Following an appeal by several organisations, the Conseil d’État today rejected a request to annul the French decree publishing the UK-France agreement concerning the prevention of dangerous journeys to cross the English Channel, signed on 29 and 30 July 2025. It ruled that this agreement, which does not differ from the laws in force nor concern a matter reserved for the legislature by the French Constitution, did not require parliamentary approval.
Following the President of the French Republic’s state visit to London in July 2025, an agreement was reached between France and the United Kingdom with a view to preventing migrants from making dangerous journeys to the UK. This agreement provides for a procedure for the readmission to France of third-country nationals who have landed directly in the United Kingdom or who have been intercepted or rescued at sea and brought ashore when crossing the English Channel, and who do not or no longer fulfil the conditions for entry to, presence in, or residence in the United Kingdom. It also provides for the possibility for voluntary nationals of third-party countries who are on French territory to apply for a UK visa. The agreement’s objective is to achieve a balance between the number of people returned to France and the number of people effectively admitted to the United Kingdom under either of these procedures during the period of implementation of the agreement (‘one in, one out’ policy).
Several associations petitioned the Conseil d’État to annul the French Decree of 11 August 2025 publishing the agreement.
The applicants argued, firstly, that the agreement could not legally be published without prior authorisation of its ratification by the legislature and, secondly, that its provisions violated various constitutional rules and other international commitments made by France.
Concerning the first issue, the Conseil d’État pointed out that under article 53 of the French Constitution, treaties or agreements whose provisions relate to matters reserved for legislation in the Constitution or that set out rules that differ from those laid down in legislative provisions can only be ratified or approved through a law.
In this regard, it noted that the agreement did not contain any provisions that differ from existing legislative provisions, in particular, the legislative provisions of the French Code of Entry and Residence of Foreigners and of the Right to Asylum (‘CESEDA’) relating to the entry of foreigners into France, which provide for the possibility of derogation by the regulatory authorities.
It also noted that the provisions of the July 2025 agreement imposing a readmission obligation on France were limited to allowing foreigners to enter France without governing the conditions under which they could exercise their constitutional rights or freedoms, including the right to a normal family life or the right to seek asylum, and that the rules governing the entry of foreigners into France did not, in themselves, fall within the jurisdiction of the legislature as set out in article 34 of the French Constitution.
Lastly, it considered that none of the other provisions of the agreement invoked by the applicants concerned a matter reserved for the legislature by the Constitution.
Concerning the second issue, the Conseil d’État pointed out, in accordance with its settled case law, that it is not responsible for ruling, in litigation, on the constitutionality of treaties or agreements, nor on the compliance of a treaty or agreement with other international commitments. For this reason, it dismissed all the other arguments put forward by the applicants.
On these grounds, the Conseil d’État rejected the application for annulment of the French decree of 11 August 2025.