Dublin

Author

ASGI Visit Website

General

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2023

Source: Ministry of Interior, Dublin Unit.

*Transfers refers to the number of transfers actually implemented, not to the number of transfer decisions.

In 2023, 35,563 requests (including both take charge and take back requests) were received in the incoming procedure, which marked a significant increase when compared to the 27,928 incoming requests Italy received in 2022. Regarding the outgoing procedure, there were 6,530 total requests, also considerably higher than in 2022 when 5,315 requests were sent.

On 5 December 2022, the Italian Dublin Unit issued a letter to other countries bound by the Dublin system, informing that from the following day incoming transfers to Italy would be suspended due to the absence of places in the reception system. Italy specified that the suspension would not affect the reunification procedures for minors.

In an August 2023 reply to a request from the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, the Italian authorities informed the Danish Immigration Service that the country was experiencing a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers in the country, which put the national reception system under pressure.

On 8 September 2023, the Board submitted preliminary questions to the CJEU, requesting clarifications about the impact of a Member State’s temporary suspension of transfers on the six-month time limit under Article 29 of the Dublin Regulation. [1]

The state of emergency in Italy was extended in October 2023[2] and again in April 2024.[3]

In 2023, the communication was not withdrawn, however 61 incoming transfers were realised. Out of these, just 41 incoming transfers were realised based on family criteria, definitely lower compared to the 153 incoming transfers realised in 2022.^[4]According to a report published by the Ministry of Labour,^[5] in 2023, 21 incoming requests involving minors were accepted.

Transfers in the outgoing procedure were only 31, half compared to 2022 when they were 65, and significantly less than the 431 realised in 2020, and 579 in 2019. Out of those, in 2023, 5 took place for family reunifications towards other States.

Responding to the FOIA request, the Ministry of Interior stated that, in 2023, the discretionary clause provided by Article 17 of the Dublin Regulation was applied 5 times.^[6]

Application of the Dublin criteria

Family unity

The Dublin Unit tends to use circumstantial evidence for the purpose of establishing family unity such as photos, reports issued by the caseworkers, UNHCR’s opinion on application of the Dublin Implementing Regulation, and any relevant information and declarations provided by the concerned persons and family members.

According to the information provided by the Ministry of Interior, in 2023, the number of realised transfers based on family criteria was 46, out of which 41 were incoming transfers and 5 outgoing transfers.^[7]

Family unity involving unaccompanied minors

In 2023 the Dublin Unit dealt with 59 cases of unaccompanied minors eligible for transfers under Articles 8 and 17(2) of the Regulation, significantly less than the 196 examined in 2022. 8 cases were related to outgoing requests.

Between January and June 2023, 17 accepted requests were based on family unity and involving unaccompanied minors, out of which only one was an outgoing request.^[8]

Between July and December 2023, 5 accepted requests were based on family unity and involving unaccompanied minors, all related to incoming procedures.^[9]

Since 2019, UNHCR Italy together with the social cooperative Cidas run the EFRIS European Family Reunion Innovative Strategies project with the aim of improving the effectiveness of family reunification procedures for unaccompanied foreign minor asylum seekers under the Dublin III Regulation.^[10] The project staff has drawn up and disseminated Guidelines for operators,^[11] containing operating procedure standards and best practices for family reunification of minors under the Dublin III Regulation and Multilingual information leaflets (in Pashto, Tigrinya, Italian, Urdu, Somali, Farsi, English, French, Arabic) aimed at providing unaccompanied minors with information on the right to family unity and on family reunification under the Dublin procedure.^[12]

Outgoing procedure involving minors

Of the 8 outgoing practices examined by the Dublin Unit in 2023, 5 were started between January and June 2023 and 3 in the second half of the year.

3 minors requested reunification with a family member residing in Germany, 3 minors with a family member residing in France and one with a family member residing in Finland.

Regarding the degrees of kinship, 3 minors applied to be reunited with a parent, 3 minors with a sibling and 2 others with an uncle.^[13]

The breakdown of outgoing requests of unaccompanied children in 2023 was as follows:

Source: Ministry of Labour,  Monitoring report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 31 December  2023, available at: bit.ly/4bM9XKD.

Incoming procedure involving minors

In 2023, the Dublin Unit dealt with 51 incoming procedures, out of which 40 in the first half of the year and 11 in the second.

Regarding the period between January and June 2023:

• 16 requests were accepted, and 8 scheduled for the transfer;
• 10 were rejected;
• 13 were pending by the end of June.

13 minors reached the age of majority during the procedure, 25 were between 14 and 17 years of age and only 2 were younger than 14. Minors were predominantly from Pakistan (16) Somalia (8) and Egypt (8).

Concerning the degree of kinship between the minors involved in incoming requests and their respective family members resident in Italy, 30 minors applied to be reunited with an uncle or an aunt, 8 with a brother or sister, 1 with their father and 1 with their grandfather.

26 family members of the minors live in Northern Italian regions, 5 in those of the Centre, and 9 in the Southern Regions and on the Islands.

Finally, as for the requesting State, almost all of the applications (30 out of 40) came from the Greek Dublin Unit. The remaining applications were sent by Cyprus (8), Bulgaria (1) and Latvia (1).

Of the 11 incoming requests dealt with between July and December:

• 5 were accepted and 3 were transferred in the second half of 2023, while 2 were still awaiting transfer;
• 2 were rejected;
• 4 were still pending by the end of December.

All unaccompanied minors were male. As of 31 December 2023, 1 minor reached the age of majority pending the procedure and the others were between the age of 14 and 17. The most represented country of origin of the minors was Pakistan (6 minors), followed by Egypt (4 minors).

Regarding family ties, 7 minors applied to be reunited with a sibling, 3 with an uncle or an aunt, and just one with their father. Regarding the geographical distribution on the Italian territory of the family members or relatives of unaccompanied minors, 7 lived in the Northern regions, 3 in those of the Centre, and 1 remained unknown.

Almost all the requests came from Greece (10 out of 11). The other came from Switzerland.

The discretionary clauses

For 2023, the Italian Dublin Unit, replying to a FOIA request submitted by ASGI, stated that ‘the discretionary clause (Article 17) was applied 5 times’.

