Author
According to Article 23(1) of the Reception Decree, the Prefect of the region where the asylum applicant’s accommodation centre is located may decide, on an individual basis and with a motivated decision, to revoke material reception conditions on the following grounds:[1]
- The asylum applicant did not present themselves at the assigned centre or left the centre without notifying the competent Prefecture;
- The asylum applicant did not present themselves before the determining authorities for the personal interview even though they were notified thereof;
- The asylum applicant has lodged a subsequent asylum application in Italy after a final decision on a previous application has been taken;
- The authorities find that the asylum applicant possesses sufficient financial resources.
Law 50/2023 amended the Reception Decree by cancelling the provision according to which a serious violation of the internal regulation of the reception centre or violent behaviour by the asylum applicant could motivate the withdrawal of reception measures.[2] In recent years, several judicial decisions had underlined how the provision was contrary to the Reception Directive. According to the new rules, this kind of behaviour can instead motivate a reduction of reception conditions,[3] to be adopted on an individual basis and in accordance with the principle of proportionality (Art. 23, co. 2-bis, Legislative Decree No. 142/2015). In particular, the following measures can be put in place:
- temporary exclusion from participation in the activities organised by the managing body;
- temporary exclusion from one or more of the services required by law for asylum applicants, except for material reception;
- suspension of economic benefits from 30 days to six months.
As reported by Altreconomia, during 2024 and the first six months of 2025, 5,600 decisions of reduction of reception conditions were adopted.[4]
According to ASGI’s experience, following the legislative reform deleting the serious violation of the internal regulation of the reception centre or violent behaviour as a withdrawal ground, withdrawal decisions were mainly based on the supposed increase and sufficiency of the applicant’s personal resources.
At the time of writing, the law regulating the withdrawal of reception measures has not been amended after the entry into force of DL 100/2026, issued on 12 June 2026 to transpose, inter alia, the EU Directive 2024/1346.
The law does not provide for any assessment of destitution risks when withdrawing reception. However, while assessing the withdrwal and the reduction of reception conditions, the Prefect must take into account the specific conditions of vulnerability of the applicant.[5] According to ASGI’s experience, in most cases Prefects do not conduct an assessment regarding the risk of destitution before disposing the withdrawal of reception conditions.
Law No. 50/2023 provides that the decisions of reduction and revocation of reception measures have to be communicated to the competent Territorial Commission. Asylum applicants may lodge an appeal before the Regional Administrative Court (Tribunale amministrativo regionale) against the decision of the Prefect to withdraw material reception conditions.[6] To this end, they can benefit from free legal aid.
Departure from the centre
According to the Reception Decree, when asylum applicants fail to present themselves at the assigned centre or leave it without informing the authorities, centre managers must immediately inform the competent Prefecture.[7] In case the asylum applicant spontaneously presents themselves before police authorities or at the accommodation centre, the Prefect could decide to readmit them to the centre if the reasons provided are due to force majeure, unforeseen circumstances or serious personal reasons.[8]
Certain Prefectures have interpreted this ground strictly, which has been challenged in front of local courts:
Piedmont: the Council of State, in a decision taken on 23 July 2024,[9] overturned the decision taken by the Prefecture of Turin withdrawing reception measures to an asylum applicant who had left the reception centre for more than 72 hours. The Council of State assessed that the applicant’s conduct did not fall within that provided for by the rule of abandonment of the centre because he had only done so occasionally, had given reasoned reasons for his absence and had immediately returned to the authorities.
Lazio: in the case of a Bangladeshi asylum applicant who had found an evening job and had not been able to sign the daily form to attest his presence, the Administrative Court for Lazio, recalling the decision taken by the Council of the State on 13 July 2022, no. 5492, clarified that it is necessary to distinguish between abandonment and absence from the centre. The court clarified that being absent from the centre for one night cannot be considered abandonment, given that such action would lack the psychological element of wanting to abandon the reception facility.[10]
Campania: On 16 June 2017, the Prefecture of Naples adopted a new regulation to be applied in CAS. The regulation provides for the “withdrawal of reception measures” in case of unauthorised departure from the centre even for a single day, also understood as the mere return after the curfew, set at 22:00 (21:00 in spring and summer). ASGI challenged the regulation before the Council of State, as the Prefecture has effectively introduced a ground for withdrawal of reception conditions not provided for in the law, but the Council of State rejected the appeal, considering that the regulation did not automatically lead to the withdrawal of reception measures, as recipients were allowed to present their reasons to the administration.[11]
Tuscany: On 14 May 2019, the Council of State confirmed the decision of the administrative court of Tuscany against the Prefecture of Tuscany and accepted the appeal lodged by an asylum applicant whose reception conditions had been withdrawn due to an absence of one night from the reception centre. The Council of State noted that this behaviour should be considered a departure from the centre and not abandonment and that, as such, it can only cause the withdrawal of reception conditions if duly justified as a serious violation of the house rules.[12] On 11 October 2024, the administrative court of Tuscany overturned the withdrawal considering that the notion of “abandonment” refers to an intention to definitively leave reception and does not occur in case of brief and/or occasional absence from the centre.[13]
Friuli Venezia Giulia: in September 2023, the Prefect of Gorizia withdrew reception conditions from an asylum applicant who had left the reception facility in the evening and returned after two days, having been placed under arrest. In December 2023, after submission of the appeal, the Prefecture restored reception measures according to the rule established by the art. 23(3) of the Reception Decree. The Friuli Venezia Giulia Court therefore declared the case resolved and rejected the request for compensation.[14] The case is pending before the ECHR.
In October 2024, the Prefect of Trieste withdrew reception conditions from ten asylum applicants who failed to comply with the order to move to another reception centre in Sardinia. the administrative court of Friuli Venezia Giulia upheld the precautionary request included in the appeal submitted by two of them, considering that there was no certainty that they had understood the consequences of not adhering to the transfer and that only a few days after the revocation of the reception measures, they had expressed their willingness to be transferred. After the precautionary order, the Prefecture revoked the measures also for the other people who had not appealed and allowed their re-entry into a reception facility.[15]
Lombardy: On 5 March 2024, the Administrative Court of Lombardy sent a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU regarding the possibility of deciding to revoke reception measures due to failure of asylum applicants to present themselves to the assigned centre. The court asked the CJEU to clarify whether this decision, taken in this case due to failure to accept transfer to another centre, is compatible with the need to prevent any damage to the basic life needs of the asylum applicant (according to Article 20 of the Reception Conditions Directive).[16]
Violation of house rules and violent behaviour
As mentioned, violation of the house rules of the centre or of violent behaviour cannot, according to the new legislation (L. 50/2023), motivate a withdrawal of reception measures but only a reduction in reception conditions. The manager of the reception facility informs the asylum applicant and sends a report to the Prefecture on the facts that can motivate the potential reduction of reception conditions.[17]
Between January 2024 and June 2025, 5,600 reduction measures were adopted, but the breakdown by ground for reduction is not known.
The T.A.R. of Campania, with decision no. 4353 of 17 July 2023, decided to grant an asylum applicant whose reception conditions had been withdrawn by the Prefecture of Benevento in 2022 based on the violation of the rules of the centre, a compensation of 3,000 euros as moral damage and 600.00 euros as material damage for the lack of pocket money.[18]
Possession of sufficient resources
A worrying practice relates to withdrawal of reception conditions for reasons connected to the possession of sufficient resources (see Criteria and Restrictions to Access Reception Conditions).
Article 23, (1) letter. d), LD 142/2015, provides for the possibility of revoking reception conditions in case it is verified that the applicant has “sufficient economic resources available”, to be calculated based on “the annual amount of the social allowance” (article 14 (3) LD 142/2015) which was, in 2023, 6,542 euros. Prefectures should use the annual social income level to evaluate the sufficiency of the applicant’s financial resources, to justify the withdrawal of reception conditions. According to the Reception Decree, if it is established that the applicant is not destitute, the applicant is required to reimburse the costs incurred for the measures from which they unduly benefited.[19]
The provision did not correctly transpose Directive 2013/33/EU because it neither provided for a gradual reduction of reception measures in this case, nor made the sanction conditional on an assessment of whether a dignified standard of living would still be ensured or on the existence of indications that the applicant had concealed their resources.
The absence of any reference in the domestic provison to the “concealment of resources” has led some administrations to apply the provision even in cases of mere possession of resources deemed sufficient to ensure the applicant’s self-sufficiency. Some administrations have considered it sufficient to rely on the amount of the social allowance calculated on the basis of a single monthly salary, while others have adopted a forward-looking assessment, concluding that the applciant’s income would exceed the annual amount of the social allowance on the basis of a medium- or long-term employment contract, despite the absence of current annual earnings at that level.
Case law
Following an initial period of divergent case law, administrative courts have overall aligned on the view that the annual amount of the social allowance constitutes the legislatively prescribed benchmark for assessing the adequacy of an applicant’s resources. They have further held that the wording of the rules requires that the “sufficient means”, defined as equal to or greater than “the annual amount of the social allowance”, must be stable or of a lasting nature and, in any case, relate to a minimum reference period of one year. The assessment must be based on the current availability of these resources.
In March 2023, the Council of Stateconfirmed the judgment of the administrative court for Emilia Romagna, holding that the withdrawal of reception measures from an asylum applicant who had exceeded the annual income threshold established by law (having earned approx. 10,000 euros in one year), was the lawful.[20] However, it found that the order requiring payment of more than 15,000 euros for having unduly benefited from reception measures was disproportionate. The Council of State held that, even in the absence of any concealment of resources, the withdrawal of accommodation measures on the ground that the applicant had exceeded the set income threshold can be decided on the basis of Article 17(3) and 17(4) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, and the asylum applicant can be asked for a reasonable refund. In assessing the adequacy of the reimbursement, the Council of State drew guidance from Article 26 (5) of the Reception Directive which governs the recovery of costs relating to free legal assistance and representation in the appeal procedure. That provision takes into account improvements in the applicant’s financial situation only if it has improved considerably or where the applicant provided false information to obtain the benefit. For these reasons, the Council of State concluded that Article 23 (1, d), of the reception decree must be disapplied insofar as it does not make reimbursement conditional upon the requirements laid down in Article 26 of the 2013 Reception Conditions Directive and, in any case, fails to ensure that any reimbursement is proportionate to the circumstances of the individual case.
