ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation

Recast Qualification Directive

21 February 2014

Recast Asylum Procedures Directive

Recast Reception Conditions Directive

Dublin III Regulation

20 July 2013

Recast Qualification Directive

Recast Asylum Procedures Directive

Article 41 and Article 46 (5) (6) and (8)

Articles 43 and 31 (8)

Article 11 (2)

Article 28 (2 a) and b)

Article 35 bis (5) Procedure Decree

Article 28 bis (1 ter) Procedure Decree

Article 9(2-bis) Procedure Decree

Article 23 bis Procedure Decre

Need to leave the national territory after inadmissibility decision issued on a first subsequent application: Article 41 of Directive 2013/32 / EU does not include this hypothesis in cases where it is not possible to await on the national territory the judge’s decision on the suspension request.

Article 46 states the right to an effective remedy does not exclude the right to await the decision on the request for suspension in these cases.

Border procedure: the attempt to evade border controls is not included in the acceleration grounds laid down in Article 31(8) of the Directive which could lead to the application of a border procedure.

Also, the requirement of Article 43 of the Directive to allow the applicant to enter the territory if the determining authority has not taken a decision within 4 weeks has not been incorporated in the Procedure Decree.

In case of asylum applicants coming from a safe country of origin, the decision rejecting the application is based on the fact that the person concerned has not shown that there are serious reasons to believe that the designated safe country of origin is not safe in relation to his or her particular situation. The law allows TC not to motivate the reasons of rejections but to only refer to the country of origin

According to ASGI, the law transposing the rule concerning the implicit withdrawal of an application set out in Article 28 of Directive 2013/32/EU is not a correct implementation of art. 28 (2a) and 2b). This can be argued considering the whole procedure in Italy and in particular two aspects: first, the information included in the C3 (lodging of asylum application) should not allow to issue a rejection decision, as it is not sufficient to carry out an adequate examination of the case on its merits. Second, as the law makes no reference to a reasonable time limit or to the reasonable times required by the Directive to consider the application as implicitly withdrawn.

Recast Reception Conditions Directive

Article 20 (4)

Article 20 (5) and (6)

Article 8 (1) and (3)

Article 20 (2)

Article 6 (3 bis) Reception Decree

Article 1 (2 bis) Reception Decree.

Also, the Italian law does not oblige authorities to ascertain, before issuing the withdrawal decision, that the asylum applicant can maintain dignified standards of living (Article 20 (5) of the Directive)

The law allowing detention of asylum applicants for identification purposes does not specify in which cases the need for identification arises, thus linking detention not to the conduct of the applicant but to an objective circumstance such as the lack of identity documents. According to ASGI, the new detention ground represents a violation of the prohibition on detention of asylum applicants for the sole purpose of examining their application under Article 8(1) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive. Additionally, it seems to violate Article 8(3) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, according to which the grounds for detention shall be laid down in national law.

Law 187/2024 modified the Reception Decree introducing a hypothesis of exclusion from reception measures for those who, without justified reason, apply for asylum after 90 days of entering Italy. Even if the rule recalls art. 20 of the Reception Directive, it does not respect its content since while the Directive provides for a mere hypothesis of reduction of reception measures, the rule regulates the exclusion from reception measures.