In 2021 and 2022, many Civil Courts – including that of Rome – suspended decisions related to the principle of non refoulement pending the CJEU preliminary rulings on questions raised by some courts regarding Article 17 (1) of the Dublin Regulation. The Civil Courts of Rome and Florence asked the CJEU to clarify if Courts are entitled to order the application of the sovereignty clause in cases where the non-refoulement principle could be violated because the applicant could be repatriated to his or her country of origin, considered unsafe. In both cases, the applicants were Afghan citizens who appealed against transfers to, respectively, Germany and Sweden, where their asylum application had already been rejected. They claimed that the execution of their transfer would expose them to irreparable damage because of the consequent repatriation to Afghanistan.^[14]

The CJEU published its judgement on 30 November 2023^[15] and, recalling the principle of mutual trust, affirmed that the difference in the assessment by the requesting Member State, on the one hand, and the Member State responsible, on the other, regarding the existence of the conditions for protection, is not, in principle, relevant for the purposes of reviewing the validity of the transfer decision. Therefore, the Court observed that the Dublin III Regulation objectives ‘preclude the court examining the transfer decision from carrying out a substantive assessment of the risk of refoulement in the event of return’.^[16]

For this reason, the CJEU concluded that the Dublin Regulation and the Charter’ must be interpreted as meaning that the court or tribunal of the requesting Member State, hearing an action challenging a transfer decision, cannot examine whether there is, in the requested Member State, a risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement to which the applicant for international protection would be exposed during his or her transfer to that Member State or thereafter where that court or tribunal does not find that there are, in the requested Member State, systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection. Differences of opinion between the authorities and courts in the requesting Member State, on the one hand, and those of the requested Member State, on the other hand, as regards the interpretation of the material conditions for international protection do not establish the existence of systemic deficiencies’.

On the other hand, with regard specifically to the sovereignty clause (Article 17(1) Dublin Regulation), the CJEU separates two hypotheses stating that:

• ‘Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 27 of that regulation and with Articles 4, 19 and 47 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not requiring the court or tribunal of the requesting Member State to declare that Member State responsible where it disagrees with the assessment of the requested Member State as to the risk of refoulement of the person concerned’; and that
• Due to the optional nature of the provisions of Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation, ‘If there are no systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions for applicants for international protection in the requested Member State during the transfer or thereafter, nor can the court or tribunal of the requesting Member State compel the latter to examine itself an application for international protection on the basis of Article 17(1) of the Dublin III Regulation on the ground that there is, according to that court or tribunal, a risk of infringement of the principle of non-refoulement in the requested Member State’.

As immediately highlighted by a legal study,^[17] it is no coincidence that the Court  used, for the two hypotheses set out regarding Article 17(1) the expressions “not requiring” and “cannot compel”. This difference allows the Court to highlight the existence of the judge’s ability to apply the clause. As this study highlights, the express reference to the judge – and not generically to the Member State – as the body that can arrange for the application of the clause is particularly relevant.

Following the CJEU decision, the Civil Courts started resuming the cases suspended pending this decision.

The Civil Court of Bologna, on 20 February 2024, gave the Dublin Unit additional time to consider the possibility to apply the sovereignty clause due to the extraordinary circumstance of the long time passed waiting for the CJEU decision, postponing the court’s decision to after the Dublin Unit’s decision.^[18]

The Civil Court of Rome, considering the long duration of the procedure for determining the responsible State, due to the wait for the CJEU decision, decided to apply the sovereignty clause and declared the Italian responsibility to the exam of the asylum request of the applicant, also considering his integration in Italy.^[19]

The Civil Court of Trento, on ​​29 February 2024, decided to apply the sovereignty clause and established the Italian responsibility to examine the asylum request of the applicant. The Court took into account the long time spent in Italy by the applicant awaiting the Court’s decision, suspended awaiting the CJEU’s decision, and his personal vulnerabilities which emerged during the appeal and had not been considered by the Italian government for the recognition of the complementary national protection, which could be recognised considering the applicant’s origin from the Azad Kashmir (Bhimber, Pakistan).^[20]

Procedure

The staff of the Italian Dublin Unit significantly increased in 2018 and benefitted from the support of EASO personnel, mainly in relation to outgoing requests, family reunification and children.

Decree Law 113/2018 envisaged the creation of up to three new territorial peripheral units of the Dublin Unit, to be established by Decree of the Ministry of Interior in identified Prefectures.^[21] However, no peripheral units have been implemented since 2020, including in 2023.

All asylum seekers are photographed and fingerprinted (fotosegnalamento) by Questure who systematically store their fingerprints in Eurodac. When there is a Eurodac hit, the police contact the Italian Dublin Unit within the Ministry of Interior. In the general procedure, after the lodging of the asylum application, on the basis of the information gathered and if it is considered that the Dublin Regulation should be applied, the Questura transmits the pertinent documents to the Dublin Unit which examines the criteria set out in the Dublin Regulation to identify the Member State responsible.

Since December 2017, a specific procedure has been implemented in Questure of Friuli-Venezia Giulia region, on the basis that most of asylum seekers arriving in this region from Nordic countries or the Balkan route fall under the Dublin Regulation. ASGI has witnessed cases where the Questure fingerprinted persons seeking asylum in the region as persons in “irregular stay” (“Category 3”) in the Eurodac database,^[22] instead of “applicants for international protection” (“Category 1”).^[23] The Dublin Unit therefore justified, even in the Court procedure, the implementation of the Dublin transfer prior to the lodging of the application on the basis that no asylum application had been made; it should also be noted that “Category 3” fingerprints are not stored in the Eurodac database.^[24]

In 2020, the procedure recorded in 2019 in Friuli Venezia Giulia was overcome by the COVID-19 emergency and, at least partially, replaced by the massive implementation of informal readmissions of migrants in Slovenia even in cases of people seeking asylum, for which the Dublin Regulation should have been applied, as ruled by the Civil Court of Rome^[25] (see Access to the territory).

In 2022 and 2023, no other readmissions of people expressing their will to seek asylum were recorded at the eastern border.

However, a change brought by DL 133/2023 could affect the Dublin procedure. DL 133/2023 introduced new Article 6 (3 bis), according to which in the event that the third country national citizen does not present themselves at the competent Questura for verification of the identity declared by them or for the formalisation of their asylum application, their expressed intention to seek asylum does not constitute an asylum application and the procedure is considered as never started.

