French Police Directive on Legal Immigrants Sparks Outrage Among Rights Groups

Signed by Philippe Jos, interdepartmental director of the national police (DIPN), on November 20, 2024, this service note targets foreigners in a regular situation. The text mentions the implementation of a new procedure that can lead to the degradation, withdrawal or cancellation of residence permits. This procedure consists of filling out, by all the intercepting services, shuttle forms recording the offenses committed by foreigners in a regular situation, and then sending them to the Directorate of Migration and Integration (DMI) of the Loire-Atlantique prefecture, explains Ouest-France.

In total, 35 shuttle forms, including 5 that could lead to a degradation of residence permits, have already been sent by the intercepting services to the Loire-Atlantique prefecture as of February 26. After receiving the forms, the prefectural service is responsible for assessing the situation of the foreigner in a regular situation and deciding on any sanctions to be taken against him, which can go as far as the withdrawal of his residence permit.

The Magistrates’ Union, the Lawyers’ Union and the League of Human Rights are challenging this police note before the administrative court of Nantes and are asking for its suspension. This note infringes on the fundamental rights of foreigners holding a residence permit by giving access to their personal data, which can precarious their administrative situation or hinder an ongoing regularization request, they believe.

Lawyer Maxime Gouache justifies the challenges by the fact that the interdepartmental director of the national police (DIPN) is not authorized to make such a decision and that this procedure confuses between two types of police. According to his explanations, this note entrusts to judicial police officers the task of transmitting to administrative agents (the prefecture agents) data concerning procedures that are still ongoing.

To support his argument, the lawyer cites the case of information appearing in the judicial records (TAJ) of foreigners in a regular situation that the police officers can now transmit to the prefecture.

For the applicant unions, this is a violation of the secrecy of the investigation. They recall that the consultation of information from the TAJ should not be the responsibility of just anyone. They took care to specify that this case concerns state security. Given the sensitivity of the information concerning the foreigners in a regular situation that the intercepting services can transmit to the prefecture, "the opinion of the CNIL (National Commission for Informatics and Liberties) should have been sought," added the applicants.