The decisions under review
The order contained several measures, including an OQTF, a return ban and a decision designating Somalia as the country of removal. The court reviewed each separately.
The application addressed, in particular, the risk of enforcement to Somalia. Relevant individual facts were assessed alongside objective material concerning the destination.
The decisive point: risk in Somalia
On the individual and objective material in the file, the court found that removal to Somalia would expose the person to treatment prohibited by Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article L. 721-4 CESEDA prevents removal to a country where a person would face such a risk. The review concerns the concrete destination and individual circumstances, not only a general assessment of the country.
Cancellation limited to the destination
The court cancelled the decision designating Somalia as the country of removal. It did not cancel the OQTF or the return ban.
That distinction matters: removal could not be enforced to the cancelled destination, while the other measures retained the effects that the judgment had not removed.
Scope of the judgment
The decision does not automatically recognise a risk for every Somali national. The outcome depended on the individual and objective material produced in this file.
It shows that a ground directed against the country of removal may succeed even where challenges to the OQTF and IRTF do not. It does not guarantee the same outcome in another case.
Discuss your situation
You can send the firm the essential facts, relevant dates and any known deadline.
Frequently asked questions
What was cancelled?
Only the decision designating Somalia as the country of removal. The OQTF and return ban were not cancelled.
Why did the measures have different outcomes?
They have distinct legal purposes. The Article 3 risk concerned enforcement to Somalia and did not, in this judgment, cancel the other measures.
Does the judgment automatically protect every Somali national?
No. The court assesses the individual circumstances, objective context and evidence in each file.