Quot. jur., n° 137, 14 nov. 1991, 6
Case Ministre de l’intérieur c. Uriarte Diaz De Guerenu

17 May 1991

(…)

Given that pursuant to the terms of the Statute (“ordonnance”) of 2 November 1945 amended by the Law of 9 September 1986: “in case of absolute emergency (“urgence absolue”) and by way of exception to Articles 22 to 25, expulsion may be ordered if the presence of the foreigner on French territory constitutes a threat of a particularly grave kind to public order”;

Given that (i) it appears from the papers before the Court that, having regard to (a) the gravity of the disturbances to public order caused by armed and organised groups, (b) the persistence of close links between M. Uriarte Diaz de Guérenu and one such group, and (c) the fact that M. Uriarte Diaz de Guérenu lived clandestinely in France until 11 July 1989, when he was discovered by the police services during a search, his expulsion presented, on 12 July 1989, a case of absolute emergency and (ii) in these circumstances the Administrative Court of Pau was wrong to base itself upon the absence of absolute emergency in order to quash the order under attack;

Given, however, that it falls to the Conseil d’Etat, seized of the case in its entirety, by devolution through the appeal process, to examine the other grounds brought forward by M. Uriarte Diaz de Guérenu before the Administrative Court of Pau;

Given that (i) the order under attack gives as its reason (“motif”) that M. Uriarte Diaz de Guérenu: “is linked with a violent group likely to commits terrorist attacks and that he is an active member of that organised and armed group”; and (ii) such a reason meets, in this case, the requirements of the Law of 11 July 1979;

Given that the provisions of Article 32-2 of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 (pursuant to which, unless superior reasons of national security prevent it, a refugee may not be expelled without having been put into a position to show his innocence by having recourse to a competent authority) could not be relevant from the moment that reasons of the sort mentioned in that Article existed in the case;

Given that it does not appear from the papers before the Court that when he found that the presence of M. Uriarte Diaz de Guérenu constituted a particularly grave threat to public order, the Minister of the Interior based his decision upon facts which were materially incorrect or upon an error of judgement (“appréciation”);

Given that the alleged abuse of power (“détournement de pouvoir”) is not proven;

Given that (i) it flows from all the foregoing that the Minister of the Interior is well founded to maintain that, by the judgement under attack, the Administrative Court of Pau wrongly quashed his order dated 12 July 1989 enjoining M. Uriarte Diaz de Guérenu to leave French territory; and (ii) in the light of this, the pleadings claiming a suspension of the judgement under attack have become superfluous;

DECIDES:
Article 1: Article 1 of the judgement of the Administrative Court of Pau dated 16 October 1991 is quashed.
(…)

Back to top

This page last updated Friday, 30-Sep-2005 17:17:06 CDT. Copyright 2007. All rights reserved.