DOCSLIB.ORG

Country Report: France

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Country Report: France Country Report: France 2020 Update 2020 Update Acknowledgements & Methodology The 2020 update of this report was written by Laurent Delbos and Claire Tripier at Forum réfugiés – Cosi and edited by ECRE. Forum réfugiés-Cosi wishes to thank all those individuals and organisations who shared their expertise to contribute or check the information gathered during the research. Particular thanks are owed to many Forum réfugiés-Cosi colleagues who have shared their practical experience on the right of asylum in France – which have been key to feed concrete reality-checks and observations into this report; to the two lawyers who have taken the time to share their views on the French system; to the staff of France terre d’asile, the Anafé and the UNHCR Paris office for their expert and constructive feedback provided for the initial report and finally to ECRE for its support throughout the drafting process. Forum réfugiés- Cosi would also like to thank the European Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF) for co-financing its awareness-raising missions which allowed us to provide additional time to research and draft this report. The findings presented in this report stem from background desk research, interviews with field practitioners and lawyers, as well as feedback from French NGOs and the Paris-based UNHCR office and finally statistics shared by the French authorities. Caveat: In France, asylum policies – including reception procedures – are largely under prefectural execution. This review of practice is mostly based on observations in the departments of Ile de France, Rhône, Puy-de-Dôme, Haute- Garonne and Alpes-Maritimes. However, the conclusions presented in this report on the concrete implementation of asylum policies have been cross-checked and triangulated with observations of these practices in other regions and are supported by findings presented in other reports – be they official or drafted by civil society organisations. The information in this report is up-to-date as of 31 December 2020, unless otherwise stated. 2 Table of Contents Glossary & List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................... 6 Statistics ................................................................................................................................ 9 Overview of the legal framework .........................................................................................12 Overview of the main changes since the previous report update .....................................17 Asylum Procedure ................................................................................................................20 A. General ........................................................................................................................................ 20 1. Flow chart ................................................................................................................................. 20 3. List of the authorities intervening in each stage of the procedure ........................................... 21 4. Number of staff and nature of the determining authority ......................................................... 21 5. Short overview of the asylum procedure .................................................................................. 23 B. Access to the procedure and registration ............................................................................... 25 1. Access to the territory and push backs .................................................................................... 25 2. Registration of the asylum application ..................................................................................... 31 C. Procedures.................................................................................................................................. 36 1. Regular procedure ................................................................................................................... 36 2. Dublin ....................................................................................................................................... 49 3. Admissibility procedure ............................................................................................................ 59 4. Border procedure (border and transit zones) ........................................................................... 61 5. Accelerated procedure ............................................................................................................. 72 D. Guarantees for vulnerable groups ........................................................................................... 75 1. Identification ............................................................................................................................. 75 2. Special procedural guarantees ................................................................................................ 80 3. Use of medical reports ............................................................................................................. 83 4. Legal representation of unaccompanied children .................................................................... 84 E. Subsequent applications ........................................................................................................... 86 F. The safe country concepts ........................................................................................................ 88 1. First country of asylum ............................................................................................................. 88 2. Safe country of origin ............................................................................................................... 88 G. Information for asylum seekers and access to NGOs and UNHCR ...................................... 91 1. Provision of information on the procedure ............................................................................... 91 2. Access to NGOs and UNHCR.................................................................................................. 93 H. Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure........................................... 93 3 Reception Conditions ...........................................................................................................95 A. Access and forms of reception conditions ............................................................................. 96 1. Criteria and restrictions to access reception conditions ............................................................... 96 2. Forms and levels of material reception conditions ................................................................... 97 3. Reduction or withdrawal of reception conditions...................................................................... 99 4. Freedom of movement ........................................................................................................... 100 B. Housing ..................................................................................................................................... 101 1. Types of accommodation ....................................................................................................... 101 2. Conditions in reception facilities ............................................................................................. 107 C. Employment and education .................................................................................................... 