V.F. v France: Court didn't review victim's statements in-depth

The Nigerian applicant lodged an application for asylum with the French Office for Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons (OFPRA).

She took the view that a return to Nigeria would have made her at risk of being forced into prostitution again. She relied on Article 4 of the Convention.

The application was rejected by the National Court of Asylum on the grounds that the Court expressly referred to the issue of a prostitution network in its decision on 20 June 2008 with respect to the applicant. Moreover, after a careful case review, it judged that she could not be under additional protection. The applicant stated that the Court failed to review her personal situation in-depth.

The Court reiterated that Article 13 of the Convention only applies in the event of alleged violations of the Convention that constitute defensible claims in accordance with its jurisprudence (notably Rotaru v. Romania [GC], no 28341/95, § 67, ECHR 2000-V). This was not the case for the claims brought forward under Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention, since the elements contained in the applicant's statements do not allow to judge that the State has failed to fulfill its obligations under the above provisions .

Her claim was rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Article 35 § § 3 a) and 4 of the Convention.

Full case law : V.F. c. La France, Requête no 7196/10, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 29 November 2011