Key facts of the case:
The Minister of the Interior requests the suspension of enforcement of judgments obliging M. B. to leave the French territory and ordering his placement in administrative detention. The Minister of the Interior contests the same judgment of the Court of appeal ordering the Prefect of French Guiana to issue a receipt evidencing the filing of an asylum application until the national asylum Court has ruled on the request of M. B.
Legal questions raised: does the national asylum law imply that the alien whose asylum application has been examined under the priority procedure (applicable when application for asylum is based on a deliberate fraud or constitutes an abuse of asylum procedures or is submitted in order to defeat an imminent deportation (éloignement) – article L741-4 § 4, Code of Entry and Residence of Aliens and the Right to Asylum (CESEDA) ) and then rejected by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless persons (OFPRA), is authorized to remain on the territory until the decision of the National Court of asylum (appeal procedure)?
According to articles L. 741-4 and L. 723-1 of CESEDA, the rejection by the OFPRA of an asylum application transmitted under the priority procedure provided for in Article L. 723-1 of the CESEDA, leads to the loss by the applicant of the right to remain on the territory even if the OFPRA decision is contested before the National Court of asylum. The judge des référés does not have the power under Article L. 521-2 of the Code of Administrative Justice to contradict legal dispositions on the absence of suspensive character of appeal presented before the National Court of Asylum against an OFPRA decision adopted under the priority procedure. The judge cannot rule on the compatibility of these laws with the provisions of an international convention or reject their application under the European Union law, excepting the case when these legal dispositions appear to be manifestly incompatible with the European Union law requirements. The relevant dispositions relating to the examination of asylum applications under the priority procedure when the asylum application is based on a deliberate fraud or presented in order to defeat a pronounced or imminent deportation (éloignement), are not manifestly incompatible with Articles 18 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union, especially considering their scope and possible appeals.