Author
The “first country of asylum” concept, requiring that a person has obtained international protection in a third country, is a ground for inadmissibility.[1] The possibility of enjoying “sufficient protection” is not enough to justify inadmissibility. Inadmissibility is declared when the asylum seeker is entitled to enjoy “effective protection”. Considering the effective protection an EU Member State has to provide, the Council of State has defined this protection as follows:
- The State respects the rule of law;
- The State is not targeted by any mechanism of Article 7 of the founding Treaty; and
- The State does not violate any fundamental right out of those prescribed in Article 15 ECHR.[2]
Regarding the effective protection granted in a non-EU Member State, the Council of State only refers to effective protection without detailing what it is made of.[3]
In 2020, OFPRA took 368 inadmissibility decisions on this ground.[4] A detailed breakdown by nationality is not available, nor recent statistics on the year 2022.
[1] Article L. 531-32 Ceseda.
[2] Council of State, Cimade et M.O., Decisions Nos 349735 and 349736, 13 November 2013, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3GQEZmy.
[3] Council of State, OFPRA v. M.S., Decision No 369021, 17 June 2015, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3MP5blj.
[4] OFPRA, 2020 Activity report, available in French at: https://bit.ly/3GPni7b, 60.