On 12 April 2024, a coalition of associations led by the Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigrés (GISTI) submitted a letter to the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Interior and various immigration and asylum authorities in France. The submission requested the adoption of measures to guarantee that all asylum seekers, regardless of their accommodation status, would have their transport costs covered to travel to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and National Court of Asylum (CNDA) proceedings. The associations stated that asylum seekers accommodated in reception centers for asylum seekers (CADA) or in emergency accommodation for asylum seekers (HUDA) have their travel expenses covered for journeys related to OFPRA and CNDA proceedings. However, there is no obligation to cover costs for asylum seekers who are hosted in different types of accommodation and whose administrative support is provided by the initial reception structures for asylum seekers (SPADA).  

Following the administration's silence and implicit refusal of the request, the associations filed an application before the Council of State seeking an annulment of the implicit decision for abuse of power. They also requested an injunction ordering the competent authorities to remedy the disparities in treatment and, if needed, a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (APD) and the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD), as well as the principle of equality in Article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.  

The Council of State first assessed whether a general legal obligation existed to cover transport costs for asylum seekers. It concluded that neither the French Constitution nor the 1951 Geneva Convention imposed such an obligation. Similarly, concerning obligations under the Common European Asylum System (CEAS), while the recast APD and the recast RCD require Member States to ensure that all asylum seekers have access to free legal and procedural assistance, as well as adequate material reception conditions, a specific legal obligation to cover transport costs cannot be inferred from the relevant provisions.  

However, the Council found that the French legal framework breached the principle of equality by creating an unjustified disparity between asylum seekers hosted in CADA or HUDA who had their transport costs covered and ones housed in different structures or not accommodated at all who did not have access to this support. Furthermore, it noted that the type of accommodation an applicant was housed in was not determined by asylum seekers' choice or particular needs, but by the number of places available in the context of a saturated national reception system. Therefore, the Council ruled that this difference in treatment was unrelated to the purposes of administrative support to asylum seekers and thus constituted a violation of the principle of equality.  

In conclusion, the Council of State annulled the administration's implicit refusal to act, but only insofar as it concerned the failure to guarantee equal treatment between asylum seekers with regard to the coverage of transport costs to OFPRA and CNDA proceedings. It ordered the Prime Minister to correct the disparity within 9 months of the decision. The Council also determined that it was not needed to request a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the recast APD and the recast RCD.