109 1. Access to the labour market ...................................................................................................... 109 2. Access to education ................................................................................................................... 110 D. Health care ................................................................................................................................ 111 E. Special reception needs of vulnerable groups ..................................................................... 112 F. Information for asylum seekers and access to reception centres...................................... 115 1. Provision of information on reception ..................................................................................... 115 2. Access to reception centres by third parties .......................................................................... 116 Detention of Asylum Seekers ............................................................................................ 117 A. General ...................................................................................................................................... 117 B. Legal framework of detention ................................................................................................. 119 1. Grounds for detention ............................................................................................................ 119 2. Alternatives to detention ......................................................................................................... 121 3. Detention of vulnerable applicants ......................................................................................... 122 4. Duration of detention .............................................................................................................. 124 C. Detention conditions ..............................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eurodac -2020 Annual Statistics* Factsheet.March 2021
    EURODAC - 2020 ANNUAL STATISTICS* FACTSHEET. MARCH 2021 The European Dactyloscopy Database (Eurodac) helps Member States to determine the country responsible for the assessment of an asylum application lodged within an EU member or a Schengen Associated country, by enabling fingerprint comparison. Depending on the purpose of the fingerprints sets transmitted (the type of category), those are stored and/or searched against other fingerprints sets already present in the Eurodac. In 2020, 644,926 sets of fingerprints were transmitted to the Eurodac Central System. The use of Eurodac dropped by 30% compared to 2019, as a direct consequence of the reduction of border checks and travel restrictions imposed all over Europe due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 401,590 fingerprint sets were 82,295 fingerprint sets were transmitted for Category 1 transmitted for Category 2 (irregular (asylum applicant). crossing of external borders). 160,843 searches for Category 3 208 searches for categories 4 & 5 were (checks within Member States` performed (by Member States law territory), were performed. enforcement authorities and Europol). eu-LISA is responsible for ensuring the uninterrupted exchange of data between national authorities 24/7. The Agency provides effective support to Member States in their application of the Dublin Regulation. In addition to the system’s operational management, it is also in charge of Eurodac further developments. 10.2857/28779 2,000,000 20000 • DOI: Trend in the traffic of the main Eurodac 1,600,000 15000 0758 categories 2014-2020 - 1,200,000 2467 After a clear visible peak of Category 1 (asylum 10000 800,000 • ISSN seeker) and Category 2 (irregular crossings) in 4 5000 - Categories 4 & 5 data Categories 2015 and 2016, figures have significantly 400,000 90 - decreased as from 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Fertility and Modernity*
    Fertility and Modernity Enrico Spolaore Romain Wacziarg Tufts University and NBER UCLA and NBER May 2021 Abstract We investigate the determinants of the fertility decline in Europe from 1830 to 1970 using a newly constructed dataset of linguistic distances between European regions. We …nd that the fertility decline resulted from a gradual di¤usion of new fertility behavior from French-speaking regions to the rest of Europe. We observe that societies with higher education, lower infant mortality, higher urbanization, and higher population density had lower levels of fertility during the 19th and early 20th century. However, the fertility decline took place earlier and was initially larger in communities that were culturally closer to the French, while the fertility transition spread only later to societies that were more distant from the cultural frontier. This is consistent with a process of social in‡uence, whereby societies that were linguistically and culturally closer to the French faced lower barriers to learning new information and adopting new behavior and attitudes regarding fertility control. Spolaore: Department of Economics, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155-6722, [email protected]. Wacziarg: UCLA Anderson School of Management, 110 Westwood Plaza, Los Angeles CA 90095, [email protected]. We thank Quamrul Ashraf, Guillaume Blanc, John Brown, Matteo Cervellati, David De La Croix, Gilles Duranton, Alan Fernihough, Raphael Franck, Oded Galor, Raphael Godefroy, Michael Huberman, Yannis Ioannides, Noel Johnson, David Le Bris, Monica Martinez-Bravo, Jacques Melitz, Deborah Menegotto, Omer Moav, Luigi Pascali, Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, Nico Voigtländer, Joachim Voth, Susan Watkins, David Yanagizawa-Drott as well as participants at numerous seminars and conferences for useful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • The Carolingian Past in Post-Carolingian Europe Simon Maclean
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by St Andrews Research Repository 1 The Carolingian Past in Post-Carolingian Europe Simon MacLean On 28 January 893, a 13-year-old known to posterity as Charles III “the Simple” (or “Straightforward”) was crowned king of West Francia at the great cathedral of Rheims. Charles was a great-great-grandson in the direct male line of the emperor Charlemagne andclung tightly to his Carolingian heritage throughout his life.1 Indeed, 28 January was chosen for the coronation precisely because it was the anniversary of his great ancestor’s death in 814. However, the coronation, for all its pointed symbolism, was not a simple continuation of his family’s long-standing hegemony – it was an act of rebellion. Five years earlier, in 888, a dearth of viable successors to the emperor Charles the Fat had shattered the monopoly on royal authority which the Carolingian dynasty had claimed since 751. The succession crisis resolved itself via the appearance in all of the Frankish kingdoms of kings from outside the family’s male line (and in some cases from outside the family altogether) including, in West Francia, the erstwhile count of Paris Odo – and while Charles’s family would again hold royal status for a substantial part of the tenth century, in the long run it was Odo’s, the Capetians, which prevailed. Charles the Simple, then, was a man displaced in time: a Carolingian marooned in a post-Carolingian political world where belonging to the dynasty of Charlemagne had lost its hegemonic significance , however loudly it was proclaimed.2 His dilemma represents a peculiar syndrome of the tenth century and stands as a symbol for the theme of this article, which asks how members of the tenth-century ruling class perceived their relationship to the Carolingian past.
