F.B. sought the annulment of a decision of 29 August 2024 by which the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) terminated the benefit of his material reception conditions. Before ruling in the case, the Administrative Court of Grenoble submitted to the Council of State the following questions:

1) Is the OFII an "asylum authority" within the meaning of the provisions of Article L. 551-16 of the CESEDA?

2) If the answer to the first question is yes, does the circumstance that the asylum seeker has not responded to one or more summonses from the OFII constitute one of the "exceptional cases" in which the OFII may withdraw the benefit of material reception conditions, within the meaning of the provisions of Article 20 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive to which Article L. 551-16 of the CESEDA refers?

The Council of State delivered an opinion in which it held that the fact that an asylum seeker does not appear when summoned by the OFII may justify the withdrawal of material reception conditions from which this applicant benefits.

The Council noted that under Article 20(b) of the recast RCD, Member States may limit or, in exceptional and duly justified cases, withdraw material reception conditions where an applicant fails to report to the authorities, does not respond to requests for information or does not attend personal interviews concerning the asylum procedure within a reasonable period of time set by national law. Furthermore, according to Article 20(5) of the directive, decisions limiting or withdrawing material reception conditions or imposing sanctions referred to in paragraphs 1 shall be taken on a case-by-case basis, objectively and impartially and shall state reasons, taking into account the principle of proportionality.

The Council observed that pursuant to Article L.121-1 of the CESEDA, the OFII, a public administrative establishment alongside the OFPRA, is responsible, throughout the territory, for coordinating the management of accommodation in places of accommodation for asylum seekers and is also responsible for participating in all administrative, health and social actions relating to the reception of asylum seekers and the management of the asylum seeker allowance. In addition, pursuant to the CESEDA, OFII assesses the vulnerability of asylum seekers (Article L. 522-1 and subsequent) and decides on the benefit of material reception conditions (Article L. 551-1 and subsequent) within the meaning of the recast RCD. The Council concluded that based on these provisions, the OFII must be regarded as an authority responsible for asylum.

The Council added that an asylum seeker not appearing when summoned by the OFII may constitute one of the "exceptional cases", within the meaning of the provisions of point 1 of Article 20(1) of the recast RCD to which Article L. 551-16 of the CESEDA refers, which may justify the Office ending the material reception conditions enjoyed by that applicant. The decision to end the material reception conditions is, however, subject to a prior examination of the particular situation of the person concerned, in particular with regard to their vulnerability, their reception needs and the circumstances that led to their failure to appear, and must be proportionate as provided for in Article 20 of that Directive.