within the provisions of the law, is implemented in accordance with the spirit thereof. Indeed, border police officials assess whether or not foreigners refused entry can be removed immediately and, if not, whether they have to be placed in a waiting zone. The consequences of this assessment are far from negligible. Firstly, this assessment has an impact upon the workload of the officials themselves; as well as upon removal success rates (the earlier removals occur, the more successful they are); and finally, upon what happens to the foreigner: when they are to be removed immediately, foreigners remain in the police station, in the custody of the officials, with hardly any concrete possibilities (access to a telephone) and without any of the associations that may be concerned, or the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, having access to them, whereas the latter do have access to waiting areas; above all, without the possibility of access to the liberty and custody judge who, after a foreigner has been held for a period of four days in a waiting zone, is responsible for examining whether this period should be extended or brought to an end (article L. 222-1 of the CESEDA). Moreover, it is doubtful that asylum applications can be made and taken into account under the conditions of procedures of this kind38: and yet applications of this kind have to be protected 39. Another related issue is associated with this question. The law (article L. 213-2 of the CESEDA) provides that, when foreigners are notified that they have been refused entry, they have the right to request that they be granted a clear day before their repatriation, which necessarily leads to their being placed in a waiting zone. Furthermore, the law provides that this notification shall be made “in a language that they understand”. Finally, in order to ensure that this provision is scrupulously respected, this procedure should not be carried out at such a pace that, independently of the language used, there is a risk of foreigners failing to understand the information communicated to them and the documents that they sign 40: thus the meaning of a “clear day” (“jour franc”) is not immediately obvious, especially for foreigners when asked “Clear day? Yes or no?” An expression of this kind is unlikely to be understood in the same way as “You may remain in France for twenty-four hours before leaving; do you wish to have the benefit of this possibility?” When police officials are questioned about the manner in which they operate, a clear procedure is set out. On the one hand, “passengers are systematically offered the benefit of a clear day”41; on the other hand they fix a limit to the time during which a person may be immediately re-embarked (two hours, at Lyon-Saint Exupéry Airport for example; or four hours, for example at Orly42); finally, they mention that they pick up luggage belonging to persons “refused entry” from the airport conveyor belts (if necessary under the eye of the person concerned) and give them back to their owners immediately. However the first two assertions cannot be verified. The first assertion, concerning the clear day, does not correspond to what inspectors see in the majority of airport police stations when they are present at the time of notification of refusal of entry. The officials fill in the forms and frequently tick the space declining the benefit of a clear day themselves, amongst others, before handing the documents to foreigners for signature. Although there is admittedly no proof 38 The possibility of seeking refugee status is a fundamental freedom according to the meaning of article L. 521-2 of the code of administrative law (code de justice administrative) (French Council of State, judge with power to hear urgent applications, 12th January 2001, Mrs Hyacinthe, no. 229 039). 39 Cf. the necessity, in this respect, of effective remedy according to the meaning of article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: ECHR, 2nd division, 26th April 2007, Gebremedhin vs. France, no. 25389/05. 40 If they wish to have the benefit of a clear day they must mention this on the document issued to them. In the forms in use, a cross has to be marked in a space provided for that purpose. 41 However, at Orly, for example, it is calculated that 23% of persons refused entry ask to have the benefit of a clear day. 42 This difference is already cause for concern in itself. 26