CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 2 juillet 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sF2E0A612 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDC7C0B24 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt; font-size:11pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s57F1263A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sC7F250FD { font-style:normal } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC5E4F578 { margin-left:10.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEC2DD5D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA28147F3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s35008A5F { width:18.55pt; display:inline-block } .s90B2F37D { width:135.76pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .sE50A8DF2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF N.H. AND OTHERS v. FRANCE (Applications nos. 28820/13 and 2 others – see appended list)     JUDGMENT   Art 3 (substantive) • Degrading treatment • Asylum ‑ seekers living rough for several months without resources on account of administrative delays preventing access to reception conditions required by law • Not permitted to work pending decisions on asylum claims • Entirely dependent on in-kind and financial support from State to meet essential needs • Emergency accommodation insufficient and priority given to particularly vulnerable asylum ‑ seekers • No context of humanitarian emergency arising from exceptional migration crisis • No appropriate official response after authorities repeatedly put on notice • Domestic courts consistently denying relief on grounds applicants single young adults in good health with no dependent family members • Severity threshold not reached where asylum ‑ seeker receiving financial support after two months   STRASBOURG 2 July 2020 FINAL   02/10/2020     This judgment has become final under Article   44 §   2 of the Convention.   In the case of N.H. and Others v. France, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Síofra O’Leary , President,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer ,   André Potocki ,   Mārtiņš Mits ,   Lətif Hüseynov ,   Lado Chanturia ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr , Judges, and Victor Soloveytchik, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the applications (nos.   28820/13, 75547/13 and 13114/15) against the French Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by five asylum-seekers (“the applicants”) on the dates stated in the appended table; Having regard to the decision of the Section President not to disclose the identities of the applicants (Rule   47 §   4 of the Rules of Court); Having regard to the decision of the Section President to grant legal aid to the applicants; Noting that the Government were given notice of the applications between 16   January 2014 and 27   May 2015; Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, the applicants’ observations in reply and the comments received from the non-governmental organisation Coordination française pour le droit d’asile (French Asylum Coalition – CFDA) concerning application no.   28820/13 and from the Défenseur des droits (Rights Ombudsman) regarding applications nos. 28820/13 and 13114/15, both third parties having been granted leave by the Section President to intervene; and Having deliberated in private on 19   May and 9   June 2020, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last ‑ mentioned date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present cases concern five single adult asylum ‑ seekers in France. They applicants claimed that they had not been afforded access to in ‑ kind and financial support required by national law and as a result had been forced to sleep rough in inhuman and degrading conditions for several months. 2.     The applicants relied on Article 3 of the Convention. Those who lodged applications nos. 28820/13 and   13114/15 also alleged an infringement of their right to an effective remedy under Article   13 read in conjunction with Article 3 of the Convention. The applicant behind application no.   28820/13 also complained of a violation of Article   8 read alone and in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention. THE FACTS 3 .     The appended table sets out the particulars relating to the applicants and their representatives. The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   F.   Alabrune, Director of Legal Affairs at the Ministry of European and Foreign Affairs. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Events leading up to the applications to the Court Application no.   28820/13 (N.H.) 4.     The applicant is an Afghan national who was born in 1993 and lives in Paris. By his account he was approached by the Taliban several times in 2010 to fight against the international coalition forces and received death threats for refusing to join them. Out of fear for his safety he decided to leave the country. 5.     