Nævnet stadfæstede i juni 2025 Udlændingestyrelsens afgørelse om overførsel til Frankrig i medfør af udlændingelovens § 48 a, stk. 1, 1. pkt., jf. § 29 a, stk. 1, jf. Dublinforordningen, vedrørende en mand, der har haft opholdstilladelse i Frankrig. Sagen blev behandlet på skriftligt nævnsmøde.
Advokaten henviste som begrundelse for, at klagerens sag skulle behandles i Danmark, blandt andet til modtage- og indkvarteringsforholdene i Frankrig. Efter en gennemgang af sagen, udtalte Flygtningenævnet blandt andet: ”Det fremgår af udlændingelovens § 48 a, stk. 1, 1. pkt., at påberåber en udlænding sig at være omfattet af § 7, træffer Udlændingestyrelsen snarest muligt afgørelse om afvisning eller overførsel efter reglerne i kapitel 5 a. Det fremgår videre af kapitel 5 a, herunder § 29 a, stk. 1, at en udlænding kan afvises eller overføres til en anden medlemsstat efter reglerne i Dublinforordningen.
Flygtningenævnet lægger til grund, at klageren har fået udstedt en opholdstilladelse i Frankrig, der udløb [i vinteren 2023/2024] og dermed mindre end to år før, klageren indgav sin ansøgning om asyl i Danmark, og at han ikke har forladt medlemsstaternes område efter udløbet af sin opholdstilladelse.
Flygtningenævnet finder på denne baggrund, at Frankrig som udgangspunkt er forpligtet til at modtage klageren, jf. forordningens artikel 12, stk. 4. Det bemærkes herved, at Frankrig [i vinteren 2024/2025] har accepteret at modtage klageren i medfør af den pågældende bestemmelse.
Klageren har til støtte for, at hans ansøgning om asyl skal behandles i Danmark navnlig gjort gældende, at han i Frankrig vil blive anset som en ”subsequent applicant” og derfor ikke vil have adgang til indkvartering, men vil være henvist til at bo på gaden og dermed vil være i risiko for umenneskelig og nedværdigende behandling som defineret i artikel 4 i EU’s charter for grundlæggende rettigheder. De franske myndigheder er forpligtede til at yde hjælp i form af indkvartering og lægehjælp, uanset hvilket stadie en asylansøgers sag befinder sig på, herunder også i den fase, hvor man er afvist.
Forholdene for asylansøgere, herunder Dublin returnees i Frankrig er nærmere beskrevet i AIDA’s Country Report France Update on 2024 fra juni 2025. På side 75 fremgår bl.a.:
“Applications of persons returned to France under the Dublin III Regulation are treated in the same way as any other asylum applications. If the asylum seeker comes from a safe country of origin, their application is examined under the accelerated procedure. If the asylum application had already received a final negative decision from the CNDA, the asylum seeker may apply to OFPRA for a re-examination only if they possess new evidence (see section on Subsequent Applications).
Support and assistance to Dublin returnees remains 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 welcomed 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 conduct (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:
v On the one hand, some Prefectures do not register the asylum claims of Dublin returnees and redirect them to the SPADA. As it has already been mentioned in the Registration section, access to these platforms is very complicated and some returnees have to wait several weeks before getting an appointment with the organisations running them.
v On the other hand, some Prefectures do immediately register the asylum claims of returnees and direct 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 eager 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 supposed to present themselves at the SPADA run by Forum réfugiés to be registered before submitting their claim. They encounter the same difficulties in terms of accommodation to the conditions in Paris.
When the incoming transfer concerns an asylum seeker who has previously abandoned their application and left the country, a new claim is considered as subsequent application.
Dublin returnees further face important obstacles in accessing reception centres that is 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.”
Om adgangen til indkvartering fremgår af rapportens side 114:
“The law establishes a national reception scheme, managed by OFII. This scheme ensures the distribution of accommodation places for asylum seekers throughout the national territory, and their allocation thereto. In parallel and in compliance with the national reception scheme, regional schemes are defined and implemented by Prefects in each region.
