The Territorial Commissions
The authorities competent to examine the asylum application and to take first instance decisions are the Territorial Commissions for the Recognition of International Protection (CTRPI) and Sub-commissions, which are administrative bodies specialised in the field of asylum, under the Ministry of Interior.
On 23 August 2014, Decree-Law 119/2014 entered into force. It has established the possibility of enlarging the number of the Territorial Commissions from 10 to 20,1 as well as to create 30 additional sub-Commissions in the entire national territory,2 in order to boost and improve the management of the increasing number of applications for international protection.
The initial 10 Territorial Commissions are based in: Gorizia, Milan, Rome, Foggia, Syracuse (Sicily), Crotone, Trapani, Bari, Caserta and Torino.
As of 3 of October 2016, the Ministry of Interior referred to 20 Territorial Commissions and 27 sub-Commissions.3 During 2015 and 2016, new Territorial Commissions started operations in Verona, Ancona, Brescia, Bologna, Cagliari, Catania, Firenze, Lecce, Palermo and Salerno; sub-Commissions were established in Forlì, Campobasso, Enna, Reggio Calabria, Perugia, Frosinone, Caltanissetta, Ragusa, Genova, Agrigento, Novara, Bergamo, Livorno, Monza-Brianza, Padova, Vicenza and Treviso.
Each Territorial Commission is composed by 4 members:4
2 representatives of the Ministry of Interior, one of which is a senior police officer;
1 representative of the Municipality (or Province or Region); and
1 representative of UNHCR.
The members and substitutes of the Territorial Commission have to be skilled or trained in the field of migration, asylum and human rights in order to be nominated,5 but, according to the experience of ASGI, still too many members of the CTRPI do not reflect these criteria.
According to LD 142/2015, before the appointment of the members of the Territorial Commissions, the absence of incompatibility and conflict of interests must be evaluated. The Decree specifies that, for each member of CTRPI, one or more substitutes are appointed.
Under the Procedure Decree, the decision on the merits of the asylum claim must be taken by at least a majority of 3 members of the Territorial Commission; in the case of a 2:2 tie, the President’s vote prevails.6 However, since a reform of August 2014,7 only one member is in charge of conducting the personal interview, where possible of the same sex as the applicant. The interviewing officer then presents the case to the other members of the Commission in order for a joint decision to be taken.
As of 15 of November 2016, giving effect to the provision included in the amended Article 5 of the Procedure Decree,8 the CNDA has adopted a Code of Conduct for the members of the CTRPI, the interpreters and the personnel supporting them.
According to the LD 142/2015 the CTRPI interviews the applicant within 30 days after having received the application and decides in the 3 following working days. When the CTRPI is unable to take a decision in this time limit and needs to acquire new elements, the examination procedure is concluded within six months of the lodging of the application. The CTRPI may extend the time limit for a period not exceeding a further nine months, where:
Complex issues of fact and/or law are involved;
A large number of asylum applications are made simultaneously; or
The delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with his or her obligations of cooperation.
By way of exception, the CTRPI, in duly justified circumstances, may further exceed this time limit by three months where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.9 In the light of the different possibilities of extension, the asylum procedure may last for a maximum period of 18 months.
In practice, however, the time limits for completing the regular procedure are not complied with. The procedure usually takes much longer, considering on one hand that the competent determining authorities receive the asylum application only after the formal registration and the forwarding of the Modello C3 form through VESTANET has taken place. On the other hand, the first instance procedure usually lasts several months, while the delays for different determining authorities in issuing a decision vary between Territorial Commissions. In cities such as Rome, the entire procedure is generally longer and takes from 6 up to 12 months.