In 2021, the Civil Court of Trieste and the Court of Cassation requested, pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU, that the European Court of Justice give a preliminary ruling to clarify the scope of information obligations and the effects of their violation on judicial proceedings.^[26] The CJEU then published its judgement on 30 November 2023^[27] (see Personal interview).

Individualised guarantees

The Dublin Unit systematically issues outgoing requests to all countries when potential responsibility criteria are triggered. There are no reports of cases where the Dublin Unit has requested individual guarantees before proceeding with a transfer, even in the case of vulnerable persons.

In some cases, the Dublin Unit was not informed about vulnerability by Questure. This may be related to the fact that personal interviews provided by Article 5 of the Dublin regulation are not properly conducted or they are not conducted at all (see Personal interview).

Transfers

In case another Member State is considered responsible under the Dublin Regulation, the asylum procedure is terminated.^[28] The Dublin Unit issues a decision that is transmitted to the applicant through the Questura, mentioning the country where the asylum seeker will be returned and the modalities for appealing against the Dublin decision.^[29] Afterwards, the Questura arranges the transfer. The applicants must then present themselves at the place and date indicated by the Questura.

Where an appeal is lodged against the transfer decision, the six-month time limit for a transfer starts running from the rejection of the request for suspensive effect, otherwise from the court’s decision on the appeal itself if suspension had been requested and granted.^[30] Since the practical organisation of the transfer is up to the Questura, it is difficult to indicate the average time before a transfer is carried out. The length of the Dublin procedure depends on many factors, including the availability of means of transport, the personal condition of the person, whether the police needs to accompany the person concerned etc. However, according to information collected by ASGI, as the majority of applicants abscond and do not present themselves for the transfer, the Italian authorities often ask the responsible Member State for an extension of the deadline up to 18 months, as envisaged under Article 29(2) of the Dublin Regulation.

The applicant usually waits for months without knowing if the Dublin procedure has started, to which country a request has been addressed and the criteria on which it has been laid down. In the majority of cases, it is only thanks to the help of NGOs providing adequate information that asylum seekers are able to go through the whole Dublin procedure. When necessary, the NGOs contact the authorities to obtain the required information.

According to the data published by the Ministry of Labour in 2017, the time period between a “take charge” request for unaccompanied children and its acceptance by the destination country was 35 days on average, while it was on average 46 days between the acceptance of the request and the actual transfer of unaccompanied children.^[31] According to ASGI’s experience, the duration of the procedure is much longer in practice, and the procedure may last over one year. As previously mentioned, in 2021, more than half of the practices required more than a year for definition in the outgoing procedure. In 2022 and 2023 no significant changes were recorded in the majority of the cases.

Law 50/2023, which came into force on 5 May 2023 converting with amendments DL 20/2023, introduced the possibility to detain asylum seekers during the Dublin procedure.

The new Article 6-ter of the Reception Decree foresees the possibility to detain asylum seekers awaiting the Dublin transfer when there is a significant risk of absconding and unless alternative measures to detention can apply.^[32] The risk is assessed on a case-by-case basis case and can be considered to exist when the applicant has escaped a first transfer attempt or when one of the following conditions occurs;

1. ​​lack of a travel document;
2. lack of a reliable address;
3. failure to present to the authorities;
4. lack of financial resources;
5. systematic false declarations about personal data.

Detention cannot last beyond the time strictly necessary for the execution of the transfer. The detention validation decision allows the stay in the centre for a total period of six weeks. In the event of serious difficulties concerning the execution of the transfer the judge, upon request from the Questore, can extend the detention for a further 30 days, up to a maximum of further 12 days. Before the expiry of this term, the Questore can carry out the transfer by notifying the judge without delay.^[33]

In a case decided on 19 August 2023 by the Civil Court of Trieste, the detention was validated considering that the asylum seeker was “homeless, moving along the national territory without financial resources, and was the recipient of multiple criminal complaints”.^[34]

Personal interview

With the exception of the lodging of the asylum application by the competent Questura, personal interviews of asylum seekers are rarely envisaged during the Dublin procedure.

In 2021 and 2022, many Courts suspended Dublin transfers pending the CJEU’s preliminary rulings raised by Courts regarding information obligations. The Court of Cassation,^[35] the Civil Court of Trieste^[36] and the Civil Court of Milan^[37] asked the CJEU to clarify if a violation of the information obligations foreseen by Articles 4 and 5 of the Dublin Regulation should always cause cancellation of the transfer or if such cancellation could be ordered only when the applicant proves how the fulfilment of the information obligations and consequently their participation in the procedure could have changed the procedure.^[38] The hearing took place on 8 June 2022. The Advocate General delivered her opinion on 20 April 2023, concluding that infringements to the information obligation can lead to the annulment of the transfer decision only if it is demonstrated how it concretely affected the rights of the asylum seeker and if those defects cannot be remedied in the procedure for the judicial review of that decision.^[39]

The CJEU started out by stating that the obligation to provide the information under Articles 4 and 5 of the Dublin III Regulation and Article 29 of the Eurodac Regulation “applies both in the context of a first application for international protection and a take charge procedure, under Article 20(1) and Article 21(1) of Regulation No 604/2013 respectively, as well as in the context of a subsequent application for international protection and a situation, as that covered by Article 17(1) of Regulation No 603/2013, capable of giving rise to take back procedures under Article 23(1) and Article 24(1) of Regulation No 604/2013”.

Then, the Court clarified the existence of different consequences in case of the infringement of Article 4 (common leaflet) or Article 5 (individual interview). According to the Court:

• A Dublin transfer decision should be annulled in case of an appeal calling into question the absence of the personal interview provided for in Article 5, unless the national legislation allows the person concerned, in the context of that appeal, to set out in person all their arguments against that decision at a hearing which complies with the conditions and safeguards laid down in the latter article, and those arguments do not have sufficient weight to alter that decision.
• In case on an appeal calling into question the violation of Article 4 (common leaflet not provided), the national court responsible for assessing the lawfulness of the transfer decision may order that the decision be annulled only if it considers, in the light of the factual and legal circumstances of the case, that the failure to provide the common leaflet, notwithstanding the fact that the personal interview has taken place, actually deprived that person of the possibility of putting forward their arguments, to the extent that the outcome of the administrative procedure in respect of that person could have been different.

