The case concerned the asylum request lodged by the applicant’s father on behalf of his minor daughter, in accordance with Article L. 521-3 of the Code of Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA) on asylum applicants accompanied by their minor children.

On 13 February 2022, the OFPRA was notified about the minor applicant’s birth in France and, subsequently, issued a negative decision regarding the international protection on 4 March 2022. The applicant appealed the decision before the National Court of Asylum (CNDA) which admitted the appeal on 7 March 2023 and referred the application back to the OFPRA. As a result, the OFPRA appealed the court’s decision before the Council of State.

Firstly, the Council of State ruled that the OFPRA’s previous decision regarding the request lodged by the applicant’s father did not preclude the minor applicant to have her own application assessed, especially since her individual fears of risk of female circumcision were raised.

On the legal interpretation of Articles L. 531-12 and L. 521-13 of the CESEDA on the assessment of the application and the interviews conducted by the OFPRA, the court ruled that applicants are also responsible for the application lodged on behalf of their accompanying minors and to substantiate their children's own fears of persecution during the interview, even when the birth or entry in France of the minor occurred after the parents lodged an asylum request of their own.

The Council of State stated that whether the minor’s birth or entry in France occurred after the parent’s interview was conducted or after the issuance of a decision concerning the parent’s international protection, the OFPRA was responsible to reinitiate the interview and consider the possible fears of persecution claimed by the minor on his/her own.

In view of this, the Council of State ruled that in case of the OFPRA’s omission to carry out a new interview or an individual examination of the minor’s own fears, the CNDA could lawfully annul OFPRA's decision and refer it back for further examination, however, without deciding on the minor's application. The Council of State found that the minor’s fears of persecution could not be invoked within the initial interview and stated that the decision of the CNDA was legally issued. The Council of State dismissed the appeal.