LD 142/2015 states that when the applicant leaves the reception centre without any justification or escapes detention measure without having been interviewed, the CTRPI suspends the examination of the application. The applicant, only once, may request the reopening of the suspended procedure within 12 months from the suspension decision. After this deadline, the CTRPI declares the extinction of the procedure. Any application made after the declaration of the extinction of the procedure is submitted to a preliminary examination as a subsequent application (see section on Subsequent Applications). During the preliminary examination, the grounds supporting the admissibility of the application and the reasons of the moving away from the centres are examined.10
Outcomes of the regular procedure
There are 5 possible outcomes to the regular procedure, as well as a fifth outcome inserted by LD 142/2015. The Territorial Commission may decide to:11
Grant refugee status and issue a 5-year renewable residence permit;
Grant subsidiary protection and issue a 5-year renewable residence permit;12
Recommend to the Police to issue a 2-year residence permit on humanitarian grounds e.g. for health conditions;
Reject the asylum application; or
Reject the application as manifestly unfounded.13
The LD 142/2015 provides that the President of the CTRPI identifies the cases under the prioritised procedure, which applies:
Where the application is likely to be well-founded;
Where the applicant is vulnerable, in particular unaccompanied minors or in need of special procedural guarantees;
When the application is made by the applicant placed in an administrative detention centre;
If the applicant comes from one of the countries identified by the CNDA that allow the omission of the personal interview when considering that there are sufficient grounds available to recognise subsidiary protection. The competent CTRPI, before adopting such a decision, informs the applicant of the opportunity, within 3 days from the communication, to be admitted to the personal interview. In absence of such request, the CTRPI takes the decision.14
In practice, the prioritised procedure is applied to those held in CIE and rarely to the other categories. Nevertheless, practice shows that vulnerable applicants have more chances to benefit from the prioritised procedure, even though this possibility is more effective in case they are assisted by NGOs or they are identified as such at an early stage. With regard to victims of torture and extreme violence, the prioritised procedure is rarely applied, since these asylum seekers are not identified at an early stage by police authorities. In fact, torture survivors are usually only recognised as such in a later phase, thanks to NGOs providing them with legal and social assistance or during the personal interview by the determining authorities. In practice, the prioritised procedure is not applied to unaccompanied children mainly because of the delay in appointing their legal guardian by the guardianship judge (giudice tutelare).
The LD 142/2015 has also introduced an Accelerated Procedure.
The amended Procedure Decree provides for a personal interview of each applicant, which is not public.15 The LD 142/2015 has clarified that during the personal interview the applicant can disclose exhaustively all elements supporting his/her asylum request.16
In practice, asylum seekers are systematically interviewed by the determining authorities. However, Article 12(2) of the Procedure Decree foresees the possibility to omit the personal interview where:
(a) Determining authorities have enough elements to grant refugee status under the 1951 Geneva Convention without hearing the applicant; or
(b) The applicant is recognised as unable or unfit to be interviewed, as certified by a public health unit or by a doctor working with the national health system. In this regard, LD 142/2015 provides that the personal interview can be postponed due to the health conditions of the applicant duly certified by a public health unit or by a doctor working with the national health system or for very serious reasons.17 The applicant recognised as such is allowed to ask for the postponement of the personal interview through a specific request with the medical certificates.18
Moreover, the Decree has also introduced a new provision stating that the CTRPI may also omit the personal interview:
(c) For applicants coming from those countries identified by the CNDA, when considering that there are sufficient grounds to grant them subsidiary protection.19
The competent Territorial Commission, before adopting such a decision, informs the applicant that he or she has the opportunity, within 3 days from the communication, to be admitted to the personal interview. In absence of such request, the Territorial Commission takes the decision to omit the interview. This provision is particularly worrying, considering that it derogates from the general rule on the basis of which the personal interview is also aimed to verify first whether the applicant is a refugee, and if not, the conditions to grant subsidiary protection.
The law provides for the interview to be conducted generally by one member of the CTRPI and, where possible, by an interviewer of the same gender as the applicant.
In the phases concerning the presentation and the examination of the asylum claim, including the personal interview, applicants must receive, where necessary, the services of an interpreter in their language or in a language they understand.20 Moreover, LD 142/2015 specifies that, where necessary, the documents produced by the applicant shall be translated.21
At border points, however, these services may not be always available depending on the language spoken by asylum seekers and the interpreters available locally. Given that the disembarkation of asylum seekers does not always take place at the official border crossing points, where interpretation services are available, there may therefore be significant difficulties in promptly providing an adequate number of qualified interpreters also able to cover different idioms.
In practice, there are not enough interpreters available and qualified in working with asylum seekers during the asylum procedure. However, specific attention is given to interpreters ensuring translation services during the substantive interview by determining authorities. The Consortium of Interpreters and Translators (ITC), which provides this service, has drafted a Code of Conduct for interpreters.
