Dublin statistics: 2021
Detailed statistics on the application of the Dublin Regulation are not made available by the authorities prior to their publication on the Eurostat database. However, some data has been shared at the beginning of 2021. In 2021, 30,223 outgoing Dublin requests have been made by French authorities, compared to 30,963in 2020 (it differs from Eurostat data which indicates 30,054 outgoing requests). At the end of 2021, 23,682 of them were still in a Dublin procedure and 6,541 persons were re-channelled from a Dublin procedure to a regular or accelerated procedure (requalifiés). As regards the actual implementation of transfers in 2021, no detailed statistics were available at the time of writing of this report.
During COVID-19, no specific measures have been taken by the authorities with regard to the Dublin procedure and Dublin transfers were only suspended to countries which did not accept Dublin returnees. Thus, the authorities continued to process applications for international protection under the Dublin III Regulation and to issue requests accordingly during the pandemic. Persons who were falling under the Dublin procedure prior to the closure of the GUDAs continued to check in regularly if they were not under house arrest, or continued to be detained pending their Dublin transfer.
Application of the Dublin criteria
The Dublin procedure is applied to all asylum seekers without exception, as per the Regulation. The Ministry of Interior issued an instruction on 19 July 2016, recalling to all Prefectures that “in the current migration context, no asylum application should be registered as France’s responsibility without prior verification whether France is in fact the responsible country.”The need to strictly apply the Dublin Regulation in response to important secondary movements was recalled by the Ministry in a circular of 23 March 2018.
The official policy of the French Dublin Unit is that it does not transfer unaccompanied children under the Dublin Regulation. Unaccompanied children can however be placed under a Dublin procedure by Prefectures if their claim is not processed before they reach the age of 18 or if they are deemed as adults after age assessment.
In practice, the elements taken into account to determine the Member State responsible can vary from one Prefecture to another but it has been observed that the taking of fingerprints (and therefore the identification of another responsible State) always takes precedence over the application of the other criteria. Practice was expected to evolve with the implementation of the 2015 reform of the law on asylum as the Circular of 2 November 2015 stated that “in case another Member State would be responsible for processing the asylum claim, the Prefecture conduct the interview with the asylum seeker in order to establish his or her conditions of entry, his or her itinerary and potential family ties in another Member State.” The instruction of 19 July 2016 also reiterates that the presence of family members must always be inquired, even in the case of a Eurodac ‘hit’. In practice, the taking of fingerprints still remains decisive in the determination of the State responsible for processing the asylum claim and family ties are not really examined during the Dublin interview.
The dependent persons and discretionary clauses
It is difficult to know how the discretionary clauses are applied, as recent information and data is missing on the matter. Nevertheless, a 2017 order of the Council of State illustrates the use of the sovereignty clause in cases where a child with health conditions may encounter risks upon transfer to another country.In practice, it is possible to ask the Prefecture to be channelled from a Dublin procedure to a regular or accelerated procedure(“requalification”) especially for vulnerable people, and the discretionary clause seems to be often applied for these situations in some districts. However, there is not data available on this issue.
The Dublin procedure is not carried out by the OFPRA but by a separate entity – the Prefectures – in accordance with the recast Asylum Procedures Directive.The deadline of 3 months for Prefectures to issue an outgoing Dublin request starts running from the moment the applicant makes an application at the orientation platform (PADA) rather than the date of registration of the application at the “single desk”, as confirmed by the Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux in application of the Court of the Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruling in Mengesteab.
In practice, according to a sample analysed by La Cimade in 2018, a Dublin request is sent by the Prefectures to other countries within 21 days on average. This can range from requests sent on the day of registration of the claim at the GUDA, to requests sent after 91 days. No data was made available since 2018, however.
When they go to the Prefecture to register as asylum seekers at the GUDA, all applicants are given an information leaflet explaining, among others, the Dublin procedure; Leaflet A, produced by the EU and translated into several languages. They also receive the general guide for asylum seekers, also translated into several languages, and a form to notify their intention to introduce an asylum claim (see section on Registration). In practice, many asylum seekers do not seem to be really informed of the details of the procedure after their interview.
During the application process, the officers in Prefectures are requested to take fingerprints for each and every asylum seeker above 14 years old and they have a duty to check these fingerprints in the Eurodac database. An exception is made for asylum seekers whose fingerprints are unfit for identification i.e. unreadable. In this case, asylum seekers will be summoned again and their claim will be channelled into the accelerated procedure if their fingerprints are still unfit for identification,with the exception of certain cases such as asylum seekers who are seriously ill. The asylum claim cannot be fully registered without the fingerprints have been taken and checked in Eurodac. Therefore, the asylum claim certification is only delivered once all information, including fingerprints, has been registered.