The applicant arrived in France in March 2013. On 26   March he obtained a mailing address from the association France Terre d’Asile in Paris through a procedure known as domiciliation postale or élection de domicile whereby any person who lacks a regular or fixed abode may be provided with an address for administrative purposes enabling him or her to receive mail and claim certain entitlements and benefits. On 4 April 2013 he went to the Paris Police Prefecture to lodge an asylum claim. He received a notice to attend an appointment on 9 July 2013 for a decision on whether he was to be granted initial permission to stay in France and for the purposes of lodging his asylum application. 6.     On 18 April 2013 he applied to the Paris Administrative Court under Article L.   521 ‑ 2 of the Administrative Courts Code (the “ référé ‑ liberté ” – urgent applications for interim relief to safeguard a fundamental freedom – see paragraph 89 below), relying in particular on Directive 2003/9/EC of 27   January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum ‑ seekers (the “Reception Directive” – see paragraph 95 below). He sought an order directing that his application for permission to stay pending an asylum claim be considered and that he be issued with a provisional authorisation to stay ( autorisation provisoire de séjour ). He argued inter alia that without asylum ‑ seeker status he did not qualify for any in ‑ kind or financial support under national law   and, in those circumstances, was forced to live rough. 7.     By a decision of 19 April 2013 the interim relief judge denied his   application and gave the following reasons: “It appears from the material on record that [N.H.], an Afghan national, obtained an address for administrative purposes from the association ‘France Terre d’Asile’ on 26   March 2013. He was interviewed at the asylum ‑ seekers’ centre on 4 April 2013, and, under the new appointments system set up by the police prefecture and the association ‘France Terre d’Asile’ to avoid the need for multiple visits to the association before an asylum ‑ seeker was seen by the prefecture, the prefecture staff issued him with a notice to attend an appointment on 9 July 2013 to lodge his complete application for asylum. Between the influx of asylum ‑ seekers to Paris and the actual extent of the public resources available, the authorities have been concretely compelled, together with the associations accredited to provide mailing addresses to asylum ‑ seekers, to institute a standard waiting time of the order of three months for an appointment. Under these circumstances, although it is not in dispute that asylum ‑ seekers face great hardship, the authorities cannot be accused, where the waiting time for an appointment is of the order of three months, of inaction amounting to a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the right of asylum. In this case the setting of the applicant’s appointment for that date does not represent a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the fundamental freedom in issue, namely the right of asylum ...” 8.     On 23 April 2013 the applicant appealed to the Conseil d’État . By a decision of 26 April 2013 the interim relief judge of the Conseil d’État dismissed the appeal for the same reasons. 9.     On 29   April 2013 the applicant made a request under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court for the Court to direct the French authorities to grant him satisfactory material reception conditions. That day, the Court delivered a decision denying his request. 10.     At his appointment at the prefecture on 9 July 2013, an analysis and matching of the applicant’s fingerprints showed, on the basis of a “Eurodac” report of the same day, that they had been registered under a different identity in Denmark on 9   April 2010 (Eurodac is a large-scale information system containing the fingerprints of applicants for asylum or subsidiary protection and illegal immigrants on EU territory). Accordingly, a “Dublin II” procedure was commenced in respect of the applicant (see paragraphs   93 ‑ 94 below), and he was given an application form for permission to stay pending an asylum claim, to be filled out and submitted on the occasion of a further appointment at the prefecture, which was set for 31   July 2013. On that date, the applicant’s asylum claim was registered. He was provided with a document explaining the readmission procedure, and another appointment at the prefecture was scheduled for 3   October 2013. 11.     Pursuant to the Dublin II Regulation (see paragraphs   92 ‑ 94 below), the French authorities asked the Danish authorities on 31   July 2013 to send any relevant information they had on the applicant for the purpose of determining the member State responsible for examining his asylum claim. On 6 August 2013 the Danish authorities replied that the applicant had entered Denmark on 5   April 2010 and had claimed asylum on 8   April 2010. They also reported that his asylum claim had been rejected on 7   October 2010 on the ground that the medical tests he had undergone had indicated that he was 19 to 23   years of age whereas he had claimed to be a minor. Lastly they stated that on 13   January 2011 the applicant’s appeal had been rejected with final effect and he had accordingly been required to leave the country promptly. According to the Government, the French authorities did not ask the Danish authorities to take the applicant back, as they would have been entitled to do under the Dublin II Regulation, but instead availed themselves of the sovereignty clauses in Article 3   §   2 of the Regulation and the final paragraph of Article   L.   741 ‑ 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Code ( Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile – see paragraph   72 below). 