Air France refuses to board Algerians bound for Morocco: an internal note does not replace a law — and here are the texts they violate

Sophie Renaud — Paris, France — 2026-09-17

Method note. Every fact in this dossier is dated and attributed. We distinguish what has been established, what our sources report, and what we do not know — in particular the exact content of the Moroccan note, which we have not obtained and which we will therefore not quote. At the end, we recall the applicable international texts and we address to the authorities the requests that follow from those texts.

✈️ The facts, and their dates

Wednesday 16 September 2026. Morocco decides to bar entry to its territory to Algerian nationals who are not in possession of a residence card for the Kingdom.

The same day, and this is the starting point of this case: the Moroccan authorities send a note to air operators, asking them not to board Algerian travellers who are not in possession of a residence card for Morocco. This note comes from the Kingdom's Air and Border Police (PAF). **It was the daily newspaper El Hayet that revealed the information, on 16 September.**

And on that same day again, Air France complied.

**According to a document seen by TSA Algérie, the airline asked its teams in Algiers and in Oran to apply the Moroccan instruction “urgently”. Concretely, Air France activated an “ALTEA alert” on clients travelling to Morocco from those two airports.**

What is ALTEA? It is the passenger management system used by airlines, developed by Amadeus. The alert means that the check-in of an Algerian passenger bound for the Kingdom is flagged. The airline then asks its agents to check whether the client of Algerian nationality holds a valid residence card. If so, he boards. If not, he does not get on.

And here is the detail which, on its own, says everything: according to the same document, the instruction insists on strict application of the measure in order to avoid the refoulement of non-resident Algerian passengers — a refoulement which would entail repatriation costs borne by the airline.

Read that sentence again. The logic is not humanitarian, it is not legal: it is accounting. Boarding is refused in Algiers so as not to have to repatriate in Casablanca.

And the facts are not limited to Algiers and Oran. **According to El Khabar, reported by Algerie360, Algerian nationals travelling to Morocco were also refused boarding on Air France flights at French airports, sometimes on simple connecting stopovers — even though they held every required document.**

One case is documented in detail: an Algerian passenger resident in Lyon, holding all his documents, was subjected to this measure together with his children — even though he had booked an all-inclusive stay with a tour operator partnering with Air France.

Why departures from France and from Algeria? Because there is no longer any direct air link between Algeria and Morocco, Algeria having closed its airspace to Moroccan airlines. Algerian travellers who want to reach the Kingdom must therefore transit through a third country — Tunisia or France. That is precisely what Air France does.

🎯 The legal point — and it fits in one sentence

Here is the sentence: an unpublished internal note is not a law, and it therefore cannot be enforced against a traveller.

We are not inventing it. It follows from the founding text of world civil aviation.

The Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chicago, 7 December 1944 — the instrument that organises air transport across the planet — provides, in its Article 13, entitled “Entry and clearance regulations”:

“The laws and regulations of a State relating to the admission to or departure from its territory of passengers, crew or cargo of aircraft, such as regulations relating to entry, clearance, immigration, passports, customs, and quarantine shall be complied with by or on behalf of such passengers, crew or cargo upon entrance into or departure from, or while within the territory of that State.”

The text says: “laws and regulations”. It does not say “notes”, it does not say “instructions”, it does not say “the instruction of a department”. A note from the Air and Border Police is an act of internal administration. It is neither a law nor a regulation. And it is not published.

Yet a settled principle exists: an unpublished rule is not enforceable against anyone. One cannot penalise someone — or deny him a right — by relying on a text he has no means of knowing. This principle is not an opinion: it is the very foundation of the rule of law.

And there is a second point, just as solid: a residence card is not a travel document.

For a tourist, the documents required are the passport and, where applicable, the visa. Residence is another question: it is the link between a person and a territory. To demand of a traveller on a tourist stay — hotel booked, stay paid for — that he prove he RESIDES in the country he is travelling to is not checking documents: it is inventing a condition which exists in no text.

⚖️ What European law says — and it is very clear

There is more, and it is decisive for all the passengers refused at a French airport.

Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishes common rules on compensation and assistance to air passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights.

Denied boarding is the FIRST case provided for by this Regulation. It appears in its very title. A passenger who is refused access on board has, where the Regulation applies:

  • the right to re-routing or to reimbursement of his ticket;
  • care — catering, accommodation, communication;
  • and flat-rate compensation, the amount of which varies according to distance — from 250 to 600 euros.

And the Regulation does indeed apply to the flights that concern us: it covers passengers departing from an airport located in the territory of the European Union. In other words, the Paris–Morocco legs are covered. The Algerian passenger refused at Roissy is not in a legal vacuum: he is within the scope of a European Regulation.

