ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation

Directive

Provision

Domestic law provision

Non-transposition or incorrect transposition

Directive 2011/95/EU

Recast Qualification Directive

Directive 2013/32/EU

Recast Asylum Procedures Directive

Article 40

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

Articles 9 (2) – (3) and Article 46 (8)

Articles 43 and 31 (8)

Article 11 (2)

Article 29 bis Procedure Decree

Article 35 bis (5) Procedure Decree

Article 32 (1-bis) Procedure Decree, Article 35 bis (5) Procedure decree

Article 28 bis (1 ter) Procedure Decree

Article 9(2-bis) Procedure Decree

Article 29 bis allows to automatically avoid the exam of the subsequent asylum application in cases not included in the Procedures Directive

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.

The Procedure Decree provides that when the grounds for the immediate procedure arise during the appeal procedure, the suspensive effect previously granted shall be withdrawn.

In this respect, the immediate procedure seems incompatible with the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, which does not foresee such derogations and only allows for an exception to the right to remain on the territory pending the examination of the asylum application at first instance in the case of a subsequent application or in the context of a surrender or extradition procedure.

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 seekers 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

Directive 2013/33/EU

Recast Reception Conditions Directive

Article 20 (1)

Article 20 (4)

Article 20 (5) and (6)

Article 8 (1) and (3)

Article 17 (2)

Article 23 Reception Decree

Article 6 (3 bis) Reception Decree

Article 12 DL 113/2018 converted by L 132/2018

The law only provides for the withdrawal of reception conditions without any progression and proportion to the contested behaviour.

Moreover the law provides for the withdrawal of reception conditions even in case of violation of the house rules while Article 20(4) of the Directive does not allow the withdrawal of reception conditions in these cases

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

The law allowing detention of asylum seekers 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 seekers for the sole purpose of examining their application under Article 8(1) of the recast Reception Conditions Directive. Also, 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.

The Decree Law 113/2018 amended the Reception Decree and deeply reformed the accommodation system for asylum seekers in Italy only providing them, even if vulnerable, with basic services. The standard of living does not meet in the specific situation of vulnerable persons

Regulation (EU) No 604/2013

Dublin III Regulation

Article 28

–

Asylum seekers cannot be detained for the purpose of Dublin transfers