12.     On 30 August 2013 the applicant applied for the Temporary Waiting Allowance ( allocation temporaire d’attente ), which was denied. On   11   September 2013, in the Paris Administrative Court, he made an urgent application for interim relief to safeguard a fundamental freedom; he relied in particular on the Reception Directive (see paragraph 95 below) and sought an order that Pôle   emploi (the public administrative body supporting jobseekers in France) grant him the Temporary Waiting Allowance in accordance with national law (see paragraphs   78 ‑ 82 below). 13.     By a decision of 13 September 2013 the interim relief judge dismissed his application on the following grounds: “ Pôle emploi ’s refusal to process [N.H.]’s application for the Temporary Waiting Allowance under Article   L.   5423 ‑ 8 of the Labour Code did not represent a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the fundamental freedom in issue, namely the right of asylum, since the applicant had not been able to provide anything more than the certificate of address issued by the association ‘France Terre d’Asile’, which cannot be regarded as sufficient either to establish the applicant’s identity directly or to require that Pôle emploi undertake inquiries to confirm it. That being so, the application must be dismissed ...” 14.     At his appointment on 3 October 2013 the applicant was informed by the caseworker at the Paris Police Prefecture that his asylum claim would be considered by the French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons ( Office français de protection des réfugiés et des apatrides – OFPRA) but that, pursuant to Article L. 741 ‑ 4 (4 o ) of the Immigration and Asylum Code (see paragraph   72 below), he had been refused permission to stay pending the asylum claim. Reasoning on the basis that the applicant had entered the Schengen Area on 5   April 2010 through Denmark and had claimed asylum there under another identity (see paragraph   11 above), the prefect had decided that his asylum claim in France was abusive in that it had been made for the sole purpose of frustrating a removal order. The applicant was given a further appointment for 17   October 2013. 15.     On 3   October 2013 the applicant went to Pôle emploi to apply for the Temporary Waiting Allowance. He was refused it on the ground that he had not presented a letter of notice that OFPRA had registered his asylum claim. 16.     According to the applicant, during the time that his administrative case was pending, he was unable to show that he was in France lawfully and feared that he would be expelled to his country of origin. The Government have disputed that claim on the ground that, although the notice to attend an appointment which had been issued to the applicant on 4 April 2013 (see   paragraph   5 above) did not constitute a initial grant of permission to stay, it did allow him to remain in France and thus ruled out any risk of expulsion. 17.     Also according to the applicant, although he had asylum ‑ seeker status as of 9 July 2013 (see paragraph   10 above), he was still forced to live rough because he was receiving no in ‑ kind or financial support under national law, and until 3   October 2013 he lived in constant fear of being arrested and sent to a detention centre ; nor did he receive a document containing information about his rights and obligations, with details of organisations that might be able to facilitate day ‑ to ‑ day matters, contrary to Article R.   741 ‑ 2 of the Immigration and Asylum Code (see paragraph   72 below). 18.     The authorities, which he had put on notice of his extreme destitution on 6 April, 19 August and 6 September 2013, did not answer any of his letters. As an asylum ‑ seeker he was not permitted to work and was therefore unable to support himself. By his account, for the better part of nine months he lived with some compatriots under the bridges spanning the Canal Saint ‑ Martin, sleeping only two or three hours a night for fear of being assaulted again after his sleeping bag was stolen one night. Also according to the applicant, between March and August 2013 he was picked up once or twice a week by   a   bus (the “Atlas bus”) which took migrants who had managed to get their names onto a list managed by the Atlas association to a Salvation Army dormitory to spend the night. According to the applicant, the health and safety conditions at this emergency accommodation centre were deplorable. 19.     