In practice, this means that failure to provide the common leaflet cannot lead to the annulment of the transfer unless the appellant demonstrates how the absence of information concretely affected the Dublin procedure and altered it. Instead, the personal interview is considered an essential phase which, if omitted, must in any case be made up for during the trial by listening directly to the appellant. This, in the Italian context where the interview is often omitted or inconsistent and the court proceedings are mostly written, could take on an important meaning in pending and future trials.[40]

On 3 April 2024, the Court of Cassation recalling the CJEU decision stated that “where the specific information obligations are not fulfilled, in light of the hearing carried out and the information resulting from the allegations and productions of the administrative authority, burdened with proof, the transfer decision must be annulled”.[41]

Appeal

Asylum seekers are informed of the determination of the Dublin Unit concerning their “take charge” / “take back” by another Member State at the end of the procedure when they are notified through the Questura of the transfer decision. Asylum seekers may be informed on the possibility to lodge an appeal against this decision generally by specialised NGOs.

According to the Procedures Decree, an applicant may appeal the transfer decision before the Civil Court within 30 days of the notification of the transfer.^[42]

The assistance of a lawyer is necessary for the lodging of an appeal, but the applicant can apply for free legal aid.

Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017 designated the specialised section of the Civil Courts as competent to decide on appeals against transfer decisions.^[43]

• In case applicants are accommodated when notified about the transfer decision, territorial jurisdiction is determined on the basis of the place of the centres are located, and therefore fall within the specialised sections of the territorially competent Civil Courts.^[44]
• In case of appeals brought by people not accommodated at the time they were notified with the transfer decision, jurisdiction is that of the Civil Court of Rome.

Suspensive effect

Article 3 of the Procedure Decree does not unequivocally provide that the transfer is suspended until the time limit for lodging an appeal expires. It states that the lodging of the appeal automatically suspends the transfer if an application for suspension is in the appeal.^[45] According to ASGI, this should be interpreted in the sense that transfers may be carried out only once the time limit for an appeal has elapsed without an appeal being filed or with an appeal not indicating a request for suspension.

To ASGI’s knowledge, in 2022 and 2023, as in the previous three years, the Questure waited for the 30-day deadline for lodging the appeal to expire before proceeding with the organisation of the transfer.

According to the law, the Court should decide on the application for suspensive effect within 5 days and notify a decision to the parties, who have 5 days to present submissions and 5 days to reply thereto. In this case, the Court must issue a new, final decision, confirming, modifying or revoking its previous decision.^[46] In ASGI’s experience, the Civil Courts never complied with these deadlines in 2020, 2021 2022 and 2023.

The appeal procedure is mainly written. Within 10 days of the notification of the appeal, the Dublin Unit must file the documentation on which the transfer decision is based and, within the same time limit, may file its own submissions. In the following 10 days, the applicant can in turn make submissions.^[47] The court will set a hearing only if it considers it useful for the purposes of the decision.^[48]

The decision must be taken within 60 days from the submission of the appeal and can only be appealed before the Court of Cassation within 30 days. The Court of Cassation should decide on the appeal within 2 months from the lodging of the onward appeal.

The appeal brought before the Court of Cassation has no suspensive effect and the law does not expressly provide for the possibility of requesting such a suspension. On 2 September 2022, the Civil Court of Rome accepted the urgent appeal submitted by an asylum seeker whose appeal against the Dublin transfer to Austria had been accepted in 2021 and who, after one year and half, was still waiting for Italy’s declaration on having competence to examine his asylum request. The Civil Court rejected the arguments presented by the Dublin Unit, according to which the submission of an appeal before the Court of Cassation in the Dublin procedure would entail the automatic suspension of the procedure itself.^[49]

Legal assistance

The same law and practices described under the section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance apply to the Dublin procedure with regard to legal assistance, including the merits and means tests.

Suspension of transfers

There is no official policy on systematic suspension of Dublin transfers to other countries.

As in the previous years, most of the asylum seekers concerned have submitted appeals, leading to transfers being suspended by the courts, while others have become untraceable.

Greece: according to ASGI’s experience, no Dublin transfers to Greece were carried out in 2020 and 2021, nor in 2022. However, readmissions from Adriatic ports were carried out (see Access to the territory).

Hungary: In late September 2016, the Council of State annulled a transfer to Hungary, defining it as an unsafe country for Dublin returns. The Council of State expressed concerns on the situation in Hungary, considering measures such as the planned construction of an “anti-immigrant wall” expressing the cultural and political climate of aversion to immigration and to the protection of refugees; the option of discontinuing an asylum application if the applicants leave their residence designated for more than 48 hours without permission and the extension of the detention period of asylum seekers.^[50]

Bulgaria: In September 2016 the Council of State suspended several transfers to Bulgaria on the basis that the country is unsafe.^[51] The Council of State expressed concerns about the asylum system in Bulgaria due to the critical condition of shelters, some of which appear as detention centres, and more generally of the cultural climate of intolerance and discrimination that reigns in public opinion and among the leaders in the government towards refugees.^[52] In a ruling of November 2017, the Council of State reaffirmed its position and suspended the transfer of an Afghan asylum seeker to Bulgaria.^[53]

The Court of Turin, in September 2020, cancelled the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker to Bulgaria, having found, through specific COI, that in Bulgaria there are serious systemic deficiencies in asylum procedures such as: the use of force by the police to prevent the entry of applicants into the national territory; restrictions on the freedom of movement of asylum seekers; shortcomings in reception and support services; as well as extremely low rates of recognition of international protection.^[54]

With a Decision of 14 July 2021, the Civil Court of Turin confirmed its orientation cancelling the transfer of an Afghan asylum seeker to Bulgaria, considering the serious shortcomings of the country’s asylum system. The decision, also referring to the AIDA reports on Bulgaria of 2018, 2019 and 2020, underlines, among other reasons, the low rates of recognition of international protection for certain nationalities in that country.^[55]

Romania: in October 2022, the Civil Court of Rome annulled an applicant’s transfer to Romania according to Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation and to Article 4 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, considering the systemic deficiencies existing in that country. The Court observed that the country was already unprepared to accommodate asylum seekers before the Ukrainian crisis and that with the arrival of thousands of people from Ukraine the situation reached an extremely critical level.^[56]