Asylum seekers receive an asylum claim certification specifying the procedure under which they have been placed, for instance the Dublin procedure. This asylum claim certification allows asylum seekers placed under Dublin to remain legally on the French territory during the entire procedure for the determination of the responsible State.
Once a claim is channelled under the Dublin procedure, the applicant receives a second information leaflet on the Dublin procedure (Leaflet B, produced by the EU and translated into several languages) and a Dublin notice document (convocation Dublin) issued by the Prefecture.
The presence of an interpreter at that stage is not guaranteed and practice varies widely depending on the Prefecture. The applicant must go to the Prefecture every month with his or her Dublin notice document.
Usually, the applicant is informed that a take back or a take charge procedure has been initiated through the information written at the back of his Dublin notice document. However, there is not necessarily information either about the country which was contacted or on the criteria leading to this referral. Moreover, the asylum seeker is not necessarily informed about the date when the country determined to be responsible for his or her application is contacted and sometimes does not know the date of the requested Member State’s reply either. Asylum seekers under the Dublin procedure are formally informed about these dates through the notification of readmission order letter delivered to them once the decision to “take charge” or “take back” has been made.
In 2018, the Ministry on Interior has implemented a regionalisation plan for the Dublin procedure whereby the Dublin procedure is carried out by one Prefecture (pôle régional) per region, with a view to ensuring higher convergence across the French territory. This plan was consolidated in 2019. According to this plan, only one Prefecture per region is now responsible for the implementation of the Dublin procedure for the applications registered in its respective region. Following a pilot phase tested in the regions of Hauts de France and Provences-Alpes-Côte d’Azur,the following Prefectures have been designated as regional focal points (pôles régionaux):
|Regional focal points for the Dublin procedure: 2021|
|Centre-Val de Loire||Orleans|
|Ile-de-France – Essonne||Evry|
|Ile-de-France – Hauts-de-Seine||Nanterre|
|Île-de-France – Paris||Paris|
|Ile-de-France – Seine et Marne||Melun|
|Ile-de-France – Seine Saint Denis||Bobigny|
|Ile-de-France – Val de Marne||Créteil|
|Ile-de-France – Val d’Oise||Cergy-Pontoise|
|Ile-de-France – Yvelines||Versailles|
|Pays de la Loire||Angers|
Whereas the registration of applications is still carried out by all GUDA, all administrative formalities related to the Dublin procedure are conducted by only one Prefecture in each region.
As a result of the regionalisation plan, the Ministry of Interior has advised that reception accommodation should be provided close to the competent Prefecture: asylum seekers should be accommodated in places located close to that Prefecture or, if not yet accommodated, they should register with a PADA near the Prefecture. In some regions, a regional scheme regarding accommodation has been established. In Auvergne-Rhône Alpesfor example, this scheme (which is not published) nominates certain PADA and accommodation centres near Lyon, to which all asylum seekers of the region falling under the Dublin procedure must be oriented.
The regionalisation plan creates difficulties for asylum seekers who have no means of travelling to the competent Prefecture after receiving a Dublin notice document, as missing an appointment led to reception being withdrawn and applicants becoming exposed to destitution. The Council of State clarified, however, that where the applicant is required to travel from his or her place of residence to appear before the pôle régional, the transport costs have to be borne by the Prefecture. However, problems persisted throughout 2021 as transport vouchers were sometimes delivered too late. As a result, asylum seekers were not always able to attend their appointment.
Detention and house arrest during the procedure
The law provides the possibility of notifying a house arrest (assignation à résidence) to asylum seekers during the procedure of determination of the responsible Member State(see Alternatives to Detention). Since 20 March 2018, detention can also be ordered at that point (see Grounds for Detention).
In practice, the use of this possibility varies a lot depending on the Prefecture. The possibility to detain asylum seekers from the beginning of the Dublin procedure seems to have been used a few hundred times in 2019. In 2021, NGOs providing legal assistance in detention centre have reported 517 cases.
In 2021, individualised guarantees were still not requested by Prefectures prior to ordering a Dublin transfer, even though Tarakhel v. Switzerland foresees that States have to check what reception conditions and procedural provisions will be guaranteed to asylum seekers when returned to the determined responsible country. That should particularly be applied to vulnerable asylum seekers and families.