With effect from September 2013, asylum ‑ seekers were required to call the emergency accommodation helpline (by dialling 115) to secure a place on the Atlas bus. From then on, according to the applicant, he was unable to secure a place. According to the Government, from 26 September to 12   December   2013, the   Kiosque Emmaüs Solidarité (a platform tasked with facilitating migrants’ access to benefits and services) made eight requests to the Integrated Reception and Orientation Service ( Service intégré d’accueil et d’orientation – SIAO) of the Ile-de-France region for the applicant to be placed in emergency accommodation, but those requests could not be fulfilled because the emergency facilities were at capacity. According to the applicant, his one meal a day came from the Salvation Army in the evening; as there was no meal service on Saturday or Sunday, he went hungry at weekends. Also according to the applicant, demand for the city’s public showers was such that he was able to use them only once a week; he did his laundry there in secret once a month but was unable to dry his clothes properly; he received some clothing, thanks solely to a donation by a volunteer, but it was not what he urgently needed. In the Government’s submission, however, the applicant was eligible for the in ‑ kind relief made available by the city of Paris, including subsidised meal centres and grocery stores, clothing banks offering free or bargain ‑ price clothes and shoes ( vestiboutiques ), and the public showers. The applicant did not get access to State Medical Aid ( aide médicale d’État – AME – public health coverage for persons without lawful immigration status) until 25 October 2013, owing to the application processing times.   Until then the only places he could go were the Health Access Points ( permanences d’accès aux soins – PASS – walk-in services for the indigent and uninsured), which by his account were overcrowded. According to the applicant, Health Access Points did provide care and medicine free of charge, but patients still had to cover surgical procedures, and he was unable pay for the dental X ‑ rays and procedure which he had on 17   July 2013 and for which he was charged a total of 86.45 euros (EUR). He also said that he had broken his wrist – an injury which he had reported to the French authorities in his letter of 6 April 2013. The Government observed that he had provided no medical certificate attesting to the injury. 20.     On 13 November 2013 OFPRA refused the applicant refugee status but accorded him subsidiary protection in view of the widespread violence taking place in his home province. On 5 December 2013 he received a certificate ( récépissé ) recording the grant of international protection and stating that he was permitted to work. 21.     On 17   December 2013 the applicant was offered accommodation at the Corot Entraide d’Auteuil association . According to the Government, the   association is 60% State-subsidised. Application no.   75547/13 (S.G., K.T. and G.I.) (a)    S.G. 22.     The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1987 and lives in Carcassonne. He arrived in France on 15   July 2013 and the next day lodged an asylum claim at the prefecture of the Languedoc ‑ Roussillon region , whereupon he received an offer of accommodation, subject to availability, at   an Asylum Reception Centre ( centre d’accueil pour demandeurs d’asile – CADA). The applicant accepted the offer, as he had to do in order to qualify for the Temporary Waiting Allowance. On 17 July 2013 the social services unit of the local branch of the French Immigration and Integration Office ( Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration – OFII) informed him that there were no places available and put him on the National Reception Scheme ( dispositif national d’accueil – DNA) waiting list. It was furthermore suggested that he call 115 every day to obtain accommodation for the night. That service, which was also at capacity, was unable to offer him accommodation; he was therefore forced to live in a one ‑ person tent, lent by private individuals, on the banks of the Aude river. Part of this account has been disputed by the Government. According to them, once informed of the existence of the 115 helpline and how to use it, the applicant secured a place at the Castelnaudary General ‑ Purpose Emergency Accommodation Centre ( centre d’hébergement d’urgence de droit commun – HUDC) , and although it was possible to stay at a HUDC for up to three months (extensions aside), he voluntarily left the facility. According to the Government’s submissions in that connection, after a first unsuccessful call to the 115 helpline on 15 July 2013, S.G. did not contact the service again until 4   November 2013. He was then accommodated from 5 to 9   November 2013, at which point he departed the centre without giving notice. At his request he   was readmitted the next day, before being excluded on 22   November 2013 for his behaviour. According to the Government, S.G. disturbed his roommate all night and left the room in a highly unsanitary state. The applicant has said that he availed himself from time to time of the relief services of associations such as the Red Cross and Restos du Cœur. 23.     