All asylum seekers are offered material reception conditions under Article L. 551-9 Ceseda. This provision applies to all asylum seekers even if their claim is channelled under the accelerated or Dublin procedure. The only nuance is that asylum seekers under the Dublin procedure do not have access to reception centres for asylum seekers (CADA) but have access to the other forms of accommodation and accommodation support.
Reception conditions can be denied in the following cases:
v Whey they refuse to go to their attributed region;
v When they refuse their accommodation option, either at the GUDA or by not showing up within 5 days;
v Subsequent applications;
v Claim registered 90 days after entering France without a valid reason.
In practice, OFII deny asylum seekers the benefit of reception conditions whenever it has the possibility to do so.
After having registered their claim at the Prefecture, asylum seekers receive the asylum claim certificate that allows them to remain legally on French territory until:
v The end of the asylum procedure;
v A negative first instance decision for inadmissible claims and certain categories of claims rejected in an accelerated procedure – safe country of origin, subsequent application, threat to public order or national security;
v Their transfer to another Member State under the Dublin Regulation.
Meanwhile, they are entitled to material reception conditions, tailored if needed to their specific needs. The GUDA has been set up in order to better articulate the registration of asylum claims by the Prefecture and provision of reception conditions by OFII.”
På side 117 i rapporten fremgår videre om tilbagekaldelse af indkvartering:
“Apart from the withdrawal of reception conditions following the end of the right to remain, specific conditions are foreseen in law to allow for the reduction or withdrawal of material reception conditions, both accommodation and ADA.
According to Articles L. 551-15 (refusal) and L. 551-16 (withdrawal) Ceseda, as amended in 2018, material reception conditions can be refused or withdrawn where the applicant
1. Without legitimate reason, has not presented themselves to relevant authorities when required, has not responded to an information request or has not attended interviews related to the asylum application;
2. Has provided false statements concerning their identity or personal situation, in particular their financial situation;
3. Has made a subsequent application or, without legitimate reason, has not made an application within 90 days of entry into the French territory;
4. Exhibits violent behaviour or serious disrespect of the house rules of the centre.
OFII is competent to decide on the suspension, withdrawal or refusal of material reception conditions. As required by European law, recalled by the Council of State in 2019, decisions on refusal or withdrawal of material reception conditions must be written and motivated. In case of suspension, a letter stating the intention to suspend material reception conditions is sent to the asylum seeker, who then has 15 days to challenge this decision through an informal appeal (i.e., written observations). All decisions relating to the refusal or withdrawal of reception conditions can be appealed before the Administrative Court under the common rules of administrative law.
The 2024 legislative reform established an unprecedented link between reception and the asylum procedure: a person who leaves their accommodation without legitimate reason, in addition to losing their reception conditions as foreseen before, will see their asylum application “closed” (clôturée) by OFPRA. These provisions came into force on 28 January 2024, the day after the publication of the law in the Official Journal, but they are not implemented in practice to date. The material reception conditions (MRC) are not significantly impacted in practice by this law, as the main provisions on this topic were censored or circumscribed by the Constitutional Council, and the others have a rather limited scope. The legislator had wanted to make the hypotheses of withdrawal or refusal of MRC automatic, but the Constitutional Council clarified the provision by highlighting that an individual examination is necessary (in accordance with European law). However, as part of an overhaul of administrative litigation procedures foreseen elsewhere in the law, a specific procedural framework for litigation relating to decisions to refuse or withdraw MRCs was created. Many cases have since been submitted to the courts, making it possible to reinstate MRCs in the many situations where OFII had withdrawn them without properly taking individual situations into account.
In cases of subsequent applications, some Prefectures systematically reduce reception conditions of asylum seekers. In Lyon, Marseille, Paris and its surroundings, no subsequent claimants can benefit from reception conditions. In a few cases, subsequent claimants can benefit from these conditions after demonstrating their particular vulnerability and their specific needs in terms of accommodation. It is also possible after these 15 days to lodge an appeal before the administrative court.
