's opinion and urged France not to deport the claimant.
Asylum claim at the border in France: an exceptional regime
Transit zones (zones d'attente) were created in France in 1992
and are limited to the area between "embarkation and disembarkation
points and checking points". Since June 2011, the geographical
scope was widened to any place where a group of at least ten
foreigners have disembarked irregularly on the French territory.
People held in transit zone who claim asylum have their request
assessed within 96 hours by the Ministry of Interior which decides
if the person can enter French territory and lodge a formal application
at the national asylum office, the OFPRA. Until 2007, people
who were denied entry in France for the purpose of claiming asylum
could appeal this decision but the appeal had no suspensive effect
and the person could be removed before the full examination of
the appeal.
In April 2007, the European Court of Human Rights condemned France
as it failed to guarantee asylum-seekers the right to an "effective
remedy" pursuant to Article 13 of the European Convention
on Human Rights, and asked France to ensure that appeals lodged
by asylum-seekers in transit zones have a suspensive effect.
[1]
Yet, French authorities adopted a minimalist approach to the
ECHR's ruling: sine the 2007 immigration law reform asylum-seekers
have only 48 hours to lodge an appeal challenging the refusal
to enter the territory. The appeal has now a suspensive effect
until the judge makes his/her decision within the next 72 hours
(Article L. 213-9). A negative decision by the judge can still
be appeal at the administrative appeal court within 15 days but
will have no suspensive effect. [2]
This minimalist approach was deemed "restrictive" by
the Anafé as it makes it very difficult for asylum-seekers
to substantiate their appeal. Besides, access to a lawyer for
foreigners denied entry on the French territory in transit zones
is not guaranteed, contrary to what is claimed by the authorities
(see condemnation of the Ministry of Interior by the Bobigny
administrative court on 4 January 2012).[3]
Moreover, it is very difficult for "rejected" asylum-seekers
to be aware of the reasons for the rejection of their claim.
Indeed, pursuant to a bylaw from January 2012, asylum-seekers
in transit zones are only informed, when the judge makes his/her
decision, about whether the appeal was successful or not. The
reasons for this decision are given a few days later, provided
the person has not been removed. [4]
Decision of the United Nations Committee Against Torture
Miss A., a Somali national, applied for asylum upon arrival at
Roissy airport on 3 July. Her claim was deemed manifestly unfounded
and her access to the territory denied in less than 24 hours.
Although no interpreter in Somali language was available, she
managed to lodge an appeal with the Anafé's support, which
was rejected by the administrative court on 7 July. Miss A. could,
at this stage, be legally removed.
As a last resort, the Anafé contacted the UN Committee
Against Torture on 9 July 2012, as Miss A. belonged to a minority
ethnic group and from a region in Somalia where civilian are
facing high risk of indiscriminate violence, cases to which subsidiary
protection should apply. [5] According to the UNHCR in March
2012:
"The widespread disregard of their obligations under
international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict
and the reported scale of human rights violations make it clear
that any person returned to southern and central Somalia would,
solely on account of his/her presence in southern and central
Somalia, face a real risk of serious harm".[6]
On 11 July, the Committee Against Torture asked France not to
remove Miss A. pending the examination of her asylum claim.[7]
Miss A. was eventually admitted on French territory where she
will claim asylum.
Sources
[1] ECHR (2007) CASE
OF GEBREMEDHIN [GABERAMADHIEN] v. FRANCE, Application
no. 25389/05, 26 April 2007
[2] Anafé (2008) Le
droit à un recours effectif aux frontières françaises:
l'arrêt " Gebremedhin " et ses suites en France
[3] Anafé (2012) Quand
le Ministère de l'Intérieur obéit à
"l'impérieuse nécessité de l'emmerdement
maximum"… la justice intervient!
[4] Bylaw n° 2012-89 by the French government adopted, 25
janvier 2012, on judgments by the National Court on Asylum Law
and on proceedings challenging removal orders and refusals to
enter French territory for the purpose of asylum
[5] Anafé (2012)
ZONE D'ATTENTE DE l'AÉROPORT DE ROISSY: LA FRANCE NE DOIT
PAS REFOULER UNE DEMANDEUSE D'ASILE VERS LA SOMALIE
[6] UNHCR (2012) Addendum
to 2010 UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International
Protection Needs of Asylum-Seekers from Somalia, relating specifically
to the city of Galkacyo
[7] Anafé (2012) ZONE
D'ATTENTE DE l'AÉROPORT DE ROISSY: LA FRANCE EMPECHEE
DE REFOULER UNE DEMANDEUSE D'ASILE VERS LA SOMALIE
Statewatch News online | Join Statewatch news e-mail list | Download a free sample issue of Statewatch Journal
© Statewatch ISSN 1756-851X. Personal usage as private individuals/"fair dealing" is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (eg: Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.
Our work is only possible with your support.
Become a Friend of Statewatch from as little as £1/€1 per month.
Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.