top of page

Italian Jurisprudence on immigration and humanitarian protection (update Sept. 2021)

Court of Rome, decree of 29 September 2021

Appeal against the Dublin Authority's decision accepted on the grounds that the six-month time limit had expired.

A ruling of the Court of Rome, regarding a Dublin appeal, in favour of a Pakistani citizen for whom a transfer to Austria was envisaged.

In the present case, in relation to the transfer to Austria through the Dublin Unit of the Pakistani citizen, the judge of first instance of the Court of Rome, Specialised Immigration Section, upheld the proposed appeal, given the expiry of the six-month period.

In particular, the period of six months for the transfer to Austria has elapsed since the introduction of the judgment, since the acceptance took place on 12.3.2020 so the transfer should have taken place by 12.9.2020 (in the absence of extension of the deadline), while this situation did not occur, since the contested transfer order is notified on 8.1.202.This ruling is particularly interesting, as it applies Article 29 of EU Reg. no. 604/2013 which states:

"1. The transfer of the applicant or of another person within the meaning of Article 18(1)(c) or (d) from the requesting Member State to the responsible Member State shall take place in accordance with the national law of the requesting Member State, after consultation between the Member States concerned, as soon as practically possible and in any event within six months of acceptance of the request of another Member State to take charge or take back the person concerned, or of the final decision on an appeal or review in the case of suspensive effect pursuant to Article 27(3) (....)

2. If the transfer does not take place within the six months' time limit, the Member State responsible shall be relieved of its obligation to take charge or to take back the person concerned and responsibility shall be transferred to the requesting Member State. That time-limit may be extended up to a maximum of one year if the transfer could not be carried out because of the detention of the person concerned, or up to a maximum of eighteen months if he has absconded."

Court of Catania, decree of 30 September 2021 r.g. 10862/2021

In the case of a foreign citizen from a third country, the judge of first instance: "considered that there are serious and circumstantial reasons to suspend the contested measure, since the documentation in the files shows that the applicant is working, a circumstance that can be taken into account for the purposes of a possible recognition of special protection".

Non-renewal of residence permit for humanitarian reasons: application for suspension granted on the basis of an ongoing work contract

Court of Bologna, decree of 7 September 2021

Tunisia - Suspension of the contested measure: third country not safe

In the present case, the Court of Bologna upheld the suspension in favour of a Tunisian citizen who had just arrived in Italy. The applicant, a Tunisian citizen, expressed his immediate wish to apply for international protection, but the competent Territorial Commission rejected his application as manifestly unfounded because the country of origin was considered safe.

However, the competent Territorial Commission rejected his application as manifestly unfounded, since the country of origin was considered safe. The Court of First Instance, in the precautionary phase, accepted the request for suspension as it considered Tunisia an unsafe third country, based on the most recent and accredited COI.

In the ruling of acceptance, the judge of first instance underlined the current existence in Tunisia of an unstable situation from the point of view of social security, which appears far from calm and in continuous evolution, considering that, according to the most recent COI, the Tunisian President Saied has frozen the parliament and dissolved the government, and that, therefore, at this moment the situation is very tense, with violent protests erupted in the capital and the army deployed and the palace controlled with blockade of access to the kasbah.

Prof. Avv. Paolo Iafrate

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice, but has an informative function. For personalized legal advice, contact the firm by e-mail or by phone +39 06 916505710. © Dong & Partners International Law Firm, All rights reserved

13 views0 comments


bottom of page