    [Show full text]
  • (I.) Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and The
    (I.) MEČISLAV BORÁK (Czech Republic) The main features of occupation policy in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the rest of Protectorate of the Czech Lands Bohemia and When Nazi German troops occupied the interior of the Czech Lands in March 1939, the invasion marked the beginning of over six years of occupation which would last until the final days of the Second World War in Europe. On Moravia and the basis of a decree issued by Hitler, the occupying authorities established an entity named the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia; however, despite its proclaimed autonomy, the Protectorate was in fact entirely controlled by the post-war the German Reich, and the Reich’s actions proved decisive for the fate of the Czech nation. When researching this period, however, we should not neglect the fact that there were other parts of the Czech Lands which lay outside development of the the Protectorate throughout the war, as the Nazis had seized them from Czechoslovakia in the autumn of 1938, before the invasion of what remained of the country. This seizure was a consequence of the Munich Agreement, State – historical which enabled Nazi Germany to annex the border areas in the historical provinces of Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia; the Agreement was forced upon the Czechoslovak Republic, and ultimately led to the state’s disintegration overview and demise. In September 1939 the Polish-occupied part of Těšín (Teschen/ Cieszyn) Silesia were taken by Germany; from this point on, the entire territory of the Czech Lands (both the border regions and the interior) came under the direct control of the Third Reich.
    [Show full text]
  • Why the Common European Asylum System Is a Breach of Justice and Why a Third Phase of Amendments Is Required
    LUCK OF THE DRAW FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS IN EUROPE: WHY THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM IS A BREACH OF JUSTICE AND WHY A THIRD PHASE OF AMENDMENTS IS REQUIRED INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 393 I. THE SECOND PHASE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM DIRECTIVES ................................................................................. 396 A. The Asylum Procedures Directive ................................................... 396 B. The Reception Conditions Directive ................................................ 397 C. The Qualification Directive ............................................................. 399 D. The Dublin III Regulation ............................................................... 401 II. A WARRANTED CRITIQUE OF THE COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM DIRECTIVES ................................................................................. 403 A. The Asylum Procedures Directive: A Critique ................................ 403 B. The Reception Conditions Directive: A Critique ............................. 406 C. The Qualification Directive: A Critique .......................................... 409 D. The Dublin III Regulation: A Critique ............................................ 412 III. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A THIRD PHASE OF COMMON EUROPEAN ASYLUM SYSTEM AMENDMENTS .............................................................. 415 A. Recommendation One: Regulations, Not Directives ....................... 415 B. Recommendation Two: Proposed
    [Show full text]
  • FICHA PAÍS Francia República Francesa
    OFICINA DE INFORMACIÓN DIPLOMÁTICA FICHA PAÍS Francia República Francesa La Oficina de Información Diplomática del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación pone a disposición de los profesionales de los medios de comunicación y del público en general la presente ficha país. La información contenida en esta ficha país es pública y se ha extraído de diversos medios, no defendiendo posición política alguna ni de este Ministerio ni del Gobierno de España respecto del país sobre el que versa. ABRIL 2021 Moneda: euro=100 céntimos Francia Religión: La religión mayoritaria es la católica, seguida del islam. Otras re- ligiones (judaísmo, protestantismo, budismo) también están representadas, aunque en menor medida. Forma de Estado: República presidencialista, al frente de la cual está el REINO UNIDO presidente de la República, que ejerce el Poder Ejecutivo y es elegido por BÉLGICA Lille sufragio universal directo por un período de cinco años (sistema electoral a Canal de la Mancha doble vuelta). Sus poderes son muy amplios, y entre ellos se encuentra la Amiens facultad de nombrar al Primer Ministro, disolver el Parlamento y concentrar Rouen ALEMANIA Caen Metz la totalidad de los poderes en su persona en caso de crisis. El Primer Ministro PARIS Chalons-en- Champagne es el Jefe del Gobierno y debe contar con la mayoría del Parlamento; su poder Strasbourg Rennes político está muy limitado por las prerrogativas presidenciales. Orléans División administrativa: Francia se divide en 13 regiones metropolitanas, 2 regiones de ultramar y 3 colectividades únicas de ultramar, con un total de Nantes Dijon Besancon SUIZA 101 departamentos (96 metropolitanos y 5 de ultramar).