Audio or video recording was not previously foreseen in the law, but according to LD 142/2015 the personal interview may be recorded. The recording is admissible as evidence in judicial appeals against the CTRPI’s decision. Where the recording is transcribed, the signature of the transcript is not required by the applicant.22 During 2016, interviews were still never audio- or video-recorded.
Interviews are transcribed in a report that is given to the applicant at the end of the interview.23 Applicants are given the opportunity to make further comments and corrections soon after the personal interview before the final official report is handed over to them. The quality of this transcript can vary depending on the interviewer and the Territorial Commission which conducts the interview.
Complaints on the quality of the transcripts are frequent.
Decree-Law 13/2017 states that the interview will be taped by audiovisual means and transcribed in Italian with the aid of automatic voice recognition systems.24
The Procedure Decree provides for the possibility for the asylum seeker to appeal before the competent Civil Tribunal (a judicial body) against a decision issued by the Territorial Commissions rejecting the application, granting subsidiary protection instead of refugee status or requesting the issuance of a residence permit on humanitarian grounds instead of granting international protection.25
The appeal must be lodged within 30 calendar days from the notification of the first instance decision,26 and must be submitted by a lawyer.27 Article 35 of the Procedure Decree, as amended by LD 142/2015, confirms this timeframe.28 Applicants placed in CIE and those under the accelerated procedure have only 15 days to lodge an appeal (see section on Accelerated Procedure).29
Moreover, new criteria to establish the competence of the Court have been established. In addition to the competence determined on the basis of the place of the competent CTRPI, now the competence is established also on the basis of the place where the applicant is placed (governmental reception centres, SPRAR and CIE).30
The applicant is detained in CIE;
The claim is deemed inadmissible;
The claim is deemed “manifestly unfounded”;
The claim is made by an applicant under the accelerated procedure after having been apprehended for avoiding or attempting to avoid border controls, or immediately after, or for irregular stay, with the sole aim to avoid an expulsion or rejection order.33
However, in those cases, the applicant can request individually a suspension of the return order from the competent judge. The court must issue a non-appealable decision granting or refusing suspensive effect within 5 days.34 Moreover, when the subsequent application has been rejected for the second time, the appeal or the request of suspension do not suspend the effects of the order adopted.35
Decree-Law 13/2017 establishes specialised sections of the court responsible for handling complaints related to international protection. According to the Decree-Law, these sections will be created only within 14 Tribunals throughout Italy.36
Before these court sections, oral hearings will be only a residual possibility. The Decree-Law states that, as a rule, judges will decide the cases only by consulting the videotaped interview before the Territorial Commission. They will invite the parties for the hearing only if they consider it essential to listen to the applicant, or they need to clarify some aspects or if they provide technical advice or the intake of evidence.37 A hearing is also to be provided when the videotaping is not available or the appeal is based on elements not relied on during the administrative procedure of first instance.38
The Tribunal can either reject the appeal or grant international protection to the asylum seeker. The amended Article 35 of the Procedure Decree does not lay down the conditions for appealing against the decision of the Civil Tribunal.
In this regard, LD 142/2015 amended Article 19(9) LD 150/2011 and generically referred to the document instituting the proceedings for appealing against the decision of the Civil Tribunal, without clarifying, however, which procedure applies.
According to some Courts of Appeal, the amendment did not mean to reform the procedure previously applied to the second appea, whereas according to others it did.
As a result, some Courts of Appeal, such as the one of Trieste, Perugia, Venice, declare inadmissible the appeals filed according to the procedure applied before the entry into force of LD 142/2015, while other courts, such as the one of Cagliari, declare the appeals inadmissible based on the opposite reasoning.
Different practice has also been recorded by ASGI at Courts of Appeals concerning the suspensive effect of the appeals. In Brescia, Bologna, Napoli, and Venice, for example, Courts of Appeal consider the suspensive effect over the Territorial Commission decision as authomatically extended from the first to the second appeal.