In 2020, the Administrative Court of Lyon suspended a Dublin transfer to Greece considering that the Prefecture had failed to take into consideration the observations made by the asylum seeker regarding his individual situation in the destination country.
Any transfer decision must be motivated and notified in writing to the applicant. It shall mention deadlines to appeal and explain the appeal procedure. When the person is not assisted by a lawyer or an NGO, the main elements of the decision have to be communicated in a language he or she understands or is likely to understand.
The period between the response of the requested country and the notification of a transfer decision varies considerably among Prefectures. According to La Cimade, it took an average of 73 days in 2018 for a decision to be notified, with some Prefectures issuing a decision in one day and others (Haute Garonne, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Val-d’Oise) taking 4-5 months. More recent information on the average times for the year 2021 was not available at the time of writing of this report.
With regard to the time limit for carrying out the transfer, the Council of State clarified in 2018 that the 6-month deadline under Article 29 of the Dublin Regulation is suspended if the asylum seeker appeals the transfer decision, and continues to run from the delivery of the Administrative Court judgment, regardless of its outcome and only once. This means that even if the Administrative Court annuls the transfer and the Prefect lodges an onward appeal, the 6-month deadline is not renewed.
When a Member State agrees to take charge of an asylum seeker, 3 transfer modalities are available:
- Voluntary transfer initiated by the applicant him or herself: a laissez-passer is provided as well as a meeting point in the host country;
- Enforced transfer: the applicant is accompanied by police forces up until the boarding of the plane; or
- Transfer under escort: the applicant is accompanied by police forces up until the transfer to the authorities of the responsible State.
The modalities put in place to arrange transfers can vary from one Prefecture to another.
Asylum seekers under the Dublin procedure who do not benefit from stable housing receive a first letter from the Prefecture, informing them of the transfer. If they don’t come to the Prefecture, they receive a second letter from the Prefecture informing them that the transfer deadline may be extended to 18 months. It is therefore only after 2 refusals to come to the Prefecture that the asylum seeker is considered as absconding. In practice, refusing to come once to an OFII appointment and then once to the Prefecture implies the same consequences.
The law enables the Prefect to place under house arrest, systematically, any asylum seeker subject to a transfer decision (see Alternatives to Detention). According to this measure, the asylum seeker has to respect the limitations defined by the house arrest order. In case the asylum seeker has not complied with the house arrest, he or she may be placed in administrative detention. The Prefect can also request the Judge of Freedoms and Detention (JLD) to make an order to require the assistance of the police to ensure of the presence of the asylum seekers at the place he or she is supposed to remain or to operate his or her transfer. Since an instruction of the Ministry of Interior of 20 November 2017, the use of these provisions increased in every Prefecture.
In practice, the notification of a house arrest is not made under the same conditions if the asylum seekers are accommodated or not. When the asylum seekers placed under Dublin procedure are not accommodated, house arrest is notified in person at the Prefecture. Asylum seekers accommodated are notified by the Border Police at the place they are housed.
In 2020, France had implemented 30,963 outgoing requests and 3,189 transfers, thereby marking a 10.3% transfer rate (compared to 11.9% in 2019). In the first semester of 2021, the Ministry of Interior indicated that 1,569transfers were carried out for 18,139 outgoing requests, equalling to a8.6% transfer rate.
In 2020, a total of around 16,640 asylum seekers were allowed to lodge applications with OFPRA after their Dublin procedure in France came to an end (requalifiés). Of those, 6,541 had been placed in a Dublin procedure in 2020 and around 10,100 in previous years.
Asylum seekers placed under the Dublin procedure do not benefit from an examination of their application for asylum by OFPRA and therefore they do not have a personal interview on the substance of their application for asylum in France in the framework of this procedure. The merit of their asylum claim will be examined if France is designated as the responsible State at the end of the process.
There is a specific interview in the Dublin procedure in France. Difficulties arise from the fact this interview is not always conducted in practice.The instruction of the Ministry of Interior of 19 July 2016 also recalls that interviews must be systematically conducted, not only limited to cases of a Eurodac ‘hit’.
Whether they are interviewed or not, all asylum seekers fill in a form during an appointment at the Prefecture to apply for the asylum claim certification. The form includes a part entitled “personal interview” which contains information enabling the Prefecture to determine the Member State responsible for protection, in conformity with Annex I of the Commission Implementing Regulation No 118/2014. During this appointment, which takes place at the GUDA in Prefectures (therefore not in offices guaranteeing confidentiality), questions are asked about civil status, relatives of the applicant, modes of entry into French territory, countries through which the applicant possibly travelled prior to his or her asylum application, etc. Applicants have the possibility to mention the presence of family members residing in another Member State. Some stakeholders have reported that no questions were asked about family members during the interview.