    [Show full text]
  • The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
    Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada.
    [Show full text]
  • Refugees and Social Integration in Europe
    1 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Division for Social Policy and Development United Nations Expert Group Meeting New York 15 – 16 May 2018 Refugees and Social Integration in Europe Mihaela Robila, Ph.D., CFLE Professor Human Development and Family Studies Queens College, City University of New York 2 Refugees and Social Integration in Europe 1. Introduction Refugees’ social integration in the host society is high on the international agenda. Refugees’ social integration is also in line with the Sustainable Development Goal 16 which is “Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all level”, particularly target 16.10 which focuses on “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements” (https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16 ). The goal of this paper is to examine refugees’ social integration in Europe, with a focus on their psychosocial and family functioning, and modalities to support it. Refugees’ integration is a complex and multidimensional construct, referring to integration into the economic, educational, health, and social contexts. There were 22.5 million refugees worldwide in 2017, over half of them under 18 years of age (UNCHR, 2018). More than half of refugees are from three countries: Syria (5.5. million), Afganistan (2.5 million) and South Sudan (1.4 million), and the major host countries for refugees are: Turkey (2.9 mil), Pakistan (1.4 mil), Lebanon (1 mil), Iran (979,400 people) (UNCHR, 2018). The 1951 Geneva Convention defined as refugee someone who has a “fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ockham's Razor Applied to COVID-19 Model Fitting French Data
    The Ockham’s razor applied to COVID-19 model fitting French data Mirko Fiacchini, Mazen Alamir To cite this version: Mirko Fiacchini, Mazen Alamir. The Ockham’s razor applied to COVID-19 model fitting French data. Annual Reviews in Control, Elsevier, 2021, 51, pp.500-510. 10.1016/j.arcontrol.2021.01.002. hal-03014669v2 HAL Id: hal-03014669 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03014669v2 Submitted on 11 Jan 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. The Ockham’s razor applied to COVID-19 model fitting French data Mirko Fiacchini and Mazen Alamira aUniv. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, GIPSA-lab, 38000 Grenoble, France. {mirko.fiacchini, mazen@alamir}@gipsa-lab.fr Abstract This paper presents a data-based simple model for fitting the available data of the Covid-19 pandemic evolution in France. The time series concerning the 13 regions of mainland France have been considered for fitting and validating the model. An extremely simple, two-dimensional model with only two parameters demonstrated to be able to reproduce the time series concerning the number of daily demises caused by Covid-19, the hospitalizations, intensive care and emer- gency accesses, the daily number of positive tests and other indicators, for the different French regions.
    [Show full text]
  • Direction Départementale Des Territoires De L'essonne Septembre
    Les missions de la direction Direction départementale départementale des territoires (DDT) des territoires de l’Essonne Sous l'autorité du Préfet de l'Essonne, la DDT met en œuvre les politiques des ministères de la transition écologique et solidaire, de la cohésion des territoires et de l'agriculture. La DDT accompagne les collectivités dans l'élaboration DDT de l'ESSONNE de leur document de planification Boulevard de France 91012 ÉVRY-COURCOURONNES et dans tous leurs projets d'aménagement, Fax : 01 69 91 13 99 de logement et de renouvellement urbain. [email protected] En matière de droit des sols, la DDT conseille les collectivités et calcule les redevances. Elle instruit les permis de construire de compétence État. Elle contribue aux politiques d'accessibilité et de construction durable. Étampes La DDT met en œuvre les aides de l'État pour les logements sociaux, les aides de l'agence nationale pour la rénovation urbaine (ANRU), ainsi que les aides de l'agence nationale de l'habitat (ANAH) pour l'amélioration DRIEA/GAUTHIER du parc privé. La DDT promeut le développement durable des territoires, dans le respect des espaces naturels et agricoles. Elle concourt à la prévention des risques, anime la mission inter-services de l'eau et de la nature (MISEN), Boulevard de France veille à la protection des espèces et assure le suivi Accès de 9h00 à 16h00 : de la chasse. ● En transport en commun : 91012 ÉVRY-COURCOURONNES Cedex RER D (Paris-Malesherbes, Paris-Melun via Corbeil), gare d’Évry-Courcouronnes, sortie Cours Blaise Pascal (33 minutes depuis Paris gare de Lyon + 10 minutes de Tél.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Care Medicine in the French Territories in the Americas
    01 Pan American Journal Opinion and analysis of Public Health 02 03 04 05 06 Critical care medicine in the French Territories in 07 08 the Americas: Current situation and prospects 09 10 11 1 2 1 1 1 Hatem Kallel , Dabor Resiere , Stéphanie Houcke , Didier Hommel , Jean Marc Pujo , 12 Frederic Martino3, Michel Carles3, and Hossein Mehdaoui2; Antilles-Guyane Association of 13 14 Critical Care Medicine 15 16 17 18 Suggested citation Kallel H, Resiere D, Houcke S, Hommel D, Pujo JM, Martino F, et al. Critical care medicine in the French Territories in the 19 Americas: current situation and prospects. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45:e46. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2021.46 20 21 22 23 ABSTRACT Hospitals in the French Territories in the Americas (FTA) work according to international and French stan- 24 dards. This paper aims to describe different aspects of critical care in the FTA. For this, we reviewed official 25 information about population size and intensive care unit (ICU) bed capacity in the FTA and literature on FTA ICU specificities. Persons living in or visiting the FTA are exposed to specific risks, mainly severe road traffic 26 injuries, envenoming, stab or ballistic wounds, and emergent tropical infectious diseases. These diseases may 27 require specific knowledge and critical care management. However, there are not enough ICU beds in the FTA. 28 Indeed, there are 7.2 ICU beds/100 000 population in Guadeloupe, 7.2 in Martinique, and 4.5 in French Gui- 29 ana. In addition, seriously ill patients in remote areas regularly have to be transferred, most often by helicopter, 30 resulting in a delay in admission to intensive care.
    [Show full text]
  • The Safe Third Country Agreement, Irregular Migration
    The Safe Third Country Agreement, Irregular Migration and Refugee Rights: A Canadian Policy Challenge Zainab Abu Alrob (PhD Candidate, Policy Studies, Ryerson University) & John Shields (Professor, Ryerson University) March 2020 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS CBSA: Canada Border Services Agency IHAP: Interim Housing Assistance Program IRB: Immigration and Refugee Board (Canada) IRCC: Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada IRPA: Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (Canada) LAO: Legal Aid Ontario PRAIDA: Programme Régional D'accueil et D'intégration des Demandeurs A'asile RCMP: Royal Canadian Mounted Police RPD: Refugee Protection Division (Canada) STCA: Safe Third Country Agreement (Canada-U.S.) 2 Executive Summary This paper examines current policy developments surrounding the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA). In 2017, large surges in irregular arrivals crossed Canadian border at points where the Agreement does not apply. This spurred political debates around a so-called “loophole” and the charge that asylum seekers were taking advantage of unauthorized crossings. Efforts to re-claim migration control have triggered more restrictive asylum policies and a colder climate towards refugees in Canada. Amendments to modernize STCA, budget cuts to the services available to refugees as well as a heavy investment into a more “effective” border strategy were presented by the Canadian government as viable solutions to mitigating the implications caused by the large volume of asylum claims and perceived threats to the resilience of the Canadian immigration system. Currently, there is an ongoing legal challenge against the legality of the Safe Third Country Agreement at the Federal Court of Canada. An exploration of the historical policy challenges to the Canada-U.S.
    [Show full text]