On 2   August 2013 OFPRA registered the applicant’s asylum claim. On 13   August 2013 he was issued with a certificate stating that his claim had been lodged and authorising him to stay until 12 February 2014. On   18   September 2013 he was granted the Temporary Waiting Allowance at a rate of EUR   11.20 net per day, payable retroactively with effect from 12   August 2013. 24.     According to the applicant, his belongings and the tent he was living in were stolen on 21   September 2013, and a private individual then lent him another tent; following this incident he decided to set up camp in a more remote place along the banks of the Aude. 25.     On 7 October 2013, by an application to the interim relief judge of the Montpellier Administrative Court, the applicant sought urgent interim relief to safeguard a fundamental freedom in the form of an order that the State grant him accommodation in his capacity as an asylum ‑ seeker in accordance with national law. By a decision of 8 October 2013 the interim relief judge dismissed his application for the following reasons: “The applicant has a certificate which gives him provisional authorisation to stay pending an asylum claim. By his own account he is in regular contact with the voluntary sector and is receiving the Temporary Waiting Allowance. As he is a young, unmarried man with no dependants, whose relatively minor health conditions are known and are being medically monitored and treated, and in view of the local circumstances, which are that both the asylum ‑ specific and general ‑ purpose emergency accommodation facilities are continually at capacity (an established fact not seriously in dispute) and that priority is necessarily accorded to families or single parents with children and to the elderly or seriously ill, the State’s actions do not represent a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the fundamental freedom in issue, namely the right of asylum ...” 26.     On 23 October 2013 the applicant applied to the Legal Aid Board ( bureau d’aide juridictionnelle ) of the Conseil d’État for legal aid to appeal against the decision of 8 October 2013. In his submission, the   rejection of his application prevented him from pursuing a remedy in the Conseil d’État – a course of action which he regarded as futile in any event given a line of previous decisions on the subject. 27.     According to the applicant’s account and the medical certificates adduced by him in support, he was suffering from leg injuries for which he received drug treatment and physical therapy. On 16 June 2014 he had surgery to remove a screw that had been implanted in his left ankle in Russia. He also has chronic hepatitis C. The medical certificate issued by a doctor in the specialist unit at the Carcassonne hospital on 18 June 2014 stated that the applicant was receiving an antiviral drug for his condition and that a reassessment of his treatment was planned for the end of the year. In support of the application for accommodation which he submitted to the OFII social worker on 24 June 2014 , the applicant drew attention to his state of health and provided medical certificates. 28.     The applicant asked OFPRA to postpone his interview scheduled for 2   July 2014 on account of his mobility issues. 29.     OFPRA rejected the applicant’s asylum claim by a decision of 13   October 2014, which was upheld by the National Asylum Court ( Cour nationale du droit d’asile – CNDA) on 23 April 2015. The applicant sought reconsideration of his asylum claim but this was refused by OFPRA on 31   August 2015 and by the National Asylum Court on 20   September 2016. 30.     The Hérault prefect issued a series of three orders on 24 June 2015, 31 January 2017 and 5 October 2017 requiring the applicant to leave the country voluntarily or face removal ( obligation de quitter le territoire français – OQTF). The applicant brought challenges in the Administrative Court and then in the Administrative Court of Appeal to have the three orders quashed. On 24 September 2018 he submitted an application for a “private and family life” residence permit which, according to a decision of 26   November 2018, could not be entertained because of his failure to comply with the three orders to leave France. (b)    G.I. 31.     The applicant is a Georgian national who was born in 1988 and lives in Carcassonne. He arrived in France on 25 May 2013 . On 28   May 2013 he lodged an asylum claim at the prefecture of the Languedoc ‑ Roussillon region , whereupon he   received an offer of accommodation, subject to availability, at   an Asylum Reception Centre. The applicant accepted the offer, as he had to do in order to qualify for the Temporary Waiting Allowance. The next day, the social services unit of the local OFII branch informed him that there were no places available and put him on the National Reception Scheme waiting list. It was furthermore suggested that he call the 115 helpline for accommodation on a one ‑ off basis each night. That service, which was also at capacity, was unable to offer him accommodation. According to the applicant, he was forced to live rough and suffered from fevers and intestinal problems brought on by his living conditions. 32.     On 27   June 2013 the applicant received a certificate stating that his asylum claim had been lodged and authorising him to stay in the country until 26   October 2013. OFPRA registered his asylum claim on 19   June 2013. On   23   August 2013 the applicant was granted the Temporary Waiting Allowance at a rate of EUR 11.20   net per day, payable retroactively with effect from 1   July 2013. 33.     On 7   October 2013 the applicant made the same type of application as S.G. to the interim relief judge of the Montpellier Administrative Court. By   a decision of 8   October 2013 the interim relief judge dismissed the application for the same reasons as in S.G. ’s case (see paragraph   25 above). 34.     On 24   October 2013 the applicant applied to the Legal Aid Board of the Conseil d’État for legal aid in order to appeal against the decision of 8   October 2013. According to the applicant, the   rejection of his application prevented him from pursuing a remedy in the Conseil d’État – a course of action which he regarded as futile given a line of previous decisions on the subject . 35.     According to the Government, on 11 April 2014, the applicant withdrew his asylum claim and applied to OFII for assisted voluntary return to his country of origin. (c)    K.T. 36.     The applicant is a Russian national who was born in 1990 and lives in Carcassonne. He arrived in France on 7 January 2013 and the next day lodged an asylum claim at the prefecture of the Languedoc ‑ Roussillon region. On   21   May 2013 he obtained a provisional authorisation to stay for one month. 37.     OFPRA registered the applicant’s asylum claim on 14 June 2013. On   26 June 2013 he was issued with a certificate stating that his claim had been lodged and authorising him to stay until 25 December 2013. He received the Temporary Waiting Allowance at a rate of EUR   11.20 net per day as of 15   July 2013. 38.     According to the applicant, he did not receive any offer of accommodation at an Asylum Reception Centre and was forced to live in a one ‑ person tent, lent by private individuals, on the banks of the Aude river. Part of that account has been disputed by the Government. According to them, the   applicant was housed as of 7 January 2013 at the Castelnaudary HUDC , and, although it was possible to stay at a HUDC for up to three months (extensions aside), the applicant voluntarily left the facility and was later excluded for his behaviour. Specifically, the applicant absented himself for several days as of 23   January 2013 and lost his place as a result. He did not call   115 again until 23 July 2013. On 21 November 2013 he forced his way into the Castelnaudary HUDC with S.G., who was staying there. According to the Government, this led to his being temporarily excluded by the head of the centre. The applicant has said that he availed himself from time to time of the relief services of associations such as the Red Cross and Restos du Cœur, and that being forced to walk for three months gave him leg injuries for which he received painkillers and physical therapy. The Government have disputed those allegations, noting that the applicant did not adduce any medical certificate. 39.     On 25 July 2013 the applicant wrote to the Head of Social Cohesion and Public Welfare ( directrice de la cohésion sociale et de la protection de la population ) of the Aude département to request accommodation that would guarantee him decent living conditions. By a letter of 12 August 2013 she replied that he should continue to direct his requests to the OFII social worker and furthermore suggested that he call the 115 helpline. On 9 September 2013 the applicant reached out to the head of Aude urgence accueil . Every Wednesday he went to the OFII social services duty office. However, he received no offer of accommodation. 40.     According to the applicant, on 21   September 2013, his belongings and the tent he was living in were stolen. A private individual then lent him another, less comfortable tent. Following this incident he decided to set up camp in a more remote place along the banks of the Aude. 41.     On 7 October 2013 the applicant made the same type of application as   S.G. (see paragraph   25 above) to the interim relief judge of the Montpellier Administrative Court . By a decision of 8 October 2013 that judge dismissed his application for the same reasons as in S.G.’s case, save   for the reference to state of health (see paragraph   25 above). 42.     On 23 October 2013 the applicant applied to the Legal Aid Board of the Conseil d’État for legal aid in order to appeal against the decision of 8   October 2013. According to the applicant the rejection of his application prevented him from pursuing a remedy in the Conseil d’État – a course of action which he regarded as futile given a line of previous decisions on the subject. 