Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
FR: The Council of State provided elements to interpret the meaning of absconding in the framework of the Dublin III Regulation

Input Provided By
EUAA Networks
Other Source/Information:
Referral to the CJEU
Original Documents
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Dublin Regulation III (Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for IP);
France, Council of State [Conseil d'État], B.A. v Minister of the Interior (Ministre de l’Intérieur), No. 438765, ECLI:FR:CEORD:2020:438765.20200225, 25 February 2020. Link redirects to the English summary in the EUAA Case Law Database.
Permanent link to the case
Case history
Related cases:

An asylum seeker was delivered a plane ticket by the French administration to go to the Member State responsible of her asylum application. Even though she had the ticket and the flight was just before noon she did not manage to get on the plane on time. Thus, the préfecture declared by ordinance that she absconded. She challenged the ordinance, arguing that she was not given enough information to get to the airport and in the plane on time.

The applicant's action was allowed and the Council of State interpreted the detailed definition of abscondance during the remedy. The judge considered that the asylum seekers can be considered as absconded when:

- they have been informed precisely and in a language that they understand about the exact arrangements for their transfer (the judge does not specify that the information must be written). In this case there was nothing to indicate that the information in question, provided orally, had been provided with sufficient precision and well understood by the asylum seeker.

- they deliberately refrained from complying with the indications given by the administration for the transfer;

- the fact of not arriving on time at the planned place of departure, taking into account the unexpected difficulties on the route and the duration of the boarding procedures, without being able to put forward a valid reason for delay, must be assimilated to deliberate abscondance.

Country of Decision
Court Name
FR: Council of State [Conseil d'État]
Case Number
No. 438765
Date of Decision
Country of Origin
Dublin procedure