Key facts of the case:

The Prefect of Meurthe-et-Moselle, through the Order of 20 November 2012, refused to grant Mr A., a national from the Democratic Republic of Congo, permission to stay, and ordered him to leave the French territory within thirty days and fixed the Democratic Republic of Congo as the country to which he could be automatically removed upon the expiry of this time limit. In March 2013, the administrative court of Nancy refused the application of Mr A. to cancel the Order of November 2012. In December 2013, the Nancy administrative court of appeal rejected the appeal made by Mr A. against the ruling of the administrative court of Nancy.

Outcome of the case:

The appeal by Mr A. was rejected by the State Council which concluded that the applicant was not deprived of his right to be heard.

The State Council rejected the appeal by Mr A. by dismissing the pleas made:

• when the Prefect receives a request to issue a residence permit on the basis of the one of the provisions of the Code of entry and stay of foreigners and the right of asylum, the Prefect is not automatically required, in the absence of express provisions concerning this, to examine if the interested party may claim authorization to stay on the basis of a different provision of this code, even if it is still permissible for the Prefect to do so on a purely discretionary basis. A foreigner cannot usefully make a plea based on a misreading of Article L. 313-14 of the Code of the entry and stay of foreigners and the right of asylum (private and family life residence permit) against a refusal to a request for a residence permit which was not presented on the basis of this article;
• in the case provided for by 3-1 of article L. 511-1 of the Code of the entry and stay of foreigners and the right of asylum, where the decision requiring the applicant to leave the French territory is made concomitantly with the refusal to issue a residence permit, the obligation to leave the French territory necessarily arises from the refusal of a residence permit. Thus, the right to be heard recognized by the Charter of fundamental rights does not imply that the Administration is obliged to require the interested party to make representations in any specific way on the decision obliging them to leave the French territory, since they could be heard before the decision is made to refuse to issue a residence permit. The simple fact that the applicant had not been invited to make representations before the decision to require him to leave the territory was not of such a nature as to lead to regarding him as having been deprived of his right to be heard.