In a ruling published on 14 November, France’s Conseil d’État (Council of State) held that a Togolese national who has lived in the country since 2002 cannot compel the prefecture to issue a new residence permit merely on the basis of having a French child. The high administrative court found the applicant had provided no evidence of contributing to the child’s upkeep and, moreover, had multiple criminal convictions that posed a public-order risk.
The decision overturns lower-court findings that procedural errors invalidated the prefect’s refusal and clarifies how Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—protection of private and family life—interacts with domestic immigration law. Significantly, the bench stated that “family attachment” must be balanced against behaviour and integration indicators such as employment, language proficiency and respect for French laws.
![Council of State confirms that family ties alone do not guarantee a French residence permit]()
Legal practitioners say the judgment will tighten discretionary admissions, especially for applicants who rely on family grounds without demonstrating economic integration. Prefectures are likely to cite the ruling to justify more rejections, potentially increasing litigation.
For employers, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that accompanying dependants on local-hire contracts meet independent residence-permit criteria rather than relying solely on family links. Mobility policies should include contingency plans should dependants be refused renewal.
Advocacy groups warn that the ruling could disproportionately affect long-term residents with mixed immigration histories, and they are calling for clearer statutory guidelines so that applicants know what evidence is required to prove “effective participation” in family life.
The decision overturns lower-court findings that procedural errors invalidated the prefect’s refusal and clarifies how Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—protection of private and family life—interacts with domestic immigration law. Significantly, the bench stated that “family attachment” must be balanced against behaviour and integration indicators such as employment, language proficiency and respect for French laws.
Legal practitioners say the judgment will tighten discretionary admissions, especially for applicants who rely on family grounds without demonstrating economic integration. Prefectures are likely to cite the ruling to justify more rejections, potentially increasing litigation.
For employers, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that accompanying dependants on local-hire contracts meet independent residence-permit criteria rather than relying solely on family links. Mobility policies should include contingency plans should dependants be refused renewal.
Advocacy groups warn that the ruling could disproportionately affect long-term residents with mixed immigration histories, and they are calling for clearer statutory guidelines so that applicants know what evidence is required to prove “effective participation” in family life.