A final appeal before the Cassation Court, the highest appellate court, can be lodged within 60 days of the ruling of the Court of Appeal. According to LD 142/2015, the Tribunal, the Court of Appeal and the Cassation Court issue a judgment within 6 months from the submission of the appeal.39
In practice, asylum seekers who file an appeal against the first and second judicial instance decision, in particular those who are held in CIE and those involved in the accelerate procedure, have to face several obstacles. The time limit of 15 days for lodging an appeal in those cases concretely jeopardises the effectiveness of the right to appeal since it is too short for finding a lawyer or requesting free legal assistance, and for preparing the hearing in an adequate manner. This short time-limit for filing an appeal does not take due consideration of other factors that might come into play, such as the linguistic barriers between asylum seekers and lawyers, the lack of knowledge of the legal system, the long distance between the residence of the asylum seekers and the competent tribunals. In addition, lawyers are not always adequately qualified to draft good quality appeals.
The Decree-Law 13/2017 published on 17 February 2017 has abolished the possibility to appeal the Civil Tribunal decisions on international protection before the Court of Appeal. If the provision is to be transposed into law by Parliament, it will be possible to appeal those decisions issued 180 days from the entry into force of the Decree-Law onwards only before the Court of Cassation within 30 days, no longer within 60.40
The Decree-Law also foresees that the request for suspensive effect has to be decided by the judge who rejected the appeal.41
The Decree-Law, provisionally into force since 18 February 2017, has sparked strong reactions from NGOs,42 and even from some magistrates.
Cancelling the possibility to appeal the Civil Tribunal decisions at Court of Appeal, making the hearing of the applicant a mere residual eventuality, further complicating access to free legal aid, and reducing the time for appeal to the Court of Cassation - also giving the possibility of suspending the effectiveness of the rejecting decision of the Civil tribunal to the same judge who decided the rejection – it drastically reduces the judicial protection of asylum seekers.
The choice of legislative instrument – a Decree-Law – raises many concerns since these most important changes would come into force only after 180 days.
ASGI claims that the use of video recorded interviews, potentially replacing asylum seekers’ hearings by the court, does not comply with the right to an effective remedy provided by Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, as an applicant’s statements are often the only elements on which the application is based.
The provision of only 14 specialised sections to deal with international protection proceedings will also make it more difficult for asylum seekers to exercise their right of defence and hinder the activity of their lawyers.
The Magistrates’ National Association – Cassation section also highlighted the unreasonableness of the choice to abolish the second degree appeal, which is still provided for civil disputes of much lower value if compared to international protection cases, also considering that the procedure before the Court of Cassation is basically a written procedure. It is therefore desirable that the Parliament will take account these serious issues before translating the Decree into law.
Legal assistance at first instance
According to Article 16 of the Procedure Decree, as confirmed by LD 142/2015, asylum seekers may benefit from legal assistance and representation during the first instance of the regular and prioritised procedure at their own expenses.
In practice, asylum applicants are usually supported before and sometimes during the personal interview by legal advisors or lawyers financed by NGOs or specialised assisting bodies where they work. Legal assistance provided by NGOs depends mainly on the availability of funds deriving from projects and public or private funding.
A distinction should be made between national public funds and those which are allocated by private foundations and associations. In particular, the main source of funds provided by the State is the National Fund for Asylum Policies and Services, financed by the Ministry of Interior. With regard to reception facilities belonging to the SPRAR system, each project provides legal assistance for asylum seekers hosted in the centres. In this respect, a new provision introduced by LD 142/2015 provides that the Ministry of Interior can establish specific agreements with UNHCR or other organisations with experience in assisting asylum seekers, with the aim to provide free information services on the asylum procedure as well on the revocation one and on the possibility to make a judicial appeal. These services are provided in addition to those ensured by the manager of the accommodation centres.43
National funds are also allocated for providing information and legal counselling at official land, air, sea border points and where migrants arrive by boat.44 In addition, some funds for financing legal counselling may also be provided from European projects / programmes or private foundations. However, it should be highlighted that these funds are not sufficient.
The lawyer or the legal advisor from specialised NGOs prepares asylum seekers for the personal interview before the determining authority, providing them all necessary information about the procedure to follow, pointing out the main questions that may be asked by the Territorial Commission members and underlining the relevant information concerning their personal account. Moreover, the lawyer or the legal advisor has a key role in gathering the information concerning the personal history of the applicant and the country of origin information, and in drafting a report that, when necessary, is sent to the Territorial Commission, in particular with regard to vulnerable persons such as torture survivors. In this regard, the lawyer or the legal advisor may also inform the determining authorities of the fact that the asylum seeker is unfit or unable to undertake the personal interview so that the Commission may decide to omit or postpone it.
