If you have lived legally and on habitual basis in France for at least 5 years, it is possible to apply for French nationality by 'naturalisation'. It is not an automatic right; the decision remains at the discretion of the French authorities.
In a damning report published last month, the French ombudsman (the 'Défenseur de droits') highlights the difficulties faced by applicants for French nationality in accessing relevant government services and having their application processed within a reasonable time frame.
The report paints a disheartening picture of a system plagued by extended waiting times, inefficient on-line systems, and a frustrating lack of communication.
It warns that these failings can have significant impacts on the lives of individuals, potentially infringing rights protected by the European Convention of Human Rights.
Waiting Times
The ombudsman points out that, under the civil code, applicants have the right to be able to access an appointment and register their application for citizenship ‘within a reasonable time frame’.
Once all the relevant paperwork has been submitted, applications should be processed within a maximum of 12 months (for those who have lived in France for 10 years or more) or 18 months (for those who have been in France for less than 10 years).
However, the ombudsman highlights that in practice these deadlines are rarely respected and that is not unusual for applicants to having to wait up to two years merely to get an initial appointment to submit their application.
Waiting times are even longer once the application has been submitted, with some applicants waiting up to four years for a response.
Communication Issues
The report also draws attention to a lack of communication throughout the application process, with often long delays between the submission of an application and confirmation of its reception, meaning that applicants are sometimes left months without legal proof of the submission of their request.
It also notes that applicants often struggle to contact the authorities for updates on the progress of their application or to ask questions about their situation.
On-Line Process
The difficulties are compounded by more recent problems linked to the introduction of on-line processes. In an increasing number of prefectures, users are asked to book online for the initial appointment and to submit their application. However, the appointments system in many prefectures was failing to operate satisfactorily, with the number of appointments available often very limited.
Although in 23 departments the process is now entirely on-line, the report underlines the primary importance of maintaining non-digital options, not only vital for those who may not have access to the internet, but also necessary back-up for cases where technical problems with the platforms themselves may render certain groups unable to submit their application online.
As the ombudsman acknowledges, naturalisation itself may not be a right, but applicants should be provided with a process that operates fairly and efficiently.
The concerns expressed by the ombudsman are echoed in an equally critical recent parliamentary report on the application process for residence permits in the prefectures.
The report observed that "the rights of foreign nationals have become illegible and incomprehensible under the effect of the piling up of successive reforms; applicable procedures are often ineffective; finally, the State services lack the means to implement them. This complexity is not only detrimental to the exercise of their rights by foreign nationals, but it is also a source of daily difficulties for officials and fosters deep disarray among them."
The report considers that faced with an increasing number of applications for residence permits (even excluding Brexit applications by British nationals), the prefectures are 'saturated' and that on-line systems to make an application and an appointment are not fit for purpose.
The report makes no reference to the specific application process that took place for British nationals under the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement, and the anecdotal evidence suggests that in most prefectures that process went quite smoothly.
The authors make 32 recommendations, including merger of the administration under a fewer number of prefectures, unifying the application process amongst prefectures, setting deadlines for each stage of the process, and the allocation of more resources to cope with the demand.
Related Reading:
