A.C. and B.C., Armenian nationals, requested international protection on 28 August 2025. On the same day, they accepted the offer of support issued by the French Office for Immigration and Integration (OFII). By decision of 23 July 2026, OFII fully withdrew their material reception conditions on the ground that they had failed to comply with the requirements of the asylum authorities by neglecting to report to them.

The applicants appealed and requested the Administrative Court of Nantes to annul the decision and to reinstate their material reception conditions retroactively and for the future until a final decision would be reached on their asylum application.

The court noted the provisions of Article 23 of the Reception Conditions Directive 2024 and of Article 20 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive (RCD). It observed that the advisory opinion (avis consultatif) of the French Council of State of 7 May 2026 had noted that in order to remain applicable as of 12 June 2026, the provisions of Articles L. 551-15 and L. 551-16 of the CESEDA must be compatible with the objectives set out in Directive (EU) 2024/1346. The opinion added that the precise and unconditional provisions of the new directive may be invoked by individuals in legal proceedings against specific administrative decisions taken pursuant to Articles L. 551-15 and L. 551-16 and thus, the administration is required to give effect to these directly applicable provisions, pending the formal transposition of the directive. Furthermore, the scenario provided for in point 3 of Article L. 551-16, concerning an applicant who fails to comply with the requirements of the asylum authorities, constitutes the transposition of one of the cases set out in Article 23(2)(b) of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, which applies when an applicant fails to cooperate with the competent authorities or fails to comply with the procedural requirements they have established. In order to ensure the compatibility of the provisions of Article L. 551-16 with the provisions of Article 23 of Directive (EU) 2024/1346, the Council of State considered that only a partial withdrawal of the benefit of material reception conditions may be imposed in the cases provided for under points 1 and points 3 to 6 of Article L. 551-16, whereas a partial or total withdrawal may be imposed in the case provided for under point 2. Consequently, for A.C. and B.C., who failed to comply with the requirements of the authorities responsible for asylum, only a partial withdrawal could have been imposed against them and thus, the OFII decision cannot legally terminate in full their material reception conditions.

Therefore, the court allowed the appeal as well-founded.