On 12 January 2023, the Civil Court of Rome annulled the transfer of an asylum seeker to Romania, on the basis of the Article 29 of the Regulation. According to the Court, the terms for the transfer (6 months) had to be considered expired since it could not apply the longer term of 18 months, valid according to the Dublin Unit, because the applicant could not be considered untraceable: indeed, according to the Court, there was no proof that the applicant had been searched by the authorities. Moreover, the court confirmed its previous orientation, considering Romania unsafe, as according to the Court the Romanian reception system presents, today, critical issues due to the crisis originated by the war in Ukraine, with thousands of refugees and an exponential increase in requests for protection.^[57]

Slovenia: on 21 February 2023, the Civil Court of Rome cancelled a transfer to Slovenia on the basis of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation considering that, as reported by many NGOs and highlighted in the AIDA report, that country could not be considered a safe country due to the pushbacks and readmission practices, to the obstacles in accessing the asylum procedure, to the detention measures often applied to asylum seekers, to the detention conditions and to the obstacles for asylum seekers to be properly represented by lawyers during the asylum procedure.^[58]

Germany: on 3 November 2022, the Civil Court of Bologna cancelled a transfer to Germany on the basis of Article 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation and Article 4 of the Charter, considering the transfer unsafe for the individual risk of the applicant, vulnerable as disabled and as possible victim of trafficking for begging. The Court, recalling the jurisprudence of the CJEU related to the Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CJEU 16.2.2017 C-587/16 PPU, C.K. v. Rep. Slovenia – CJEU 21.12.2011 C-411/10 and C-493/10 N.S. et al.) affirmed that even in the absence of serious reasons to consider that there are systemic deficiencies in the Member State responsible of the asylum application, the Dublin transfer of an asylum seeker can only be carried out in conditions in which it is excluded that the said transfer entails a risk of inhuman or degrading treatments. In this case, according to the Court, the psychophysical conditions of the applicant would have exposed him, at a real and established risk of deterioration of his health, such as to constitute a inhuman and degrading treatment because the transfer in Germany would have stopped the social path -started in Italy -of emancipation from the probable situation of exploitation in which he found himself since his departure from Nigeria, as well as the health care path, also undertaken in Italy.^[59]

Croatia: in early 2024, the Civil Court of Trieste adopted in two cases an interim measure to suspend two transfers to Croatia due to the possible violation of Article 3(2).^[60] Also, on 9 June 2023 the Civil Court of Turin annulled the transfer of an asylum seeker to Croatia (..) in consideration of the violation of article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation in the part in which it states the impossibility to ‘transfer an applicant towards the Member State initially designated as responsible because there are reasonable grounds to believe that there are systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of applicants in that Member State which entails the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’.^[61]

Austria: on 13 March 2024, the Civil Court of Rome annulled the transfer to Austria of an asylum seeker considering that the transfer would have violated Article 3(2) of the Dublin III Regulation because of the systemic deficiencies in the Austrian reception system and in the asylum procedure. The Court considered that, as underlined in the AIDA report, during 2022, in response to the increase in the number of asylum seekers in the country, Austria has changed the procedure for registering asylum applications which no longer takes place at the border but at the regional police offices. This led to long waits, inadequate reception conditions and the dispersion of asylum seekers.^[62]

United Kingdom: In 2022, the Civil Court of Catanzaro, annulled the decision taken by the Italian Dublin Unit to transfer an asylum seeker to the UK as the court considered that the Dublin Regulation would no longer apply to the country, even if it had recognised its responsibility.^[63]

The situation of Dublin returnees

In 2023, Italy received 61 incoming Dublin transfers. The low numbers are due to the circumstance that Italian authorities still claim the validity of the suspension of incoming transfers to be carried out pursuant to the declared state of emergency.

Reception guarantees and practice

Replying on February 2024 to ASGI’s information request, the Ministry of Interior informed that “Dublin returnees access the accommodation system at the same conditions than the other asylum seekers”.^[64]

The Ministry of Interior Circular of 14 January 2019 specified that Dublin returnees who had already applied for asylum prior to leaving Italy should be transferred by the competent Prefecture from the airport of arrival to the province where their application was lodged. If no prior asylum application had been lodged, they should be accommodated in the province of the airport of arrival. Family unity should always be maintained.^[65]

The circular does not clarify how the prefectures should facilitate the transfer of the asylum seeker. This circumstance may externally expose the Dublin returnee to face, on its own, the obstacles placed in front of some Questure for the access to the asylum procedure, especially in the absence of a domicile. (see registration).

Following the Tarakhel v. Switzerland ruling,^[66] in practice the guarantees requested were ensured mainly to families and vulnerable cases through a list of dedicated places in the SAI system (former Sprar/Siproimi system (see Types of Accommodation), communicated since June 2015 to other countries’ Dublin Units.^[67] Following the 2020 reform of the reception system, Dublin returnees as asylum seekers had again access to second-line reception SPRAR, renamed SAI but, due to the drastic reform brought by L. 50 of 5 May 2023, access to SAI is again denied to asylum seekers.^[68] It will be only allowed to vulnerable people as defined in the Reception Decree, Article 17.^[69]

In an answer (February 2024) to the public access request sent by ASGI, the Dublin Unit replied that “in the reception system there are no places reserved for Dublin returnees from other Member States, “as they are accommodated in the available places, in the same way as other asylum seekers”.^[70]

In practice, Dublin returnees face the same problems as other asylum seekers in Italy in accessing the asylum procedure and housing in the reception system.

Reports from the civil society and NGOs confirmed the difficulty in accessing the asylum procedure in 2023.[71] A monitoring report made by ASGI between May and June 2023 details illegitimate requirements set to grant access to the asylum procedure, such as the request to present an official address or the possession of the passport[72] (see Access to procedure).

Rules on reception conditions also significantly changed with the introduction of Law 50/2023, which converted Decree Law 20/2023. The reform excluded asylum seekers from the possibility to access the SAI system. Access to the SAI will only be granted to asylum seekers identified as vulnerable and to those who have legally entered Italy through complementary pathways (government-led resettlements or private sponsored humanitarian admission programs).

