Atmospheric pollution relevant to asylum claim, holds French court

2 February 2021 by

Air pollution is particularly high in Bangladesh, the asylum seeker’s country of origin

On 18 December of last year, a judgment was handed down by the cour administrative d’appel à Bordeaux (the appeals court of the administrative court of Bordeaux) which, until quite recently, went under the international radar. In a landmark judgment, the Court ruled that the respondent, an asylum seeker from Bangladesh (‘Mr A’), could not be returned to his country of origin owing to two medical conditions: allergic asthma and sleep apnea. What was remarkable about this judgment was that it was the first time that a French court has taken pollution into account in a decision of this kind. The Court stated:

[Mr A] would be confronted upon arrival in his country of origin […] with a worsening of his respiratory disease because of the atmospheric pollution.

An article published by the Guardian brought the case to the attention of the British media, and the story has since been picked up by a number of national papers. This article will seek to shed light on the judgment, which is only available in French, and the legal circumstances leading to this groundbreaking decision.

Facts and procedural history

Mr A is a national of Bangladesh, who entered France on 4 December 2011. He suffers from a chronic respiratory pathology involving severe allergic asthma, treated daily with a combination of medications, and severe sleep apnea, which requires the use of a ventilator each night.

On 29 May 2013, Mr A’s asylum application was refused and on 30 January 2014 his residence application was also refused. He managed to obtain a temporary residence permit in 2015, but this expired in 2017. Attempts to regularise Mr A’s stay, including a request for family reunification on behalf of his wife, and an application for a second renewal of his temporary residence permit, were refused. Mr A was therefore ordered to leave France within 30 days.  However, on 15 June 2020, the tribunal administratif de Toulouse (the Toulouse administrative tribunal) overturned both decisions regarding the denial of his request for family reunification and the refusal of the renewal of his residence permit.

As a result, on 3 July 2020 the local authorities appealed the decision to the cour administrative d’appel à Bordeaux and requested the court to order a stay of execution, which would delay the carrying out of the order of the tribunal administratif de Toulouse.

The judgment

The Second Chamber of the cour administrative d’appel à Bordeaux dismissed the appeal on 18 December 2020, finding it unnecessary to rule on either the request for a stay of execution on behalf of the local authorities and the request for an order to issue a residence permit on behalf of Mr A. The decision was based on Section 11 of Article L.313-11 of the Code on Entry and Residence of Foreign nationals and Right of Asylum (‘CESEDA’), which establishes the circumstances under which a foreign national, suffering from a medical condition, normally living in France, must be issued a residence permit.

These circumstances are:

(i) his health condition requires medical care and the lack of provision of this medical care could have exceptionally serious consequences to his condition; and

(ii) the delivery and characteristics of the country of origin’s healthcare system would not allow for him to effectively access the appropriate treatment.

Under Section 11 of Article L-313-11 of CESEDA, the decision to issue a residence permit is made by the administrative authority following the opinion of a board of physicians of the French Office for Immigration and Integration (‘l’Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration, OFII).

On 1 October 2017, the board of physicians of the French Office for Immigration and Integration deemed Mr A in need of health care and stated that lack of its provision could have exceptionally serious consequences on his condition. On 25 July 2019 the physician in charge of Médecins du Monde in Toulouse certified that the short and long-term care that Mr A receives has stabilised his respiratory function, going from 58% in 2013 to 70% in 2017. The physician further added that in Bangladesh, where the rate of fine particles of pollutants is one of the highest in the world, asthma-related mortality is 12.92 per 100,000 inhabitants compared to 0.82 in France.

In reaching its decision, the Court relied on information about Mr A’s father, who had died as a result of respiratory failure brought about by an exacerbation in his asthma. The Court found that Mr A, would be exposed to a risk of aggravation of his health condition and to premature death. The Court took into account that healthcare is of a lower quality in Bangladesh, where many of the drugs Mr A relies upon in France would not be available. Furthermore, the Court took into account the fact that power cuts would interrupt Mr A’s use of a ventilator. On this basis, the Court ruled that the refusal to renew his residence permit violated Section 11 of Article L.313-11 of CESEDA.


Aside from being a fascinating legal occurrence, which commentators see as fitting into a ‘growing trend around the world to seek institutional accountability for unhealthy environments’, this case may be a first stepping stone in France for the creation of a migration system which properly accounts for environmental factors in the country of origin. As Ludovic Rivière told Infomigrants:

Just as an AIDS patient cannot be sent back to a country where he cannot be treated or a death row inmate to a state that practices capital punishment, Sheel cannot be deported to Bangladesh. We are still a long way from making precedent and creating a real climate refugee status in France.

Because France is a civil law system, Mr Rivière is quite right to emphasise that Mr A’s case falls short of making any real change to the legal landscape in France; the most immigration lawyers can hope for is that it demonstrates a willingness on the part of the French judiciary to interpret Article L.313-11 of CESEDA in the same way.

However, it is possible that Mr A’s case is just as legally significant, if not more so, in its neighbouring common law jurisdiction of England and Wales. The domestic courts here are remarkably flexible in their willingness to take into account the legislative frameworks and jurisprudence of other countries. Indeed, Lord Bingham in the case of Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22, which relied upon judgments from more than ten common law and civil jurisdictions, including France, commented:

Development of the law in this country cannot of course depend on a head-count of decisions and codes adopted in other countries around the world, often against a background of different rules and traditions. […] however […] [i]n a shrinking world […] there must be some virtue in uniformity of outcome whatever the diversity of approach in reaching that outcome.

[para 32]

Given the geographical and political ties between the UK and France, and links between the asylum systems, including the existence of the Calais/Dover migrant route, in a ‘shrinking world’ the immigration systems of France and the UK are particularly close to one another. Although not authoritative, the judgment of Mr A is likely to be persuasive in domestic courts.

This is particularly the case given the similarity in terms of legal criteria between Section 11 of Article L.313-11 of CESEDA and the new threshold test established in Paposhvili v Belgium [2016] ECHR 1113 and brought into domestic law by the Supreme Court in AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17 (and covered by the UKHRB here, here and here). Paposhvili was interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that a person can resist deportation to their country of origin on Article 3 grounds where there is a real risk of exposure to:

  1. a serious, rapid and irreversible decline in his or her state of health resulting in intense suffering; or
  2. a significant reduction in life expectancy (see para [183] of Paposhvili and paras [27-30] of AM (Zimbabwe).

Indeed, in further similarity to Section 11 of Article L.313-11, accessibility of the treatment in the country of origin is an important requirement under the new legal framework for Article 3 medical cases.[1] Domestic immigration practitioners should not, therefore, overlook Mr A’s case as a ‘sporadic decision’[2] precipitated by a foreign legal code. Instead, it can be seen as part of a progressive European movement in immigration law involving medical conditions, as well as a powerful tool in any Article 3 medical case in which the country of origin possesses adverse environmental factors.

This article is by Ruby Peacock, an aspiring barrister and currently a legal and policy intern at the Legal Resources Centre in Cape Town, and Susana Ferrin Perez, an aspiring barrister.

[1] AM (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] UKSC 17, para [23].

[2] Anne-Diandra Louarn, ‘A Bangladeshi migrant becomes the first ‘environmentally displaced’ person in France’, Infomigrants, 14 January 2021. Available at: [accessed 19 January 2021].

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy diplomatic relations disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Harry Dunn Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy procurement Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism The Round Up tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: