The case concerned the request of the La Cimade association which challenged the legality of the decision issued by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) regarding the designation as safe countries of Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, India, Kosovo, Moldova and Serbia.

In accordance with Articles L. 531-24 and L. 531-25 of the Code of Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA), on the application of accelerated procedures when the applicants’ country of origin was listed as a safe country, the OFPRA’s board of directors issued the list after assessing the security and human rights situation in these countries.

While the La Cimade association requested the revision of the list of safe countries, on 5 July 2023 the OFPRA’s board of directors decided not to modify the abovementioned list. The association further contested the decision before the Council of State.

On the form requirements of the OFPRA board’s deliberation, the Council of State ruled that the hybrid (online and in person) deliberation of the board by means of an audiovisual programme was legal while the board’s decision was taken under the legal provisions of the CESEDA with the required attendance and voting quorums.

Regarding the omission to publish the decision within the Official Journal of France, the Council of State ruled that it had no impact on the decision’s legality since the law did not provide the obligation to publish a decision which does not modify a previously established list of safe countries.

On the substance of the OFPRA board’s decision, the Council of State noted that the sole purpose of the decision was to decide on the list of safe countries of origin, and not to establish the examination procedure for possible related asylum requests. The court also recalled the board’s obligation to periodically evaluate the safety situation of the designated countries. The court stated that such an obligation was met as it resulted from the meeting minutes and the summary notes on each country.

Additionally, on the allegations regarding the risks of persecution due to violence against women, the court noted that the mere presence of the phenomenon within the listed countries did not suffice to establish that OFPRA’s Board of Directors inaccurately assessed the safety situation in the countries since it was not established whether the level of seriousness or the systematic nature of the violence would imply persecutions.

In view of the legal requirements provided by Article L.531-25 of the CESEDA which is an application of the Annex 1 of recast Asylum Procedures Directive 2013/32/EU on the designation of safe countries of origin, the Council of State assessed the security and human rights situation in the abovementioned countries of origin as it follows:

• Armenia: the court noted that the conflict with Azerbaijan in the context of the fall of the Nagorno-Karabakh did not lead to the loss of Armenia’s safe country status since the conflict did not result in a deterioration of the political and security situation in Armenia of such nature.
• Moldova and Georgia: similarly, the specific political situation of Transnistria, respectively of South Ossetia and Abkhazia did not justify the removal from the safe country list.
• Bosnia and Herzegovina: despite the tension between communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo, in particular in relation to the situation in Serbia, this circumstance alone did not exclude the country from the designation as safe.
• Serbia: the political demonstrations resulted after Serbian parliamentary elections of December 2023 did not indicate such a deterioration of the situation in the country as to be removed from the list of safe countries of origin.
• India: the court noted the existence of democratic institutions as well as of a judicial system and the country’s membership to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, the court found that despite the Hindu nationalism and opposition against Muslim and Christian minorities, it did not appear that the authorities would encourage or tolerate the violent behaviour and discrimination of women in the country and thus, the state should be designated as a safe country.

The Council of State concluded that the decision issued by the OFPRA’s Board of directors was legal and therefore rejected the request lodged by the La Cimade Association.