Moroccan stay goes unreported despite benefit declarations; CAF seeks €6,194
The death of his brother and, according to his account, his son’s hospitalisation led him to join his family in Morocco. After returning, the RSA and APL recipient received a claim for 6,194 euros. His declarations of income would weigh heavily in court.
He had kept his apartment in France. But from 22 December 2023 to 14 May 2024, the man stayed in Morocco without notifying the Gironde CAF, while continuing to receive social benefits.
On Bladi.net : France RSA Morocco Stay Limits: 3 Month Rule Explained
According to his account, his brother had been accommodating his wife and children in Morocco. After his death, they were left without a place to live. His son had also been hospitalised and needed him there.
On 15 May 2024, an inspection revealed his absence. The CAF demanded 6,194.46 euros from him: 4,303.16 euros in RSA and 1,891.30 euros in APL. It then classified the case as fraud and imposed a penalty of 130 euros, as well as a surcharge of 619.45 euros.
He declared his income from Morocco
Before the court, the benefit recipient maintained that he had acted in good faith. He pointed out that he had continued to rent his apartment and had lived in France for more than thirty years. He sought to have the sanctions overturned, citing these exceptional family circumstances.
But one detail counted against him: during his stay in Morocco, he continued submitting his quarterly income declarations while giving his French address. The judges said he could therefore also have informed the CAF of his absence.
On Bladi.net : France APL Housing Allowance Morocco Stays Rules
In its ruling of 10 July 2026, the Bordeaux judicial court acknowledged that the family events could explain a hasty departure. However, they did not make it impossible to declare a stay of nearly five months.
The judges upheld the 130-euro penalty, which had already been recovered, and the surcharge of 619.45 euros. The man must pay the remaining 401.45 euros on the latter. The court ruled on the sanctions; the validity of the original debt had not been challenged before the administrative court.
