M.K. and Others v. France Applications no 34349/18, 34638/18 and 35047/18 [8 December 2022]

The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right of access to a court) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

 

The cases concerned asylum-seekers who were without accommodation at the time of the events because they had not been given access to the specialist reception facilities or to emergency accommodation. The urgent-applications judge of the Administrative Court, to whom they applied, ordered the State to find emergency accommodation for them. The applicants complained that, despite the orders granting their requests and the proceedings brought by them at domestic level to that end, the State had failed to enforce the judicial decisions in their favour. They alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

 

The Court considered that in the present case the decision to grant or refuse emergency accommodation constituted a civil right, and held that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applicable.

 

The Court noted that the Government, who maintained that the reception facilities in the Haute-Garonne département had been at saturation point, especially in July 2018, and that there had been insufficient funds to cover the cost of hotel accommodation, had not demonstrated before the Court the complexity of the proceedings to enforce the orders in the applicants’ favour. It further observed that the applicants had been especially diligent in their efforts to secure enforcement of the orders. Furthermore, the prefect, who represented the State within the

département, had not furnished the explanations sought by the Administrative Court at the administrative stage of the enforcement process and had not responded to the applicants’ requests,  nor had he enforced the orders in question until the Court had indicated interim measures. Only

then had the applicants been provided with accommodation.

 

The Court, after noting the passive attitude of the competent administrative authorities when it came to enforcing the decisions of the Administrative Court, especially in the context of disputes concerning protection of the human dignity of individuals in a particularly vulnerable situation, held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.