Lawyers may be present during the personal interview but they do not play the same role as in a judicial hearing. The applicant has to respond to the questions and the lawyer may intervene to clarify some aspects of the statements made by the applicant.
Nevertheless, the vast majority of asylum applicants go through the personal interview without the assistance of a lawyer since they cannot afford a lawyer and specialised NGOs have limited capacity due to lack of funds.
Legal assistance in appeal procedures
With regard to the appeal phase, free state-funded legal aid (“gratuito patrocinio”), is provided by law.45 Nevertheless, the PD 115/2002 concerning the judicial expenses sets out an important restriction to the enjoyment of this right: only those applicants who may prove to have a yearly taxable income lower than €11,369.24 may benefit from free legal aid.46
The law specifies that in case of income acquired abroad, the foreigner needs a certification issued by the consular authorities of their country of origin.47 However, the law prescribes that if the person is unable to obtain this documentation, he or she may alternatively provide a self-declaration of income.48
In this regard, during the last years there has been a worrying trend developed by the Rome Bar Council which had adopted the practice to systematically require an official certification of the income released by the consular authorities of the country of origin of the asylum seeker concerned in order to guarantee their access to the gratuito patrocinio. As highlighted by UNHCR and several NGOs,49 taking into consideration that in the majority of cases the persecution of asylum seekers is perpetrated by the authorities of their country of origin and, thus, that the persons concerned are in most cases unable to present themselves to the consular authorities to obtain the certification of their income, the practice adopted by the Rome Bar Association prevents many applicants from having access to free legal aid. In this respect, a complaint presented in November 2014 to the Civil Court of Rome led to a successful result, since the Tribunal finally removed the obstacles to the concrete access to free legal aid also to asylum seekers in the province of Rome, establishing the principle that the asylum seeker cannot be forced to address his or her diplomatic or consular authority to demand certifications. This judgment may put an end to the poor practice in the province of Rome in this regard. Moreover, it will not be necessary to present an affidavit authenticated by the Official of the Municipality, for which the possession of an ID document is required; the applicant can instead present a self-declaration without obligation to present an identity document.50
Article 8 PD 21/2015 clarified that, in order to be admitted to free legal assistance, the applicant can present a self-declaration instead of the documents prescribed by Article 79 DPR 115/2002. However,, by the end of 2015, the Bar Council of Florence and Genova were still refusing free legal aid to asylum seekers who did not provide consular certifications about their income.
In addition, access to free legal assistance is also subject to a merits test by the competent Bar Council (“Consiglio dell’ordine degli avvocati”) which assesses whether the asylum seeker’s motivations for appealing are not manifestly unfounded.51
During 2016, the Bar Council of Milan started rejecting almost all the requests to access to free legal assistance, generally deeming the claims that the petitioners intended to rely on as manifestly unfounded. A similar situation occurred at the Bar Council of Trieste on the basis of Article 126 PD 115/2002.
ASGI sent a letter to the abovementioned Bar Councils, highlighting that any appeal should be assessed individually and not only as regards the possibility of obtaining refugee status, but also subsidiary and humanitarian protection. However, the intervention did not yield the desired results. In Trieste, the Bar Council accepted to review its approach to evaluating the applications, but basically decided to accept instances of Pakistanis and Nigerians and continued as before for the other nationalities.
Moreover, it may occur that the applicant is initially granted free legal aid by a Bar Council but, as prescribed by law, the Tribunal revokes the decision if it considers that the admission requirements assessed by the Bar Council are not fulfilled.52
The new Decree-Law 13/2017 now states that when the applicant is granted free legal aid, the judge, when fully rejecting the appeal, has to explain why free legal aid is awarded, indicating the reasons why he or she does not consider the applicant's claims as manifestly unfounded.53
Applicants who live in large cities have more chances to be assisted by specialised NGOs or legal advisors compared to those living in remote areas, where it is more difficult to find qualified lawyers specialised in asylum law. As discussed in the section on Regular Procedure: Appeal, in the Italian legal system, the assistance of a lawyer is essential in the appeal phase. Concretely the uncertainty of obtaining free legal aid by the State, as well as the delay in receiving State reimbursement i.e. the small amount of money foreseen for each case discourages lawyers from taking on the cases. In some cases, lawyers evaluate the individual case on the merits before deciding whether to appeal the case or not.
As denounced by some NGOs and by lawyers, it may also happen that lawyers paid by the Italian State may unlawfully request funds from the applicants.
- 1. Article 4(2) LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 5(1)(a)(2) Decree-Law 119/2014.
- 2. Article 4(2-bis) LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 5(1)(a)(3) Decree-Law 119/2014.
- 3. Ministry of Interior, Distribution of Territorial Commissions for the Recognition of International Protection and related sections, 3 October 2016, available at: http://bit.ly/2llc2H0.
- 4. Article 4(3) LD 25/2008.
- 5. Article 4(3) LD 25/2008 as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 6. Article 4(4) LD 25/2008; Article 2(3) PD 21/2015.
- 7. Article 12(1) LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 5(1)(b)(2) Decree-Law 119/2014.
- 8. Article 5(1-ter) LD 25/2008 as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 9. Article 27(2)(3) LD 25/2008, as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 10. Article 23-bis LD 25/2008, as inserted by LD 142/2015.
- 11. Article 6(1) PD 21/2015.
- 12. The duration of validity of residence permits issued both to refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection has been equalised by Article 23(2) LD 18/2014, which extended the duration of residence permit for subsidiary protection beneficiaries from 3 to 5 years.
- 13. Article 32(1)(b-bis) LD 25/2008, as inserted by LD 142/2015.
- 14. Article 28 LD 25/2008, as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 15. Article 12(1) LD 25/2008; Article 13(1) LD 25/2008.
- 16. Article 13(1-bis) LD 25/2008, as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 17. Article 12(3) LD 25/2008.
- 18. Article 5(4) PD 21/2015.
- 19. Article 12(2-bis) LD 25/2008, read in conjunction with Article 5(1-bis), as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 20. Article 10(4) LD 25/2008.
- 21. Article 10(4) LD 25/2008 as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 22. Article 14(2-bis) LD 25/2008, as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 23. Article 14 LD 25/2008.
- 24. Article 14 LD 25/2008, as amended by DL 13/2017.
- 25. Article 35(1) LD 25/2008, as amended by LD 150/2011.
- 26. Article 35(1) LD 25/2008.
- 27. Article 35(1) LD 25/2008.
- 28. Article 19 LD 150/2011, as amended by Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 29. Article 19(3) LD 150/2011 as amended by Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 30. Ibid.
- 31. Article 35 LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 19(4) LD 150/2011 and Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 32. Article 35 LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 19(4) LD 150/2011 and Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 33. Article 28-bis(c) LD 25/2008, as inserted by LD 142/2015.
- 34. Article 35 LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 35. Article 19 LD 150/2011, as amended by Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 36. This provision will apply to the proceedings initiated 180 days from the entry into force of DL 13/2017.
- 37. Article 35-bis LD 25/2008, introduced by Article 6(10) DL 13/2017.
- 38. Article 6(11) DL 13/2017.
- 39. Article 19(9) LD 150/2011, as amended by Article 27 LD 142/2015.
- 40. Article 35 LD 25/2008, as amended by Article 6(13) DL 13/2017.
- 41. Article 6(13) DL 13/2017.
- 42. See ASGI and Magistratura Democratica, ‘D.L. 13/2017, sempre più distanza tra giudici e cittadini stranieri’, February 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2moJoWs; Antigone, ‘Il pacchetto Minniti calpesta i diritti’, 12 February 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2l7pjUo.
- 43. Article 10(2-bis) LD 25/2008 as amended by LD 142/2015.
- 44. Article 11(6) TUI.
- 45. Article 16(2) LD 25/2008.
- 46. Article 76(1) PD 115/2002.
- 47. Article 79(2) PD 115/2002.
- 48. Article 94(2) PD 115/2002.
- 49. UNHCR, Advisory Opinion to the Rome Bar Council, January 2013, available at: http://bit.ly/1Qni6ol; CIR et al., Letter to the Ministry of Interior, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 10 March 2013, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/1VPVsGu.
- 50. Rome Court (XI Civil Section), Ordinance of 17 November 2014, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/1GFwoLz.
- 51. Article 126 PD 115/2002.
- 52. Article 136 PD 115/2002.
- 53. Article 6(17) DL 13/2017.