Moreover, Law Decree No. 20/2023[73] does not foresee an obligation to provide psychological assistance services, Italian language courses and legal and territorial orientation services to asylum seekers accommodated in first reception centers, CAS and temporary centers. Law 50/2023 also introduced a new typology of “provisional” centres where only food, clothing, health care and linguistic-cultural mediation are provided. (See Reception Conditions)

It should be also noted that the L. 50/2023 introduced a provision according to which holders of international protection and holders of residence permits which allow access to the SAI lose the possibility of accessing it if, except in cases of force majeure, they do not present themselves at the assigned facility within seven days of the relevant communication.[74]

In December 2021, an Afghan citizen, evacuated from Afghanistan by the Italian authorities at the end of August, who was a Dublin returnee from France where he had applied for asylum, received an expulsion decree and was held in the CPR of Gradisca d’Isonzo for over a month without having access to asylum. Transferred by flight to Venice he was asked, at the airport, to fill the foglio notizie and, without any examination of his individual situation, was sent to the CPR. After having had access to the asylum procedure, his detention was not validated by the Civil Court of Trieste on 8 January 2022.^[75]

In 2022, the Civil Court of Trieste annulled the expulsion notified in August 2021 to an Iraqi asylum seeker who had already applied for asylum in Germany and had afterwards autonomously moved to Italy to join her partner. The Prefecture of Udine first accommodated him in a reception centre but, on the day scheduled for the formalisation of his asylum request (C3), notified him an expulsion order. According to the Court. there was no doubt that the man was an asylum seeker from the first moment he arrived in Italy also due to the content of the first “foglio notizie” he was asked to fulfil at his arrival in Tarvisio (on the Austrian border). In Udine, he was asked to fulfil a “second” foglio notizie where his intention to seek asylum was not further detailed. The applicant was not channelled in the Dublin procedure.^[76]

As regards the implementation of incoming transfers, only when Italy expressly recognises its responsibility under the Dublin Regulation, national authorities indicate the most convenient airport where Dublin returnees should be returned in order to easily reach the competent Questura, meaning the Questura of the area where the asylum procedure had been started or assigned. In other cases, where Italy becomes responsible by tacit acceptance of incoming requests, persons transferred to Italy from another Member State usually arrive at the main Italian airports such as Rome Fiumicino Airport and Milan Malpensa Airport. At the airport, the Border Police provides the person returned under the Dublin Regulation with an invitation letter (verbale di invito) indicating the competent Questura where they have to go.

Since 2021, the information desk for asylum seekers in Milan Malpensa is operated by the cooperative Ballafon.^[77]

According to information provided by the Ballafon cooperative responding to the Foia request sent by ASGI (In LImine project), from February 2022 to November 2022, the asylum seekers that arrived at the Malpensa airport were sent to the cooperatives of the territorial reception system or to relatives, while most Dublin returnees were sent to the Questura of Varese to determine their position in the national territory.^[78]

At the Fiumicino airport of Rome, the Prefecture of Rome has entrusted in 2022 the I.T.M. society (Interpreti Traduttori Mediatori) for informing and managing foreign people arriving at the air border who want to seek asylum or who are Dublin returnees.^[79]

According to the reply to the FOIA request, ITC is also in charge of organising a transport service from Fiumicino to the reception centres for the categories of people who, suffering from specific pathologies, are unable to independently use the train to Termini and/or Tiburtina.^[80]

Also, information provided by ITC, from February 2022 to October 2022, 1,121 Dublin returnees arrived at Fiumicino airport. Of these: 195 persons were sent to CAS centers; 18 to CPR; 497 were invited to present themselves to Questura to clarify their position on the national territory; 399 received an expulsion decision; 123 were left free to reach the national territory to find an accommodation; 41 were addressed to the social services.^[81]

At Venice airport, Marco Polo, the cooperative Giuseppe Olivotti, was responsible, up to January 2022 under the agreement with the Prefecture of Venice, for arrivals of asylum seekers and Dublin returnees. It did not have a stable presence at the airport, but ensured presence on call.

At the airport of Bologna, the cooperative Laimomo is responsible of informing Dublin returnees.

It should be noted that if returnees used to live in asylum seekers’ reception centres before leaving Italy, they could encounter problems on their return in submitting a new accommodation request. In fact, due to their first departure and according to the rules provided for the Withdrawal of Reception Conditions, the Prefecture could deny them access to the reception system.^[82]

In January 2020, the Swiss Refugee Council published an update about their monitoring of the situation on reception conditions in Italy, also in relation to Dublin returnees, that generally confirms the findings of their previous monitoring.^[83] They further reported that in Italy until now there is no standardized, defined procedure in place for taking them (back) into the system.

Re-accessing the asylum procedure

Access to the asylum procedure is equally problematic, for Dublin returnees and for other applicants, as detailed in the section of the report on Registration. Asylum seekers returned under the Dublin Regulation have to approach the Questura to obtain an appointment to lodge their claim. However, the delay for such an appointment reaches several months in most cases.^[84] The competent Questura is often located very far from the airport and asylum seekers have only a few days to reach it; reported cases refer of persons arriving in Milan, Lombardy and invited to appear before the Questura of Catania, Sicily. In addition, people are neither accompanied to the competent Questura nor informed of the most suitable means of transport thereto, adding further obstacles to reach the competent Questura within the required time. In some cases, however, people are provided with tickets from the Prefecture desk at Milan Malpensa Airport.

Dublin returnees face different situations depending on whether they had applied for asylum in Italy before moving on to another European country, and on whether the decision on their application by the Territorial Commission had already been taken.^[85]

In early 2023, ASGI also received reports regarding some Territorial Commissions which, applying a directive received from the CNDA, started not to suspend the asylum procedure for 12 months in case of people who become unreachable after leaving the accommodation centres, a decision liable to directly affect the Dublin returnees situation.

