The mayor of Calais has let it be known that she will not apply the court decision ordering her to open water access points for migrants.
The mayor of Calais refuses to offer water to the exiles. It also refuses, thereby, to apply the law. Natacha Bouchart (LR) decided to enter into a sling and oppose the decision of the Council of State and the administrative court of Lille. This Monday, the body called on the City to set up water access points for migrants. The municipality said it “will not follow up on injunctions”.
“The court decision of the Council of State is an injustice for the people of Calais, because it puts them again under the threat of the recreation of yet another ‘jungle'”, Natacha Bouchart justified in a statement, deploring ” the absence of a national and European policy offering a global solution to control immigration ”.
“Drink, wash …”
The Council of State had been seized by the municipality and by the Ministry of the Interior to challenge a decision of the administrative court of Lille rendered on June 26. The court then ordered the City of Calais and the State to urgently install water points allowing them to “drink, wash, wash their clothes, as well as latrines, and organize a adapted device for access to showers ”.
Obviously, especially from a health point of view, which runs up against the reluctance of the town hall. “In reality, it seems to me that the solution consisting in coming to the aid of migrants presupposes above all their departure to suitable centers, and it is up to the State to have a clear answer on this subject. “, Again hammered the city council, adding that she would oppose” any device “and that the prefect, who” will meet the associations this week “, will therefore have to” requisition “.
“Inhuman treatment”
For its part, the Council of State considered that “the living conditions of migrants reveal a deficiency of the public authorities, which is likely to expose the persons concerned to inhuman or degrading treatment and which therefore causes a serious and manifestly illegal to a fundamental freedom ”. The high court had thus ruled that “it is with good reason that the judge of the summary proceedings of the administrative court pronounced” the injunctions.
.