Following this judgment, the Regional Administrative Court for Emilia-Romagna, in three subsequent cases, upheld the withdrawal of reception conditions on the ground that the applicants had exceeded the statutory income threshold, while annulling the reimbursement orders as disproportionate.[21]
In a judgment published on 12 September 2024, the Regional Administrative Court for Lombardy upheld the appeal of an asylum applicant whose reception conditions had been withdrawn. The Court found that the competent Prefecture had based its decision on the applicant’s gross income earned over only four months, together with the annual salary indicated in the mandatory employment notification (UNILAV), without verifying either the time the applicant had actually worked or the income actually received.[22]
In early 2025, the Prefecture of Gorizia withdrew the reception conditions of an asylum applicant on the basis of the applicant’s gross income rather than net income.
In early 2025, the Guardia di Finanza in Trieste initiated administrative proceedings for the undue receipt of public funds against several asylum applicants who had exceeded the annual social allowance threshold, even by a small margin, and had continued to benefit from reception conditions, anemly accommodation, until the Prefecture formally notified them of the withdrawal of reception as they were no longer in poverty. The applicants were subjected to substantial financial penalties. These proceedings were still pending at the time of writing. In early 2026, acting on instructions from the Public Prosecutor’s Office at the Court of Trieste, the Guardia di Finanza in Trieste also opened criminal investigations against some of those applicants for the offence of undue receipt of public funds under Article 316-ter of the Italian Criminal Code. The investigations concern asylum applicants whose employment income exceeded the statutory social allowance threshold—even marginally—and who did not leave the reception system immediately after exceeding that threshold.
In several cases, the administrative courts have held that disputes concerning reimbursement claims brought by the Prefectures for the alleged undue receipt of reception benefits fall within the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts rather than the administrative courts.[23]
Where an asylum applicant accommodated in a reception centre becomes subject to one of the grounds for detention, the Prefect orders the withdrawal of reception conditions and refers the case to the Questura for the adoption of the appropriate measures.[24]
[1] See also Article 13 Reception Decree.
[2] L. 50/2023 cancelled Article 23 (1) (e)
[3] Article 23 ( 2) Reception Decree as amended by L. 50/2023
[4] Altreconomia, ‘Cinquantamila ombre segnano il fallimento del sistema di accoglienza’, 11 November 2025, available in Italian here.
[5] Article 23 (2 bis) Reception Decree introduced by L. 50/2023.
[6] Article 23(5) Reception Decree.
[7] Article 23(3) Reception Decree.
[8] Article 23(3) Reception Decree.
[9] Council of State, decision no. 6663/2024, 23 July 2024
[10] TAR Lazio, decision of 13 September 2023, available at: https://rb.gy/aj4p6s.
[11] Council of State, decision 06454/2019 of 26 September 2019.
[12] Consiglio di Stato, decision 1322/2019, 14 May 2019, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2TwonIk.
[13] Administrative Court for Tuscany, 11 October 2024, Decision available here.
[14] Administrative Court for Friuli Venezia Giulia, Decision 33/2024 published on 19 January 2024.
[15] Administrative Court for Friuli Venezia Giulia, Interim Decisions no. 376/2024 and 379/2024 publlished on 13 November 2024. See also, Il Fatto Quotidiano, Mancano” il bus del trasferimento: migranti espulsi dal Centro d’accoglienza di Trieste finiscono in strada per un’incomprensione, 8 January 2025, available here.
[16] Administrative Court for Lombardy, 5 March 2024, available at: https://rb.gy/03c141. The case is registered as case C-184/24 before the CJEU and its progress can be followed here.
[17] Article 23(4) Reception Decree as amended by the L 50/2023, which converted into law DL 20/2023.
[18] TAR for Campania region, decision of 17 July 2023, available at: https://rb.gy/r8pvwr.
[19] Article 23(6) Reception Decree.
[20] Council of State, Decision no. 2386/2023 of 9 February 2023, published on 7 March 2023.
[21] Administrative Court for the Emilia Romagna Region, decisions no. 136, 137 and 138 of 8 March 2023, published on 16 March 2023.
[22] Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, decision no. 2391/2024, published on 12 September 2024, available here.
[23] This happened both in the hypothesis of simultaneous adoption of the measure of revocation of the reception measures (Lombardy Regional Administrative Court, judgement of 29 December 2021, No. 2932/2021), as well as in that in which they were independently adopted, (TAR Tuscany, judgement of 27 September 22, No. 1055, confirmed by judgement of 22 February 2023 No. 190/2023).
[24] Article 23(7) Reception Decree.