There is, however, an exception, and we must cite it because it is Air France's argument: the Regulation defines denied boarding as the refusal to carry a passenger, “except where there are reasonable grounds to do so, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation”.

“Inadequate travel documentation.” There is the argument. But it holds only on one condition: that the document demanded is genuinely a required travel document. A residence card demanded of a tourist is not a travel document: it is an additional, unpublished condition, invented by a note. A refusal based on a document that is not required by any text is not a refusal “on reasonable grounds”: it is a refusal with no legal basis.

🌍 And international human rights law

Several instruments protect freedom of movement:

  • the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) — its Article 13 provides that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own”, and its Article 2 prohibits any distinction based in particular on national origin;
  • the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Article 12: freedom of movement and the right to leave any country;
  • the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (1981), Article 12: freedom of movement and residence, the right to leave any country and to return to it;
  • the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), which prohibits distinctions based on national origin.

But we must say here something that does not suit us, because it is true: none of these texts obliges a State to let a foreigner enter its territory. It is a principle of sovereignty, and Morocco has the right to refuse entry. We will not claim otherwise.

What a State cannot do, on the other hand, is different — and that is precisely the case here:

  • it cannot base a refusal on a rule that is NOT PUBLISHED, because no one is deemed to obey what he cannot know;
  • it cannot delegate to a private company the task of carrying out a selection based on nationality — a commercial carrier is not an immigration service;
  • and it cannot hide behind an instruction it does not produce.

This is where Air France's position becomes untenable. An airline that refuses boarding must be able to name the legal basis of its refusal. “A note from the Air and Border Police” is not a legal basis: it is an explanation — and an explanation does not create a right.

🔍 And the question nobody asks Air France

If Air France is applying an instruction, let it produce the instruction. If the note exists, let it be published. If it is publishable, then it is a rule — and a rule can be discussed, challenged, contradicted. If it is not, then the airline has discriminated without basis, and it answers for it.

And one element must be recalled that the passenger often ignores: the French State is a shareholder of Air France-KLM. An airline in which the State is a shareholder cannot present itself as a neutral mere executor of a foreign instruction. France must answer for the practices of its flag carrier.

🇪🇺 And the same day, in Brussels

The context makes this case even heavier. On 17 September 2026 — the day before this dossier, and the day after the Moroccan measure — the European Parliament adopted, by 339 votes to 225 with 16 abstentions, a resolution entitled “Recent hybrid attacks and the instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta”.

This text firmly condemns the mass entries from Morocco and describes the instrumentalisation of irregular migration as a tool of “hybrid war” against the territorial integrity of a Member State. It calls on Rabat to assume its responsibilities and to respect its commitments on border control, returns and migration cooperation.

We are not saying that the two cases are identical: one concerns migrants, the other Algerian travellers holding documents in order. But they resemble each other on one point, and it is the point that matters: in both cases, human beings serve as leverage.

⚖️ What we concede, because it is true

First: a State may refuse entry to a foreigner. Morocco has the right to do so, and we do not contest that on that ground.

Second: an airline has a legitimate interest in checking. If it boards an inadmissible passenger, the destination State may impose fines on it and bill it for the repatriation. Checking documents is therefore normal — and necessary. It is not the check that we contest: it is its basis.

Third: we did not obtain the Moroccan note. We have not read it, we do not quote it, and we do not know what it contains exactly. We stick to what our sources report — and they all describe it in the same way.

Fourth: we did not contact Air France, and we attribute no reply to it. If the airline wishes to speak, we will publish its text in full. This is an offer, not a stylistic clause.

🎯 The conclusion, in four sentences

Since 16 September 2026, Morocco has refused entry to non-resident Algerians, and Air France applies the instruction in Algiers and in Oran as well as at French airports, by means of an “ALTEA alert”.

This instruction rests on a note from the Air and Border Police — unpublished — whereas Article 13 of the Chicago Convention requires “laws and regulations”.

And a residence card demanded of a tourist is not a travel document: European Regulation 261/2004 permits denial of boarding only for “inadequate travel documentation”.

A border may be closed. It cannot be closed with a note nobody can read.

🏛️ TO THE DECISION-MAKERS — the measures we demand

This section is addressed by name to the Algerian authorities. We are not writing a message to the leaders on our own initiative: this one answers an express request. The measures proposed are all based on the texts cited above, and all of them are lawful and proportionate.

Mr President of the Republic,

1. A formal protest to France. Air France is a French carrier, and the French State is a shareholder of Air France-KLM. France must be called to answer for the practices of its flag carrier — and to state whether it approves of them. A request for official clarification, through diplomatic channels, is the first step.