43.     On 2 May 2014 OFPRA rejected the applicant’s asylum claim; its   decision was upheld by the National Asylum Court on 22 December 2014. 44.     The applicant subsequently tried several times to obtain a residence permit but was unsuccessful. Application no.   13114/15 (A.J.) 45.     The applicant is an Iranian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Paris. (a)    Applicant’s account of events preceding his arrival in France 46.     The applicant was a journalist in Iran. When the publication he ran was banned in 2013 for insulting the Koran, he went on to found a new one. He was then charged with the offence of “promoting Western culture”. He   had to issue an apology and destroy all copies of the publication. He was arrested in the street, detained, tortured and threatened with death if   he did   not stop his work. 47.     He managed to flee Iran and arrived in France on 9   September 2014. (b)    Applicant’s account of events since his arrival in France 48.     On 14 October 2014 the association France Terre d’Asile provided the applicant with an address for administrative purposes. He went to the   Paris Police Prefecture   on 23 October 2014 to lodge his asylum claim. His   claim was not registered; he received a notice to attend an appointment on 7   January 2015 for a determination as to whether he was permitted to stay in France. According to the applicant, he was not given any other documents. As a result, without asylum ‑ seeker status, he was unable to secure any material support under national law. 49.     According to the Government, the applicant was immediately referred to the Social and Administrative Assistance Service ( service d’assistance sociale et administrative – SASA) run by France Terre d’Asile (the   SASA is a reception and support platform for adult asylum ‑ seekers arriving in France for the first time, without children, to make an initial asylum claim), which   then steered him towards associations offering clothing and food relief. The applicant has disputed that account, relying on a certificate issued by the deputy head of the SASA on 26   November 2014 from which it appears that no arrangements were made to enable him to meet his fundamental needs while awaiting access to the minimum reception conditions. 50.     On 4 November 2014 he made a request to the prefect of the Ile ‑ de ‑ France region to be provided with accommodation in accordance with national law. By a letter of 7 November 2014 the prefect informed him that he was unable to grant his request because the national reception scheme was at capacity, and suggested that he call 115. 51.     On 5, 12, 13 and 14 November 2014 the applicant stayed at an emergency accommodation centre in Paris’s 18th arrondissement . According to him, the centre had 14 toilets for 386 beds located in a single residence hall, and the living conditions there were deplorable, with frequent incidents of theft and violence. It has been alleged by the Government that the applicant made very little use of the 115 helpline. 52.     On 13 November 2014, by an application to the interim relief judge of the Paris Administrative Court, the applicant sought urgent interim relief to safeguard a fundamental freedom in the form of an order that the prefect consider his   application for permission to stay pending an asylum claim and refer him to a reception or accommodation centre that could take him. By a decision of 14 November 2014 the interim relief judge dismissed his application and gave the following reasons: “ ... It appears from the case file that the applicant, who is 40   years old and single with no dependants, was referred to the Social and Administrative Assistance Service (and is receiving social and legal support) and to the associations offering food and clothing relief. The emergency accommodation facilities are full and as at 14 November 2014 there were 5,452 asylum ‑ seekers with addresses in Paris awaiting a place at an Asylum Reception Centre. Facilities for the homeless and persons in distress are also at capacity. However, the applicant was able to call the 115 helpline and (despite not having priority in his situation) secured overnight stays in the 18th arrondissement emergency accommodation centre on 5, 12, 13 and 14   November. Although the waiting time of about two and a half months between intake at the asylum ‑ seekers’ centre and the appointment at the prefecture may seem long, nonetheless it reflects an effort undertaken by the authorities, which, between the influx of asylum ‑ seekers to Paris and the actual extent of the public resources available, have been concretely compelled to institute a standard waiting time of the order of three months for an appointment. That being so, although the applicant has not yet actually been provided with a form stating that his asylum claim has been lodged, he is not isolated and is receiving support from associations. It follows that the authorities cannot be accused of a lack of care amounting to a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the applicant’s asserted right of asylum ...” 