Brussels, 05/11/2014 (Agence Europe) - Once national authorities have determined that a non-EU national is illegally residing in the country, that person need not necessarily be heard again before the return decision is adopted, decided the Court of Justice of the EU in a ruling (Case C-166/13) handed down on Wednesday 5 November.
The Court was ruling on the case of a Rwandan national who had been living in France. In 2012, after a 33-month procedure, the French authorities threw out her asylum request and asked her to leave the country voluntarily within 30 days. The person in question did not do so and remained in France. In 2013, she attempted to board an aeroplane for Canada under a false Belgian passport. After being apprehended by the French police, she was held in detention and interviewed on her personal and family situation. Very quickly after it was confirmed that she was staying illegally, the decision was taken to require her to leave France.
The person brought an action in France for the annulment of the two return decisions. She argued that adoption of those decisions was contrary to the principle of good administration stated in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, since she was not given the opportunity to submit her observations before those decisions were adopted. The French court before which proceedings were brought sought clarification from the Court of Justice on whether national authorities were required, at this stage, to ensure the right to be heard, since EU law does not detail this.
The Court ruled that no such requirement is necessary. Firstly, once the competent national authorities have determined that a third-country national is staying illegally in the national territory, they are under an obligation to adopt a return decision with regard to the third-country national. Then, the right to be heard must be respected particularly in procedures relating to the request for the right to remain and on the possible illegality of the stay. This, the Court says, provides sufficient opportunity for foreign nationals to present their point of view.
Thus, in both 2012 and 2013, the person in question in this case had the opportunity to be heard. Requiring the French authorities to hear her again before taking either of the two return decisions, particularly the first, would have unnecessarily prolonged the administrative procedure with no increase in the legal protection to which the person was entitled, the Court ruled. (JK)