Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure


Country Report: Differential treatment of specific nationalities in the procedure Last updated: 20/05/22


According to Article 12(2-bis) of the Procedure Decree, the CNDA may designate countries for the nationals of which the personal interview can be omitted, on the basis that subsidiary protection can be granted (see Regular Procedure). Currently, the CNDA has not yet designated such countries.

Statistics on decisions in asylum applications in 2021 show a recognition rate of about 97% for Afghans, 95% for Somalis, 87% for Venezuelans, 79% for Iraqis, 70% for Eritreans, 57% for Sudanese nationals, 56% for Malians and 51% for people coming from El Salvador.[1]

The issue, on 4 October 2019, of the Safe Country of Origin decree, has directly affected the treatment and prerogatives of asylum seekers whose nationalities are indicated by the decree, also because of the CNDA directive to consider all rejections as manifestly unfounded applications.

Tunisia is among the top ten main countries of origin of applicants for international protection in 2021 (over 7000 applicants, representing 13% of applications lodged, with a 594% increase compared to 2020) and is the country with the highest denial rate (92% of the 4730 applications lodged by Tunisians examined in 2021 were rejected). Applications by Moroccans are also on the rise (1175 applications lodged in 2021, with a 139% increase compared to 2020) and with a high denial rate (83% of the 1428 applications examined in 2021 were rejected).[2]

In practice, as already highlighted in the section regarding Registration, some nationalities face more difficulties in accessing the asylum procedure, both at hotspots, at Questure and, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, aboard quarantine vessels.  ASGI has reported in 2021 as in previous years, that people from Tunisia were notified expulsion orders despite having expressly requested international protection with the practice of the “double information paper”.[3] Serious criticalities in access to the procedure, due to lack of information provision and legal assistance as well as de facto detention, were reported by ASGI with specific regard to Tunisians arriving in the island of Pantelleria, where landed migrants are channelled in hotspot-like procedures (see in Detention).[4]




[1] Ministry of Interior, I numeri dell’asilo, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3kvl29h.

[2] CNDA, Statistics 2021 and 2021-2020 comparison, available at: https://bit.ly/3w63JCU and https://bit.ly/3613PRt.    

[3] ASGI reports that with the practice of the “double information paper” implemented in Lampedusa’s hotspot, police authorities have foreign nationals – and especially those coming from Tunisia – sign a second information paper in which they formally “renounce” international protection declaring that there are no impediments to their repatriation, even if the they had previously expressed their will to request international protection. Rights on the skids. The experiment of quarantine ships and main points of criticism, ASGI, March 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3tWEK25.    

[4] ASGI, La frontiera di Pantelleria: una sospensione del diritto. Report del sopralluogo giuridico di ASGI, June 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3tcSwyD.

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation