September by the Office Français de Protection des Réfugiés et Apatrides
(OFPRA) on the grounds that the cursory and muddled explanations of the author,
and their lack of credibility, make it impossible to determine the reality of his
political commitment and the extent to which his fears of persecution by the
Algerian authorities are justified. On 29 June 1993, the Refugee Board
(Commission de recours des réfugiés) confirmed that decision.
5.3 On 12 August 1993, the author received a formal request to leave French
territory. As he failed to comply within the specified time limit, a deportation order
was issued against him by the prefect of the Val d'Oise on 25 November 1993. The
author appealed against that order to the Tribunal Administratif de Versailles. The
Tribunal rejected his appeal on 26 November 1993 as inadmissible on the grounds
of failure to provide a statement of facts and arguments.
5.4 The State party notes that the author requested a residence permit, which was
refused him by the prefect of the Val d'Oise on 12 August 1993. His appeal against
that decision was turned down by the Minister of the Interior on 30 August 1993.
On 13 June 1995, the Tribunal rejected the author's appeal against the Minister's
decision. On 10 November 1995, the author was appealing against that latest
decision before the Conseil d'Etat.
5.5 The State party maintains that domestic remedies have not been exhausted.
According to the State party, the author could ask the administrative court for an
annulment of the request to leave French territory, which he has not done. The
State party also points out that the Conseil d'Etat has yet to rule on the author's
appeal against the refusal to grant him a residence permit.
5.6 Lastly, the State party stresses that the author has not exhausted available
remedies against the deportation order. It observes that his request to the Tribunal
Administratif de Versailles was rejected because it was inadmissible owing to its
lack of substantiation. The State party maintains that, owing to the subsidiary
nature of appeal to international bodies, settled judicial practice dictates that
domestic judicial remedies are not exhausted simply by being invoked; the matter
must also have been referred to the national authorities in the proper manner.
Citing the judicial practice of the European Commission, the State party asserts,
accordingly, that the author of a communication whose application for domestic
remedy has been declared inadmissible because of its failure to meet the
requirements of national law, particularly as to form and time limit, has not
exhausted domestic judicial remedies. As in this case the author has not brought
the matter to court in the manner required, the State party maintains that he has
therefore not made good the claim of a violation of article 3 of the Convention,
which would have been an entirely effective recourse.
5.7 The State party observes that an appeal against a deportation order is
particularly effective, since it results in the suspension of the administrative