 Therefore the cases can be summarised as follows:

• In “take charge” cases where the person had not applied for asylum during their initial transit or stay in Italy before moving on to another country,^[86] they should be allowed to lodge an application under the regular procedure. However, the person could be considered an irregular migrant by the authorities and notified an expulsion order.
• In “take back” cases where the person had already lodged an asylum application and escaped from the accommodation centre before being informed of the hearing for the personal interview, the Territorial Commission may have suspended the procedure on the basis that the person is unreachable (irreperibile).^[87] The amendments made by the Decree Law 133/2023 entail that, after the expiry of 9 months from the suspension, the procedure is automatically concluded. The new application will be considered a Subsequent Application and the request will subject to the preliminary assessment of the President of the Territorial Commission also to evaluate the reasons for absconding.^[88]
• In take-back cases where the person had already lodged an asylum application and become unreachable while living in a private living place, the procedure could have been closed with a rejection due to the absence of the applicant. In this case the procedure could be reopened if the applicant provides within 10 days justified reasons proving the lack of knowledge of the convocation (calculated from the cessation of the cause that did not allow the applicant to attend the interview). Otherwise, the applicant will have to submit a subsequent application.^[89]
• In take back cases when the person, being regularly convocated for the personal hearing, failed to present themselves to the appointment without giving any justified reason, the Territorial Commission could consider their absence as a tacit renunciation and new application will be considered a Subsequent Application.
• In “take back” cases where the person’s asylum application in Italy has already been rejected by the Territorial Commission,^[90] if the applicant has been notified of the decision and lodged no appeal, they may be issued an expulsion order and placed in a CPR. According to the notification procedure (see Regular Procedure: General), the same could happen even in case the applicant had not been directly notified of the decision, since in case the applicant is deemed unreachable (irreperibile), the Territorial Commission notifies the decision by sending it to the competent Questura and notification is deemed to be complete within 20 days of the transmission of the decision to the Questura.^[91]

Also, as already mentioned, the recent change introduced by DL 133/2023 in the asylum procedure could affect also Dublin returnees: the DL 133/2023 introduced the new Article 6 (3 bis) according to which in the event that the third country national citizen does not present at the competent Questura for verification of their declared identity or for the formalisation of the asylum application, their expressed intention to seek asylum does not constitute an asylum application and the procedure is considered as never started.

[1] See for reference: AIDA Dublin statistical update, available here, pp. 22-23.

[2] Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri del 5 ottobre 2023 – Proroga dello stato di emergenza in conseguenza dell’eccezionale incremento dei flussi di persone migranti in ingresso sul territorio nazionale attraverso le rotte migratorie del Mediterraneo, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3sc6Idg.

[3] See press release published on the Government website on 9 April 2024:  bit.ly/3wsVqDE. To be published in Gazzetta Ufficiale.

[4] Response of the Dublin Unit to the public access information request sent by ASGI.

[5] Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 31 December 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4bM9XKD and Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/49nN2na.

[6] Response of 24 February 2024 of the Dublin Unit to the public access information request sent by ASGI. The answer does not specify more.

[7] Response of the Dublin Unit to the public access information request sent by ASGI.

[8] Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/49nN2na.

[9] Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 31 December 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4bM9XKD.

[10] Project webpage, available at: https://bit.ly/3kxuY24.

[11] Guidelines available at: https://bit.ly/3vwqe34.

[12] Multilingual materials accessible and downloadable at: https://bit.ly/3OS7P8I.

[13] Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 31 December 2023, available at: https://bit.ly/4bM9XKD, and Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2023, available at: http://bit.ly/49nN2na.

[14] Court of Justice of European Union, joined cases, Case C-254/21 and C-297/21, together with Cases C-228/21, C-328/21 and C-315/21 on information obligations (Articles 4 and 5 of the Dublin Regulation).

[15] Court of Justice of European Union, Ministero dell’Interno (Brochure commune – Refoulement indirect), joined cases, Case C-254/21 and C-297/21, together with Cases C-228/21, C-328/21 and C-315/21, available at: https://bit.ly/3ThqbnN.

[16] Ibid, par. 141.

[17] See Nel nome della fiducia reciproca! La Corte di Giustizia si pronuncia sul rischio di refoulement indiretto nei trasferimenti Dublino: l’unica (e sempre più restrittiva) eccezione delle carenze sistemiche e le (limitate) prerogative del giudice nazionale, by Marcella Ferri, researcher in European Union Law at the Department of Law of the University of Florence, in Eurojus, Fascicolo n. 1 – 2024 available at: https://bit.ly/3uVrXl6.

[18] Civil Court of Bologna, decision of 20 February 2024.

[19] Civil Court of Rome, decision of 21 February 2024.

[20] Civil Court of Trento, decision of 29 February 2024.

[21] Article 3(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 11 Decree Law 113/2018.

[22] Article 17 Eurodac Regulation.

[23] Article 9 Eurodac Regulation.

[24] Article 17(3) Eurodac Regulation.

[25] Civil Court of Rome, decision of 18 January 2021, available in English at: https://bit.ly/3hgKr6b.

[26] Court of Cassation, decision no. 8668 of 23 February – 29 March 2021.

[27] Court of Justice of European Union, Ministero dell’Interno (Brochure commune – Refoulement indirect),joined cases, Case C-254/21 and C-297/21, together with Cases C-228/21, C-328/21 and C-315/21, available at https://bit.ly/3ThqbnN.

[28] Article 30(1) Procedure Decree.

[29] Presently, even though L 46/2017 has recognised the jurisdiction of the Civil Court of Rome and stated that the appeal has to be lodged within 30 days, many decisions still direct people to appeal before the Administrative Court of Lazio within 60 days.

[30] Article 3(3-octies) Procedure Decree, as amended by L 46/2017.

[31] Ministry of Labour, I minori stranieri non accompagnati in Italia, 31 December 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2FvU6Aj, 14.

[32] Article 6 ter (1) of the Reception Decree introduced by L. 50/2023 converting into law with amendments the DL 20/2023.

[33] Article 6 ter ( 2 and 3) of the Reception Decree introduced by L. 50/2023 converting into law with amendments the DL 20/2023.

[34] Civil Court of Trieste, decision of 19 August 2023.

[35] Case C-228/21.

[36] Case C-328/21.

[37] Case C-315/21.

[38] See also A. Di Pascale, Garanzie informative e partecipative del richiedente protezione internazionale e limiti al sindacato giurisdizionale nella procedura di ripresa in carico di cui al reg. (UE) n. 604/2013. Nota a margine dei rinvii pregiudiziali alla Corte di giustizia, in Diritto Immigrazione e Cittadinanza, Fascicolo 3/2021 available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3y5O9IC.

