opinion of the Criminal Division which, in a verdict pronounced on 5th June 2012, given in the light of the rulings of the Court of Justice, considered that, in such scenarios, since foreigners do not incur imprisonment, they cannot therefore be placed in police custody. By three judgements of 5th July 201222, the Civil Division upheld rulings declaring police custody, based solely on the fact of a foreigner’s residence papers not being in order, to be unlawful and overturned a ruling by the President of a court of appeal having judged the opposite. This development led the Government to introduce a bill (as a matter of urgency), concerning detention for verification of temporary residence rights 23. The 1st Section of the bill institutes a form of “detention” in police facilities (with the exception of police custody facilities), for a maximum period of sixteen hours, “for the purposes of verification of their right to free movement and temporary residence on French territory”24. The institution of this kind of detention would therefore introduce a specific framework for short-term deprivation of liberty that is distinct from police custody 25. It would also be distinct from the hearing (examination) provided for under article 62 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is limited to four hours and, moreover, presupposes that there is no plausible reason to suspect that an offence has been committed. Above all, it would be distinct from detention, as specified under article 78-3 of the same code, in order to allow the establishment of a person’s identity, which similarly may not exceed a period of four hours. A four-hour period was therefore deemed insufficient, taking the necessary verifications into account, in order to establish whether a foreigner, taken in for questioning by the police, is residing in France illegally. One might hold the contrary to be true, in view of the comprehensiveness of the databases listing residence permits issued to foreigners26 and the obligation incumbent upon them to show the permits authorising their temporary residence in France when so required by the police27. However, the text’s impact study, citing the “brief but reasonable” period mentioned by the Court of Justice in the above-analysed judgements, lists the requirements weighing upon the police (transport time, time of notification of rights, time for finding an interpreter, meeting with a lawyer etc.) that may justify exceeding a period of four hours. At least it is permissible to hope that the maximum of sixteen hours will not be reached too often. In 2012, as in the previous year, the uncertainties weighing upon the applicable rules resulted in a significant reduction in the numbers of persons placed in detention. During the inspection conducted by the Contrôleur général between 12th and 16th November 2012, between twenty and twenty three persons, on the various days, were accommodated in a centre of seventy-two places. 22 Nos. 959, 960 and 965. Furthermore, the text modifies the offence of assisting illegal residence “in order to exclude humanitarian and disinterested actions therefrom”. 24 The new Article L. 611-1-1 of the CESEDA. 25 For which, it goes without saying, the Chief Inspector of places of deprivation of liberty shall accept competence if th the bill is passed, without there being any need to amend the act of 30 October 2007. 26 Application program for the management of files on foreign nationals in France (Application de gestion des dossiers de ressortissants étrangers en France / AGDREF), authorised by a decree (décrêt) of 19th March 1993, whose content is estimated in a report from the French Senate (initial finance bill for 2011 – Cion des lois (Law Commission) – Sécurité, immigration, asile et integration [“Security, Immigration, Asylum and Integration”] J.P.COURTOIS and th F.N.BUFFET) at five million individual files; AGDREF 2 was authorised by a decree of 8 June 2011 (cf. articles R.611-1 and et seq. of the CESEDA) and corresponds to the development of biometric temporary residence permits. Other resources of this kind include a “File of refused applications”, data concerning the follow-up of deportation measures, and European records, for example the SIS and EURODAC (fingerprints of asylum seekers and illegal immigrants). 27 Article L. 611-1 of the CESEDA. 23 22