2. Require production of the legal basis. France and Morocco should be formally required to produce the text on which these denials of boarding rest. Article 13 of the Chicago Convention requires a law or a regulation: let them show us them. A rule that cannot be produced is not a rule.

3. Refer the matter to the International Civil Aviation Organization. The Chicago Convention is an ICAO instrument. A dispute over the application of its Article 13 falls within its scope. A formal communication has its place there — and it leaves a trace.

4. Refer the matter to the European Commission. Regulation 261/2004 falls within its remit, as does the principle of non-discrimination. Passengers refused on departure from French airports have individual rights: compensation of 250 to 600 euros, re-routing or reimbursement. These rights do not assert themselves on their own — someone has to claim them. Algerian consulates in France should be equipped to assist each refused passenger, and to centralise the complaints.

5. Revise Air France's traffic rights. This is the most effective lever, and it is provided for by bilateral air services agreements. A carrier that refuses Algerian passengers holding documents in order, on the basis of an unpublished note, cannot claim to exercise its traffic rights as if nothing had happened. The revision, suspension or renegotiation of those rights are measures of sovereignty, taken without infringing the freedom of movement of persons — they target the airline, not travellers.

6. Publish clear official information. How many passengers were refused, on which flights, on which dates? Which documents are actually required, and by which text? An Algerian traveller has the right to know what is demanded of him — and to know whom to complain to. A single complaints channel, with a number and an address, is the least that can be done.

7. Reciprocity, immediately. The same regime, applied without delay, to Moroccan nationals transiting through Algeria. It is neither revenge nor escalation: it is the identical application of a measure another State has already chosen. A State that refuses entry to non-resident Algerians cannot demand that Algeria keep welcoming its own without condition. Equality is not requested: it is applied.

And we do not hide what that means: it is travellers who will bear the cost — exactly as Algerian travellers bear it today. That is precisely what makes the Moroccan measure revolting. But immediate reciprocity has one merit that protests do not: it forces the one who triggered it to bear the cost, instead of leaving it to Algerians alone. The day Moroccan travellers pay what Algerian travellers pay, the measure will be reconsidered. Not before.

We are asking neither for a rupture nor for reprisals against travellers. We are asking that the law be produced, that passengers be compensated, and that a carrier that discriminates pays the price. This is not anger: it is the law.

🔗 The sources, in direct access — click and check for yourself

  • The Moroccan decision of 16 September, the note to air operators, its origin — the Air and Border Police — and the question of repatriation costs — TSA Algérie, 16 September 2026 : https://www.tsa-algerie.com/le-maroc-interdit-lacces-a-son-territoire-aux-algeriens-non-residents/
  • The filtering by Air France at Algiers and Oran, the “ALTEA alert”, the Amadeus system, and the document asking for application on an urgent basis — TSA Algérie, 17 September 2026 : https://www.tsa-algerie.com/les-algeriens-interdits-dacces-au-maroc-ce-que-lon-sait/
  • The refusals at French airports, on simple stopovers, of passengers holding all the required documents — Algerie360, citing El Khabar : https://www.algerie360.com/algeriens-empeches-embarquer-maroc-air-france/
  • The case of the passenger resident in Lyon, with his children, despite a stay booked with a tour operator partnering with Air France — Le Jeune Indépendant, 16 September 2026 : https://www.jeune-independant.net/en/2026/09/16/the-new-drift-of-trans-maghreb-travel-when-air-france-establishes-discrimination-as-a-policy/
  • Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 on denied boarding, cancellation and delay — Official Journal of the European Union : https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/FR/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32004R0261
  • The Convention on International Civil Aviation, Chicago, 7 December 1944, and its Article 13 — International Civil Aviation Organization : https://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx
  • The European Parliament resolution of 17 September 2026 “Recent hybrid attacks and the instrumentalisation of migrants in Ceuta”, adopted by 339 votes to 225 with 16 abstentions — TSA Algérie : https://www.tsa-algerie.com/crise-de-ceuta-le-parlement-europeen-adopte-une-resolution-contre-le-maroc/

These links open the cited documents directly, with their dates. The fifth and the sixth — the European Regulation and the Chicago Convention — are the two texts on which the substance of this dossier rests: read them.

Closing note. We did not obtain the note of the Moroccan Air and Border Police: we do not quote it and we do not know what it contains beyond what our sources report. We did not contact Air France, and we attribute no reply to it — if it wishes to speak, we will publish its text in full. Nor do we have any official count of the number of passengers refused: we therefore cite no such figure, and we do not repeat the estimates that are in circulation. Where we do not know, we write that we do not know.