53.     On 3 December 2014 the Conseil d’État likewise dismissed the applicant’s claim, adopting the reasons given by the judge below. 54.     By a letter of 23   December 2014 the applicant brought his situation to the attention of the Prefect of Police, reporting that he had been left with no choice but to live rough, under the bridges near the Gare de l’Est train station. He stated that he had been assaulted and had had his bags stolen and was living in   constant fear that such   incidents would reoccur. 55.     At his appointment at the prefecture on 7 January 2015, the applicant received an application form for permission to stay pending an asylum claim, which he completed and submitted on 22 January 2015. That day, he obtained a provisional authorisation to stay until 21 February, an asylum claim form and an offer of accommodation, subject to availability, at an Asylum Reception Centre. The applicant accepted the offer, as he had to do in order to qualify for the Temporary Waiting Allowance. The applicant has alleged that from 23   October 2014 to 22   January 2015 he was not in a position to show that he was in France lawfully and so lived in constant fear of having his identity checked by the police and a removal order delivered against him. That allegation is disputed by the Government. According to them, the notice issued to the applicant to attend an appointment at the prefecture on 7   January   2015 operated as a provisional residence permit. 56.     On 28 January 2015 the applicant went to Pôle emploi to apply for the Temporary Waiting Allowance. Pôle emploi refused to register his application on the ground that he was not able to show a certificate stating that his asylum claim had been lodged. 57.     On 29 January 2015 he applied to the Paris Administrative Court for an interim order appointing an expert to certify that Pôle emploi ’s refusal had   amounted to a serious and unlawful interference with his right of asylum. By a decision of 30 January 2015 the interim relief judge dismissed his application for the following reasons: “... on 22 January 2015 the police prefecture ... issued [A.J.] with a provisional authorisation to stay, bearing the words ‘for OFPRA procedure’, and an asylum application to be completed within 21   days. It appears from the case file that [A.J.] has thus far been unable to establish that his asylum claim was lodged with OFPRA. Accordingly, Pôle emploi ’s refusal on 28 January 2015 to grant him the Temporary Waiting Allowance cannot be regarded, in the circumstances of the case, as having amounted to a serious and manifestly unlawful interference with the right of asylum. It follows that, on the record as it stands, [A.J.]’s application must be dismissed.” 58.     On 5   February 2015 OFPRA registered the applicant’s asylum claim. 59.     On 6 February 2015 the Conseil d’État upheld the decision of 30   January 2015 on appeal, giving the same reasons as the interim relief judge of the Paris Administrative Court (see paragraph   57   above). 60.     On 12 February 2015 the applicant was granted the Temporary Waiting Allowance. A first payment of EUR 194.65   was made on 5   March 2015. On   1   April and 4 May respectively he received EUR 354.95   and EUR   343.40. 61.     On 23 February 2015 the applicant was issued with a certificate stating that his asylum claim had been lodged with OFPRA. That day, his   provisional authorisation to stay was renewed until 22   August 2015. 62.     From 14 April 2015 the applicant was housed in a hotel through the SASA’s hotel accommodation scheme for single adult asylum ‑ seekers (see   paragraph   49 above). 63.     On 23 April 2015 OFPRA recognised the applicant as a refugee. He   was given notice of that decision on 5 May 2015. The applicant has stated that as a result he received his final Temporary Waiting Allowance payment, of EUR   354.95,   on 1   June 2015. 64.     In June 2015 the applicant obtained accommodation in Paris at the Maison des journalistes, for a six ‑ month period, in a single-occupancy room. The Maison des journalistes is an association that welcomes and provides housing to about 30 journalists with refugee status per year, on premises made available by the city of Paris. According to the Government, the applicant also received daily meal vouchers and public transport tickets. Events after the applications were lodged with the Court 65.     By a letter of 10 April 2017 the Registry of the Court sent a request to counsel for G.I. (application no. 75547/13) to clarify by 10 May 2017 whether G.I. intended to pursue his application within the meaning of Article   37 §   1   (a) of the Convention. 66.     On 5 May 2017 counsel for the applicant informed the Registry that he had been unable to re ‑ establish contact with his client and sought an extension of time. 67.     On 9 May 2017 the Registry sent counsel a letter with recorded receipt inviting him to provide it with the information requested in the letter of 10   April 2017 by 10 June 2017 and noting, furthermore, that the Court could strike out