A French national originally from an overseas department, applied for asylum in Switzerland on 21 July 2025, claiming that he had to leave the region due to persecution on social media and local radio stations, as well as harassment at work. He alleged that he had been defamed, humiliated and threatened with death in songs broadcast on the radio because of a previous romantic relationship he had. He held that he had filed a complaint with the gendarmerie on 6 January 2025, which was dismissed. He attempted to appeal the dismissal, but he failed to submit the appeal since, according to his solicitor, it was incomplete because it lacked certain articles of law.

Before his appeal became final, the applicant entered Switzerland and applied for international protection, submitting his French identity documents, evidence of a complaint filed with the gendarmerie, a psychiatric report from 2019, and social media material. On 23 July 2025, he had presented himself at the infirmary of the centre for asylum seekers where he resided, requesting psychological support due to the significant stress he was experiencing.

The State Secretariat for Migration (SEM) rejected his application on 25 August 2025, stating that his claims did not meet the conditions to be granted refugee status, and that he failed to overturn presumption of France as a safe country of origin where there was an absence of significant persecution relevant to asylum and adequate legal remedies were available. The applicant appealed to the Federal Administrative Court, emphasizing that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment and that he had been the target of death threats in songs and defamed by celebrities and political parties. He held that he had sought protection in France, but that the justice system in the country was controlled by politics.

In its reasoning, the Federal Administrative Court (FAC) recalled that France had been designated by the Swiss Federal Council as a safe country of origin since 2003, creating a strong presumption of state protection and absence of persecution. The court noted that in the applicant’s case, French authorities had registered his complaint, opened an investigation and transmitted information to judicial authorities. After his claims were dismissed, he had lodged an appeal. The court held that the fact that the applicant’s claim was dismissed did not mean that French police and judicial authorities were unwilling to provide protection. On the contrary, the examination of his complaint showed the willingness and ability of French authorities to protect the applicant. The court stressed that mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of proceedings, or allegations of political influence in the judiciary, did not suffice to show a denial of effective protection, and further noted that the applicant had not exhausted all available domestic remedies in France before seeking international protection in Switzerland.

The FAC also examined if, given his French nationality, the applicant would be entitled to a residence permit under the Agreement of 21 June 1999 between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community on the free movement of persons, and concluded that the Agreement could not be automatically applied to a person who entered Switzerland solely to seek protection. The court also assessed the removal order under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and upheld it noting that while the applicant had previously requested psychological support, there was no indication of a serious condition that would render removal disproportionate. It further held that the applicant could access adequate medical treatment in France if needed.

In conclusion, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the SEM’s decision. It held that the applicant failed to overturn the presumption that France offers sufficient protection, and that his allegations of harassment and humiliation did not reach the threshold of persecution or serious harm.