In its decision published on the 1^st of July 2025, the French Council of State has denied the relevance and binding character of the decisions taken by the Committee on the Rights of the Child against the French government. This decision comes after an appeal started by multiple human rights, children’s rights and asylum-focused NGOs which aimed at pushing the French state to bring its protection of unaccompanied minors up to the standards of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The lack of adequacy of the protection framework was highlighted by the Committee in multiple decisions denouncing violation of the Convention by the French policy relating to unaccompanied minors (S.E.M.A. v. France, 2023 and U.A. v. France, 2024). Such decisions posit that the French policy breached the rights of unaccompanied minors notably due to the lack of due process in the age assessment procedure which ignored the benefit of the doubt and did not respect the best interests of the child, the right of the child to be heard as well as their right to preserve their identity. The Committee also notes the absence of state protection providing to the child regardless of the vulnerable situation they found themselves in as well as violation of the right of the child to legal representation and legal remedies. The Committee has also repeatedly notified the French state of the need to bring its protection of unaccompanied minors up to the level of protection required by its obligations under the Convention in all its concluding observations since 1994 up to the most recent one in 2023.

This new decision of the French Council of State raises serious concerns regarding the effective protection of unaccompanied children who reach the French territory. France is known to be a large port of entry for refugees and is the second largest point of registration for child refugees and asylum seekers (accompanied or unaccompanied) in Europe according to Eurostat. NGOs within the territory have sounded the alarm regarding the treatment of unaccompanied minors which echo the concerns of the Committee. The most recent, published on the 3^rd of July 2025 by Utopia 56 and the Association d'Accès aux Droits des Jeunes et d'Accompagnement vers la Majorité, denounced “systematic failures” in age assessments and identity document reviews, a complete disparity of practices across the territory leading to a lack of access to health care and recurrent instances of children being abandoned and left to live on the streets.

Moreover, this decision raises concerns as to the future of children’s rights in France. Although the French decision does not directly contradict the obligations of the state under the third optional protocol it has ratified, it does, however, denote a clear defiance of the Convention and the Committee. Indeed, although the decisions of the Committee on individual communications are not directly binding, they have gained authoritative status which France has decided to ignore. Moreover, the optional protocol requires the state to provide a report on the consideration of its decision, within which France could have indicated its disagreement with the decision. Nevertheless, the Council of State chose to expressly deny the relevance of the Committee’s work.

The French state is nevertheless bound by the Convention which it has ratified and cannot justify clear violations of children’s rights, particularly when highlighted by the Committee itself, by the non-binding character of the individual communication procedure. In this sense, violations of the Convention cannot be drained of legal relevance by pointing to the non-binding character of the Committee’s decisions. In this context, it must be reiterated that children, regardless of their immigration status, are active rights-holders under the Convention as well as other human rights treaties, and must be treated with dignity and respect. It is thus crucial that France rectifies the course of its commitment to children’s rights and ensure that all children, including unaccompanied minors, are effectively granted protection against all violations of their rights.