[39] Opinion of Advocate General Kokott delivered on 20 April 2023, available at: bit.ly/42LeWWS.

[40] Court of Justice of European Union, Ministero dell’Interno (Brochure commune – Refoulement indirect), joined cases, Case C-254/21 and C-297/21, together with Cases C-228/21, C-328/21 and C-315/21, available at: https://bit.ly/3ThqbnN.

[41] Court of Cassation, decision of 3 April 2024, no. 12162/2024. Similarly, see Court of Cassation, decision of 17 April 2024, available at https://acesse.dev/ipbCH.

[42] Article 3(3-ter) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[43] Article 3(3-bis) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[44] According to the rule provided in Article 4(3) Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017, this also applies to asylum appeals as it generally refers to “accommodated applicants”.

[45] Article 3(3-quater) and (3-octies) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[46] Article 3(3-quater) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[47] Article 3(3-quinquies) and (3-sexies) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[48] Article 3(3-septies) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[49] Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 2 September 2022, available at: bit.ly/3KHoCMa.

[50] Council of State, Decision 4004/2016, 27 September 2016, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2kWlO1d.

[51] Council of State, Decisions 3998/2016, 3999/2016, 4000/2016 and 4002/2016, 27 September 2016, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2llJzAR.

[52] Ibid. The Council of State referred in particular to the fifth report on Bulgaria of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), 16 September 2014.

[53] Council of State, Decision 5085/2017, 3 November 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2GKtcVA.

[54] Civil Court of Turin, decree 29 September 2020, procedure no. 12340/2020, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3uzpA1S.

[55] Civil Court of Turin, Decision of 14 July 2021.

[56] Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 13 October 2022

[57] Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 12 January 2023, available at: bit.ly/3IyzWaH.

[58] Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 21 February 2023.

[59] Civil Court of Bologna, Decision of 3 November 2022, available at: bit.ly/3m80szY.

[60] Civil Court of Trieste, decision of 16 February 2024

[61] Civil Court of Turin, decision of 9 June 2023.

[62] Civil Court of Rome, decision of 13 March 2024.

[63] Civil Court of Catanzaro, Decision of 10 December 2022.

[64] Answer to the FOIA request, sent on February 2024.

[65] Ministry of Interior Circular of 14 January 2019, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2P7G5OZ.

[66] In a ruling concerning an Afghan family with 6 children who were initially hosted in a CARA in Bari before travelling to Austria and then Switzerland, the ECtHR found that Switzerland would have breached Article 3 ECHR if it had returned the family to Italy without having obtained individual guarantees by the Italian authorities on the adequacy of the specific conditions in which they would receive the applicants. The Court stated that it is “incumbent on the Swiss authorities to obtain assurances from their Italian counterparts that on their arrival in Italy the applicants will be received in facilities and in conditions adapted to the age of the children, and that the family will be kept together.”: ECtHR, Tarakhel v. Switzerland, Application No 29217/12, Judgement of 4 November 2014, para 120.

[67] See e.g. Dublin Unit, Circular: Dublin Regulation Nr. 604/2013. Vulnerable cases. Family in SPRAR projects, 4 July 2018, available at: https://bit.ly/2OwblGT.

[68] Article 5 ter L. 50/2023 converting into Law with amendments the Decree Law no. 20/2023 (the so-called “Cutro Decree”).

[69] Article 17 Reception Decree to whom Article 9 of the Reception Decree as amended by L. 50/2023 refers.

[70] FOIAanswer from the Dublin Unit in the availability of the writer.

[71] See the report  “Attendere Prego”, 8 April 2024, gli ostacoli al riconoscimento della protezione internazionale in Italia, from ASGI, International Rescue Committee Italy (IRC) Le Carbet, Mutuo Soccorso Milano, Naga ASGI and Intersos, available at https://acesse.dev/afrI0.

[72] See ASGI “ Mappatura delle prassi illegittime delle questure italiane Lo studio pilota di ASGI” report published on 15 April 2024, available  in Italian at https://encr.pw/nu9AJ.

[73] Article 6-ter of Law Decree No. 20/2023

[74] L. 50/2023 introduced Article 1 sexies (1- quater) of DL 416/1989.

[75] Altreconomia, ‘La storia di Abdul, evacuato da Kabul e finito nel Cpr di Gradisca d’Isonzo’, 19 January 2022, available at: https://bit.ly/3w62Av6.

[76] Civil Court of Trieste, Decision of 12 August 2022.

[77] See ASGI, In Limine FOIA access, La frontiera di Malpensa: alcuni riscontri dalla pubblica amministrazione, 13 November 2022, available at: bit.ly/3UPzz15.

[78] See ASGI; Ballafon relation on activities carried out from February to November 2022, available at: bit.ly/43JowdO.

[79] See ASGI, In Limine, La frontiera di Fiumicino: i riscontri della pubblica amministrazione, 10 November 2022, available at: bit.ly/3GZzbav.

[80] See ASGI, In LImine FOIA request, ITC relation on activities carried out at Fiumicino airport, available at: bit.ly/43O8jUD.

[81] See, ASGI In Limine, FOIA request, Detailed information on ITC activities, available at ​​bit.ly/43C4z8G.

[82] According to Articles 13 and 23(1) Reception Decree, the withdrawal of reception conditions can be decided when the asylum seeker leaves the centre without notifying the competent Prefecture. See also ASGI, Il sistema Dublino e l’Italia, un rapporto in bilico, March 2015.

[83] Swiss Refugee Council, Reception conditions in Italy: Updated report on the situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees, in Italy, January 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3cSzToZ.

[84] Danish Refugee Council and Swiss Refugee Council, Mutual Trust is still not enough, December 2018.

[85] For more details, see ASGI, Il sistema Dublino e l’Italia, un rapporto in bilico, 2015, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3lE3GrH, 28.

[86] Article 13 Dublin III Regulation.

[87] Article 18(1)(c) Dublin III Regulation.

[88] Article 23(bis) Procedure Decree as amended by DL 133/2023 converted with amendments by L 176/2023.

[89] Article 12( 5) Procedure Decree

[90] Article 18(1)(d) Dublin III Regulation.

[91] Article 11(3-ter) and (3-quater) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.