B.A., a Turkish national entered France on 11 August 2021 and applied for international protection on 11 March 2022. The French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) rejected his application on 24 August 2022, and the National Court of Asylum Law (CNDA) dismissed his appeal on 24 September 2024. His subsequent request for re-examination was declared inadmissible by OFPRA on 18 December 2024. On 24 April 2025, the Prefect of Ille-et-Vilaine issued a decision obliging him to leave the French territory within thirty days (OQTF), fixed Türkiye as the country of return, and imposed a one-year entry ban, relying on Article L. 611-1, 4 of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum (CESEDA).

Mr A. challenged all three measures before the Administrative Tribunal of Rennes. By judgment of 3 October 2025, the Tribunal annulled the prefectural order and instructed the Prefect to re-examine the situation and issue a provisional residence permit while doing so. On 9 October 2025, the Prefect appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal of Nantes and, pursuant to Article R. 811-15 of the Code of Administrative Justice (CJA), requested the suspension of the judgment's execution.

The Rennes Administrative Court of Appeal recalled that under Article R. 811-15 CJA execution of a judgment annulling an administrative decision may be suspended if the appeal appeared to raise serious pleas capable of justifying both the annulment of the lower-court judgment and the rejection of the applicant’s original claims.

The court first examined the Prefect’s contention that the lower court had erred in finding that the OQTF violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), given Mr A.’s marriage to a French national and the presence of his brother in France. At the interim relief stage, the court held that this plea appeared serious, as the tribunal’s analysis of family life and proportionality might be legally questionable. This sufficed to justify suspending the annulment of the OQTF, the destination decision, and the related injunction to re-examine the applicant’s case and issue a provisional residence permit.

By contrast, another plea raised by the Prefect concerning Article L. 612-8 CESEDA, which governed entry bans, did not appear serious enough to undermine the Tribunal’s annulment of the entry-ban component. Nevertheless, because the Prefect sought suspension only of the parts relating to the OQTF and destination decision, the court limited its analysis accordingly.

In conclusion, the court ordered the suspension of the execution of the tribunal’s judgment only in so far as it annulled the OQTF, the destination decision, and the associated injunctions requiring a new examination of the case and the issuance of a provisional residence permit. The remainder of the Prefect’s application was dismissed. The proceedings on the merits of the Prefect’s substantive appeal remain pending.