Author
In 2023, OFPRA took 826 decisions ended protection (compared to 953 in 2022 and 864 in 2021), including 604 related to refugee status and 222 to subsidiary protection.[1] Statistics on the year 2024 were not available at the time of writing of this report (April 2025).
Grounds for cessation
Regarding refugees, the law reflects the cessation grounds set out in Article 1C of the Refugee Convention.[2]
Regarding beneficiaries of subsidiary protection, the law includes provisions inspired by the Refugee Convention. The benefit of subsidiary protection ceases when the conditions leading to grant the protection no longer exist. It is also the case when there is a significant and durable change of context in the country of origin of the beneficiary.[3]
In 2023, 397 cessations of protection for refugees were due to the application of article 1-C of the Geneva Convention (end of fears of persecution) mainly for people from Russia, DRC, Sri Lanka and Türkiye.[4] These are the same main nationalities affected by cessation procedures since 2019. Information on the number of cessations in 2024 was not available at the time of writing (April 2025).
There is no systematic review of protection status in France. Cessation is not applied to specific groups. There are no systematic difficulties in relation to the application of cessation either. In practice, people who were granted asylum on the grounds of family unity may, following divorce, no longer be considered as refugees. In relation to children, however, the CNDA held in 2018 that, in line with the principle of family unity, a child benefitting from the same refugee status as their mother could not be subject to cessation by the mere fact of reaching the age of 18, as long as the mother maintained refugee status.[5] Family unity is not applied to subsidiary protection beneficiaries.
In practice, cessation is mostly applied when there is a fundamental change of context in the country of origin of beneficiaries. For instance, the CNDA applied cessation in 2016 to a Vietnamese who was granted refugee status in 1977 because of the fundamental changes which occurred in the country since that date.[6] In 2018, it refused to apply cessation to refugees from DRC and Sri Lanka due to the fact that the change of circumstances was not of a significant and durable nature.[7]
In 2023, the CNDA confirmed a cessation of protection decision issued to a newly of age young adult, ruling that, in the case of a child who had been recognised as a refugee as a result of his parents’ protection, but who had now reached the age of majority and was no longer dependent on his refugee parent, the circumstances that had led to his recognition as a refugee no longer existed, and therefore no longer justified maintaining refugee status.[8]
In a case concerning two girls at risk of FGM in Mali, the CNDA refused to apply cessation despite statements from the girls’ mother that the prevalence of FGM was dropping in the country of origin. The Court relied on the best interests of the child principle enshrined in the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the protection against FGM set out in L. 561-8 Ceseda, to conclude that there was no change of circumstances.[9]
As regards cessation grounds due to the individual conduct of the beneficiary pursuant to Article 1C of the Refugee Convention, the CNDA has delivered several relevant judgments:
- Re-establishment in the country of origin: Cessation under Article 1C(4) of the Convention was applicable in the case of a beneficiary who travelled to the country of origin despite warnings that their Travel Document does not allow travel to that country, and who obtained authorisation to travel from the country’s consular authorities in France;[10]
- Re-availment of protection of the country of origin: In the case of a refugee who was issued a driver’s licence in the country of origin without physically returning to the country – as the procedure was handled by his wife – the issuance of an official document could not constitute re-availment of the protection of the country of origin pursuant to Article 1C(1) of the Convention.[11]
Cessation procedure
The cessation decision can be made without any interview by OFPRA. OFPRA has however the obligation to notify the refugee or beneficiary of subsidiary protection of the decision to initiate cessation proceedings and the grounds for this decision.[12] The beneficiary is therefore able to formulate observations against this decision.[13] They may be summoned to an interview at OFPRA similar to the regular procedure scheme.
The cessation decision taken by OFPRA can be challenged before the CNDA under the same conditions as an appeal lodged under the Regular Procedure: Appeal. In such a case, the CNDA will examine the applicability of all cessation clauses and not limit itself to the specific cessation ground raised by OFPRA, according to a 2017 ruling of the Council of State[14] confirmed by the CNDA in 2018.[15]
[1] OFPRA, Rapport d’activité 2023, July 2024, available in French here.
[2] Article L. 511-8 Ceseda.
[3] Article L.512-3 Ceseda.
[4] OFPRA, Rapport d’activité 2023, July 2024, available in French here.
[5] CNDA, M. O., Decision No 17013391, 31 December 2018.
[6] CNDA, M. D., Decision No 14018479, 25 February 2016.
[7] CNDA, M. K., Decision No 18001386, 17 October 2018 (DRC); M. L., Decision No 17047809, 25 May 2018 (Sri Lanka).
[8] CNDA 3 July 2023 M. O. n°23010385 C+, available in French here.
[9] CNDA, Mme S and Mme F., Decision Nos 17038232 and 17039171, 26 November 2018.
[10] CNDA, M. Q., Decision No 16032301, 6 July 2017.
[11] CNDA, M. H., Decision No 16029914, 14 September 2018.
[12] Article L.562-1 Ceseda
[13] Article L.562-2 Ceseda
[14] Council of State, Decision No 404756, 28 December 2017.
[15] CNDA, M. M., Decision No 15003496, 28 November 2018.