The highest administrative court had been seized by several exile defense organizations, including Anafé (national association for border assistance for foreigners), which essentially accuses France of having done so since 2015, the day after the attacks in Paris and Saint -Denis, an exceptional measure, the norm, in favor of migratory control in a Schengen area based on free circulation.
In support of their request, the associations, based on a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), considered that Paris, by not justifying “new threats”, did not provide any sufficient motivation for a six-year term. month of extension of these checks.
“New Items”
However, the Council of State ruled that the “new elements” that motivated the French request were indeed justified.
The government “could legally decide, in order to counter these new threats in the most effective way possible, to renew the control of internal borders for an additional period of six months,” writes the Council of State.
“Good news! The Council of State validates the maintenance by France of controls at the internal borders of the European Union. These controls are necessary to prevent the risk of terrorism as much as possible and control migratory flows”, the minister rejoiced. of the Interior, Gérald Darmanin on Twitter.
new threats
Among the new elements, the Government had listed “the greater risk of the return of terrorist fighters from Iraq or Syria linked to the instability of security in the region”, in particular after the attack on the Hassaké prison, in northern Syria. , January 20. of 2022, “the increase in the number of calls to commit attacks from Islamist terrorist movements” or the verdict of the trial for the attacks of November 13, 2015.
On the health side, the government relied on “the arrival of new dominant variants of covid-19”.
According to the Council of State, a threat can be considered new “either when it is of a different nature from previously identified threats, or when new circumstances and events cause its characteristics to change under conditions such as modifying its timeliness, scope or consistency” .
If it judged that “the threat derived from the secondary movements of migrants does not constitute (is not) a new threat”, the Council of State considered that the Government would have requested in any case the renewal of the same controls “in the absence of such reason “.
Source: BFM TV
