B., an Afghan national, was accommodated in a reception facility for asylum applicants (PRAHDA) in Hoenheim while awaiting transfer to Bulgaria under the Dublin III Regulation. By a final decision of 5 February 2024, the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII) ended his material reception conditions pursuant to Article L. 551-16(3) of the Code on the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right of Asylum (CESEDA), after he refused to comply with a summons relating to his Dublin transfer. Despite being formally notified of his obligation to vacate the accommodation, the applicant remained in the facility.

Subsequently, France became responsible for examining the applicant’s asylum application, which was transmitted to the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA) in February 2025. After the applicant’s request for restoration of material reception conditions was rejected by OFII, and following a formal notice to vacate, the Prefect of Bas-Rhin applied to the urgent-applications judge of the Strasbourg Administrative Court for an eviction order under Article L. 552-15 CESEDA and Article L. 521-3 of the Code of Administrative Justice. By order of 6 June 2025, the urgent-applications judge (juge des référés) dismissed the application, holding that the continuation of the asylum procedure was sufficient to raise a serious dispute preventing eviction. The Minister of the Interior appealed that order before the Council of State.

The Council of State recalled that Article L. 552-15 CESEDA allows the eviction of persons who commit serious breaches of the internal rules governing asylum accommodation facilities. It clarified that the continued occupation of accommodation after the definitive termination of material reception conditions constitutes, in itself, a serious breach of those rules. It further held that, when an eviction request is based on such termination, the urgent-applications judge must assess whether the legality of the termination decision or of any refusal to restore reception conditions gives rise to a serious dispute.

In the present case, the Council of State found that the lower court erred in law by holding that the sole fact that France had become responsible for the examination of the asylum application and that the procedure was ongoing sufficed to establish a serious dispute. The termination decision of 5 February 2024 was final, no restoration of material reception conditions had been granted, and no serious legal challenge to the OFII decisions had been substantiated.

Ruling on the merits, the Council of State held that the applicant’s continued occupation of the accommodation constituted a serious breach justifying eviction. It further found that the conditions of urgency and usefulness were met, having regard to the saturation of asylum accommodation capacity in the Grand Est region (99.3% occupancy rate), the fact that another 288 asylum applicants in a comparable situation were awaiting accommodation in the department of Bas-Rhin, and the absence of any exceptional vulnerability capable of outweighing the public interest in freeing accommodation places.

In conclusion, the Council of State upheld the appeal, annulled the lower court’s order and ordered the applicant to vacate the accommodation without delay.