A.B., from Nagorno-Karabakh, entered France and sought international protection. His wife and three children also resided in France, but irregularly (even if his eldest son, who was an adult, had applied for asylum in France and his request was pending). The applicant’s request for asylum was examined by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) and the National Court of Asylum Law (CNDA), which ultimately rejected his claim. Following the final refusal of asylum, and while Mr B. continued to reside in France, the Prefect of Allier issued, on 14 November 2024, an order imposing an obligation to leave French territory without delay (OQTF), designating Armenia as the country of removal and imposing a three-year entry ban. On the same day, the Prefect of Manche adopted a separate decision placing Mr B. under house arrest in Saint-Lô for 45 days, with reporting obligations.

The applicant challenged both prefectural orders before the Administrative Court of Caen, arguing that the authorities had mischaracterised his personal and family circumstances, wrongly assessed the risks linked to removal, and failed to comply with procedural guarantees, particularly the right to be heard and the requirement to examine the best interests of his children. He invoked, among others, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Article 3(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and Article L. 721-4 of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum (CESEDA) relating to designation of the country of removal. In two judgments of 10 December 2024, the Administrative Court of Caen rejected the applicant’s claims. A.B. appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes, arguing numerous defects of competence, reasoning, factual errors, breaches of Articles 8 ECHR, 3(1) CRC, and Article L. 721-4 CESEDA, as well as violations of the right to be heard. He further sought provisional suspension of the OQTF under Article L. 721-5 CESEDA.

The Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes first annulled the judgment of the Administrative Court of Caen in part because it failed to address two of the applicant’s pleas: one concerning Article 3(1) CRC in relation to refusal of a voluntary-departure period, and another concerning infringement of Article L. 721-4 CESEDA regarding designation of Armenia as the destination country. It therefore examined these decisions by evocation.

As for the two contested prefectural orders, the court found the OQTF decision sufficiently reasoned, legally based on Articles L. 542-1, L. 542-2, L. 542-4 and L. 611-1 CESEDA, and preceded by an adequate, interpreter-assisted hearing by the gendarmerie, satisfying the right to be heard. The court considered that Mr B.’s family ties were recent and fragile, and his wife and children resided illegally; thus Articles 8 ECHR and 3(1) CRC were not violated. The court also noted that the nationality error was irrelevant because nationality was not the legal basis of the OQTF. Regarding the refusal of a period of voluntary departure, the court held that a risk of absconding was legally presumed under Article L. 612-3 CESEDA, since the applicant lacked identity documents and had declared his intention to evade the removal. By contrast, the decision on the country of destination violated Article L. 721-4 CESEDA, as available evidence showed that the applicant did not have Armenian nationality, held no Armenian travel document, and was not legally admissible in Armenia. This aspect of the decision was therefore annulled. Concerning the 3-year entry ban, the court upheld it, finding no procedural defect, no error of fact, no breach of Article 8 ECHR, and no disproportionate impact on the applicant’s private and family life.

Finally, the house arrest order by the Prefect of Manche was annulled because it was based on an error of fact. Although formally domiciled at the Saint-Lô reception centre for asylum seekers (which was the place of reference for the house arrest), the applicant actually lived in Coutances. The prefecture had therefore assigned him to the wrong municipality.

In conclusion, the court annulled the judgment of the Administrative Court of Caen insofar as it concerned the refusal of voluntary departure and the determination of the country of removal, and it annulled the prefectural decisions fixing Armenia as the destination country and imposing house arrest. However, it upheld both the obligation to leave French territory and the refusal of voluntary departure, as well as the re-entry ban. Finally, it ordered the Prefect of Manche to re-examine the applicant’s administrative situation within two months.