This part of the form is written in French and in English. It must be filled in by the applicant in French, during the appointment. Those appointments are not recorded. Most of the time, the asylum applicant receives a copy of the interview form.
Asylum seekers placed under the Dublin procedure can introduce an appeal before the Administrative Court to challenge the decision of transfer. The appeal has to be introduced within 15 days after the asylum seeker has been notified the decision of transfer. The appeal has suspensive effect. The designated judge has to rule within 15 days after the appeal has been lodged.
These time limits are shorter in case of detention or house arrest. In such cases, the appeal has to be introduced within 48 hours after the decision of transfer has been notified. The judge has to rule within 72 hours after the appeal has been lodged.
In practice, the shorter time limit for introducing an appeal might prevent asylum seekers who are not accompanied or who are accompanied in orientation platforms from introducing their appeal on time. There is a practice in several Prefectures(i.e. in Eure) tending to notify the transfer with a house arrest measure on a Friday, to avoid the possibility for the asylum seeker to find legal assistance during the weekend, and transfer him or her 48 hours later. In these frequent cases, there is de facto no effective appeal for those people.
This method was also used by Prefectures to circumvent the prohibition by the Court of Cassation on placing asylum seekers in detention for the purposes of performing a Dublin transfer due to the lack of a definition of the “significant risk of absconding” in national legislation (see Grounds for Detention), until this was introduced in March 2018.
Apart from cases where applicants under a Dublin procedure have access to reception facilities through the emergency scheme, usually they only have access to the legal assistance provided by the PADA.
Access to legal aid can be obtained upon conditions of low income. Applicants must request this allowance at the Legal Aid Office of the relevant Administrative Court. This office can ask for further information and a short account of the legal and de facto reasons why the asylum seeker thinks the contested decision is unlawful or unfounded and may, for instance, lead to a violation of his or her fundamental rights. Access to legal aid can be refused if the arguments are deemed unfounded.
Suspension of transfers
There is no current general policy of suspension of transfers. The official position of the Ministry of Interior consists of systematically applying the Dublin Regulation. In addition, the test applied by Administrative Courts and Administrative Courts of Appeal (erroneously) remains based on the notion of “systemic deficiencies”.
Hungary: On several occasions in 2016 and 2017, Administrative Courts have suspended the transfer of asylum seekers under the Dublin Regulation to Hungary.Case law remains inconsistent as of 2018, however, with some courts arguing that the asylum procedure and reception conditions present no systemic deficiencies in Hungary. As France maintains a policy of applying the Dublin Regulation systematically when there are indications of previous stay or application in Hungary, it continued to be one of the main Member State sending requests in 2021, although actual transfers have not been carried out at the time of writing.
Italy: Some Administrative Courts have suspended transfers to Italy on account of systemic deficiencies due to pressure on the reception system and the absence of vulnerability identification. Since 2018, several judgments of Administrative Courts have annulled transfer decisions based inter alia on the government’s decisions to forbid search and rescue boats from disembarking in Italian ports, its plans to cut funding for asylum seekers, its hostile discourse on migrants, and the increase in incidents of racist violence. Higher courts have expressed similar views in some cases. Nevertheless, these rulings have had no effect on policy vis-à-vis Italy until now.
Bulgaria: There have been decisions suspending transfers in 2018, taking into account allegations of police violence against asylum seekers in Bulgaria among other factors. In one case in July 2018, after the European Court of Human Rights granted interim measures under Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court to prevent a transfer to Bulgaria, the Administrative Court of Paris ruled against the transfer, the Council of State found on appeal that the conditions in Bulgaria did not warrant a suspension of the transfer. The Administrative Court of Appeal of Marseille has taken a similar line, arguing that there are no indications that Bulgaria would not offer treatment in compliance with asylum standards. In one case in December 2021, the Administrative Court of Rouen annulled a transfer in light of the systemic deficiencies in the country, especially for Afghans who face a recognition rate as low as 1%.