The law describes the procedure to be followed by reception centres management and by the Prefect once a decision on the asylum claim which ends the right to remain has been adopted. OFII informs the reception centre management where the asylum seeker is accommodated that the right to reception conditions has ended and that the provision of accommodation will be terminated upon a specific date. Rejected asylum seekers can formulate a request to remain 1 month in order to have time to plan their exit of the centre.
…
The number of asylum seekers without material reception conditions is an increasingly important and worrying issue. If we compare the number of asylum applications pending at the end of 2024 according to Eurostat (147,950) and the number of asylum seekers benefitting from reception conditions at this date (90,329 persons in total at the end of December 2024 according to OFII), this means more than 50,000 asylum seekers do not have reception conditions in France.
The assessment to deny or withdraw reception conditions does not take into account the risk of destitution. Asylum seekers should pay a part of accommodation cost when they have sufficient resources (very rare in practice).
In French law, there is no official possibility to limit reception conditions on the basis of a large number of arrivals.”
Flygtningenævnet lægger ud fra oplysningerne i sagen til grund, at klageren forlod sit hjemland i 2017 og kort efter at have ansøgt om asyl i [EU-land] i [efteråret] 2017 rejste videre til Frankrig, hvor han opholdt sig, indtil han rejste til Danmark i [sommeren] 2024. Det må endvidere lægges til grund, at klageren ikke har søgt asyl i Frankrig, men at han derimod ad to omgange er blevet meddelt opholdstilladelse. Den seneste opholdstilladelse var med gyldighed fra [vinteren 2021/2022] til [vinteren 2023/2024]. Klageren har således ikke under sit lange ophold i Frankrig ansøgt om asyl, og han vil derfor efter de franske regler kunne få begrænset sine materielle modtagelsesforhold.
Frankrig har tiltrådt Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention, Flygtningekonventionen og EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder, og der er ikke holdepunkter for at antage, at Frankrig, herunder såvel de franske myndigheder som den franske lovgivning, ikke lever op til disse internationale forpligtelser. Dublinforordningen er således også baseret på princippet om gensidig tillid mellem medlemsstaterne, efter hvilket der som udgangspunkt gælder en formodning for, at modtageforholdene og asylproceduren i hver enkelt medlemsstat er i overensstemmelse med kravene i de nævnte internationale konventioner. Det bemærkes i forlængelse heraf, at det også fremgår af de franske regler, at de skal administreres i overensstemmelse med EU-retten. Af modtagedirektivets artikel 20, stk. 2 fremgår, at medlemsstaterne kan begrænse de materielle modtagelsesforhold, hvis de kan godtgøre, at ansøgeren uden rimelig grund ikke har indgivet en ansøgning om international beskyttelse, så snart det var praktisk muligt efter ankomsten til den pågældende medlemsstat. Efter stk. 5 skal en afgørelse herom træffes individuelt, objektivt og upartisk og skal begrundes, ligesom den skal baseres på den pågældende persons særlige situation.
Der er herefter ikke grundlag for at antage, at de franske myndigheder ikke vil behandle klagerens asylsag i overensstemmelse med fransk lovgivning og landets internationale forpligtelser, ligesom der efter det øvrige indhold af den ovenfor nævnte AIDA-rapport heller ikke er væsentlige grunde til at tro, at der – uanset betydelige udfordringer i det franske asylsystem – er systemfejl i asylproceduren og i modtagelsesforholdene, som medfører en risiko for umenneskelig eller nedværdigende behandling som defineret i artikel 4 i EU’s charter om grundlæggende rettigheder.
Flygtningenævnet finder således, at de generelle forhold og levevilkår for asylansøgere i Frankrig, ikke er af en sådan karakter, at Danmark er afskåret fra at overføre klageren til Frankrig, jf. herved Dublinforordningens artikel 3, stk. 2, 2. led.
Der foreligger ikke i øvrigt sådanne forhold, herunder af humanitær karakter, der giver grundlag for at behandle klagerens asylansøgning her i landet, jf. herved Dublinforordningens artikel 17, stk. 1.
Flygtningenævnet stadfæster derfor Udlændingestyrelsens afgørelse [fra vinteren 2024/2025]”
Løbenummer: Dub-Fran/2025/2/marau
