French court upholds two-year delay in Moroccan man’s citizenship application over history and civics gaps
He had lived in France for ten years and earned a master’s degree there in 2017. But his answers about French history and institutions led the Interior Ministry to defer his naturalization application. The courts have now upheld that decision.
1999. That is the year given by the Moroccan national when asked when European integration began. During his interview on integration, he also struggled to talk about Joan of Arc and Napoleon Bonaparte. These gaps weighed heavily in his application.
The man, born in July 1991, did not know how senators are elected and was unaware that European elections exist. He also struggled to name the local and national elections in which French citizens can vote.
On Bladi.net : Moroccan Nuclear Engineer Waits Three Years for French Citizenship
He did, however, give some correct answers. The ministry nevertheless considered his knowledge of history, institutions and the principles of the Republic insufficient. On July 12, 2024, it deferred his application for two years, according to the Nantes Administrative Court ruling.
Court upholds two-year delay
On August 1, 2024, the Moroccan man took the case to court. He argued that the administration had wrongly assessed his integration despite his higher education and time in France. He also challenged the validity of the decision’s electronic signature and its reasoning.
The court reviewed the interview report and noted the minister’s discretion in naturalization matters. The judges found that the gaps identified justified the deferral. They also rejected the arguments concerning the signature and the reasoning behind the decision.
On Bladi.net : France revives a fifteen-year-old case to block a Moroccan man’s naturalization
In its ruling of October 2, 2026, the court dismissed the appeal, along with requests for reimbursement of €3,000 in legal costs and a review of the application subject to a penalty of €400 per day. The administrative decision of July 12, 2024, therefore remains valid. The two-year period set on that date had already expired by the time of the ruling.