In some individual cases, Administrative Courts have prevented transfers on the basis of risks of chain refoulement after asylum seekers’ return to another Dublin State. This has notably been the case for Afghan nationals in particular, where courts have suspended Dublin transfers to different countries (Austria, Belgium, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Finland) on the ground that asylum seekers would face a risk of indirect refoulement on account of these countries’ tendency to return such persons to their countries of origin.In relation to Italy as well, the Administrative Court of Melun suspended the transfer of a Sudanese national in 2017 on the ground that he would face chain refoulement to Sudan if returned to Italy. However, the Council of State put an end to this type of case law in a decision of 28 May 2021 in which it indicates that protection is presumed in other EU countries and that it is up to the applicant to prove a possible violation of fundamental rights.
The situation of Dublin returnees
Concerning access to the asylum procedure upon return to France under the Dublin III Regulation, these applications are treated in the same way as any other asylum applications. If the asylum seeker comes from a safe country of origin, his or her application is examined under the accelerated procedure. If the asylum application has already received a final negative decision from the CNDA, the asylum seeker may apply to OFPRA for a re-examination only if he or she possesses new evidence (see section on Subsequent Applications).
The conditions of support and assistance of Dublin returnees are complicated. The humanitarian emergency reception centre (Permanence d’accueil d’urgence humanitaire, PAUH) run by the Red Cross based next to Roissy – Charles de Gaulle airport aims to provide people released from the transit zone, after a court decision, with legal and social support. For many years, without any funding to implement this activity, the centre has received Dublin returnees at their arrival at the airport. The returnees are directed towards the centre by the police or the airport services.
Upon their arrival at the airport, the Border Police issues a “safe passage (sauf-conduit) which mentions the Prefecture where the asylum seekers have to submit their claim. This Prefecture may be located far from Paris, in Bretagne for example. The returnees have to reach the Prefecture on their own as no organisation or official service meets them. The centre cannot afford their travel within the French territory due to funding shortages.
When the relevant Prefectures are in the Paris surroundings, two situations may occur:
- On the one hand, some Prefectures do not register the asylum claims of Dublin returnees and channel them to the PADA. As it has already been mentioned in the Registration section, access to these platforms is really complicated and some returnees have to wait several weeks before getting an appointment with the organisations running them.
- On the other hand, some Prefectures do immediately register the asylum claims of returnees and channel them to OFII in order to find them an accommodation place. The PAUH is the only entity receiving and supporting Dublin returnees upon their arrival in France by Charles de Gaulle airport. Considering the systemic difficulties encountered by the orientation platforms in Paris and its surroundings, several Dublin returnees, after registering their claim, are apt to turn to it in order to complete their asylum claim form or to find an accommodation.
In Lyon, the situation is similar upon arrival of returnees at Saint-Exupéry airport. The returnees are not received at their arrival and not supported. They are deemed to present themselves at the PADA run by Forum réfugiés – Cosi to be registered before submitting their claim. They encounter the same difficulties in terms of accommodation to the conditions in Paris.
Dublin returnees further face important obstacles in accessing reception centres; i.e. they face the same difficulties as all asylum seekers in France in securing housing. This is due to the fact that there is approximately a 50% gap of available places, as further explained in Conditions in reception facilities.
 Ministry of Interior, Instruction NOR: INTV1618837J of 19 July 2016 relating to the application of the Dublin III Regulation – Resort to house arrest and administrative detention in the context of execution of transfer decisions, available in French at: http://bit.ly/2jI7dEd, 2. Unofficial translation by the author.
 Ministry of Interior, Information of 23 March 2018 on the application of Law n. 2018-187 of 20 March 2018 allowing for sound implementation of the European Asylum System, available in French at: https://goo.gl/m8wNjB.
 Position expressed by the Minister of the Interior in 2009, and not reviewed since. Ministry of Interior, Visite d’un centre d’accueil de mineurs étrangers isolés interpellés à Calais : Eric BESSON salue le succès du dispositif mis en place, 1 October 2009, available in French at:https://bit.ly/32Nwa88.
 Circular of 1 April 2011 on the application of Council Regulation 343/2003, the so-called ‘Dublin Regulation’. Implementation of accelerated procedures of some asylum claims mentioned in art L741-4 Ceseda, available in French at: http://bit.ly/1dBnfeg.
 Ministry of Interior, Instruction NOR: INTV1618837J of 19 July 2016 relating to the application of the Dublin III Regulation – Resort to house arrest and administrative detention in the context of execution of transfer decisions, 3.
 This is based on information gathered through Court decisions issued in 2019. See also : La Cimade, Guide pratique et théorique du réglement Dublin, available in French at : https://bit.ly/2uneV0d.
 Article 4(2) recast Asylum Procedures Directive.
 Article L.723-2 Ceseda.
 Circular of 2 November 2015 on the implementation of the Law of 29 July 2015.
 Articles L.741-1 and L.742-1 Ceseda.
19] Arrêté du 10 mai 2019 désignant les préfets compétents pour enregistrer les demandes d’asile et déterminer l’Etat responsable de leur traitement (métropole). NOR: INTV1909588A, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3axKAwv.
 ECRE, Access to asylum and detention at France’s borders, June 2018, 20.
 Council of State, Order 422159, 26 July 2018.
 Articles L.551-1 and L.561-2 Ceseda, as amended by Law n 2018-187 of 20 March 2018.
 Groupe SOS, Forum réfugiés-Cosi, France terre d’asile, la CImade, Solidarité Mayotte, ‘Centre et locaux de rétention administrative’, Activity report 2021, March 2022, available in French at : https://bit.ly/3IRJLi6.
 Administrative Court of Lyon, Decision N°20065, 8 September 2020.
 Article L.742-3 Ceseda.
 Council of State, Decision 420708, 24 September 2018.
 Article L.561-2 Ceseda.
 Ministry of Interior, Instruction NOR: INT/V/17/30666/J of 20 November 2017 on the objectives and priorities in the fight against irregular immigration.
 Ministry of Interior, Statistics on asylum, 20 January 2022.
 See e.g. Administrative court of Marseille, Decision n° 2001268, 28 September 2020.
 Scheduled in theory within 3 calendar days after the asylum seekers have expressed their request to be admitted on the territory on the ground of an asylum claim.
 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 118/2014 of 30 January 2014 amending Regulation (EC) No 1560/2003 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 343/2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national, OJ 2014 L 39/1.
 Article L.742-4 Ceseda.
 Article L.512-1(3) Ceseda.
 Court of Cassation, Decision No 17-15.160, 27 September 2017.
 Administrative Court of Appeal of Nancy, Decision No 15NC00961, 31 March 2016; Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon, Decision No 15LY03569, 31 May 2016; Administrative Court of Lyon, Decision No 1605495, 29 July 2016; Administrative Court of Appeal of Bordeaux, Decision No 16BX00997, 27 September 2016. Contrast a decision considering that there are no systemic deficiencies in Hungary: Administrative Court of Versailles, Decision No 16VE02239, 28 June 2017.
 See e.g. Administrative Court of Appeal of Versailles, Decision No 16VE02850, 20 February 2018.
 Administrative Court of Lyon, Decision 19011982, 13 May 2019. Administrative Court of Rennes, Decision 1705747, 5 January 2018, EDAL, available at: https://bit.ly/2NgRHOw; Administrative Court of Nantes, Decision No 1601004, 12 February 2016. See also Administrative Court of Pau, Decision of 26 January 2018.
 Administrative Court of Paris, Decision No 1807362/8, 25 June 2018; No 1810819/8, 3 August 2018; Administrative Court of Bordeaux, Decision No 1803602, 29 August 2018; Administrative Court of Melun, Decisions No 1807266 and No 1807354, 18 September 2018; Administrative Court of Versailles, Decision No 1807048, 11 October 2018; Administrative Court of Pau, Decision No 1802323, 15 October 2018; Administrative Court of Toulouse, Decision No 1805185, 9 November 2018, EDAL, available at: https://bit.ly/2V9Eg5W.
 Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon, Decision No 18LY00381, 2 October 2018; Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes, Decision No 18NT00965, 5 October 2018.
 Administrative Court of Paris, Order No 1813788/9, 31 July 2018.
 Council of State, Order No 423124, 27 August 2018.
 Administrative Court of Appeal of Marseille, Decision No 18MA01883, 19 September 2018.
 Administrative Court of Rouen, 21 December 2021.
 Administrative Court of Lyon, Decision No 1702564, 3 April 2017 (Norway); Administrative Court of Lyon, Decision No 1705209, 28 July 2017 (Finland); Administrative Court of Toulouse, Decision of 27 November 2017 (Sweden); Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon, Decision No 17LY02181, 13 March 2018 (Finland), EDAL, available at: https://bit.ly/2SSwxMS; Administrative Court of Rouen, Decision No 1801386, 31 May 2018 (Austria); Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes, Decision No 17NT03167, 8 June 2018 (Belgium); Administrative Court of Bordeaux, Decision No 180412, 15 June 2018 (Germany). Administrative Court of Appeal of Lyon, Decision N°20LY01035, 20 April 2020 (Sweden).
 Administrative Court of Melun, Decision No 1708232, 6 November 2017.