Dublin

Author

ASGI Visit Website

General

Dublin statistics: 1 January – 31 December 2024

*Dublin Unit refers to family unity procedure not specifying if it refers to Article 8, 9, 10 or 11.

 Source: Ministry of Interior, Dublin Unit.

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

** Dublin Unit refers to family unity procedure not specifying if it refers to Article 8, 9, 10 or 11.

In 2024, there were 7,926 total requests sent in the outgoing procedure, and 47 were the transfers, out of which: 3 for family procedure, 28 for humanitarian clause, Article 17(2), and 13 in the take back procedure.

Regarding the incoming procedure, 24,217 requests (including both take charge and take back requests) were received by Italy, which marked a significant decrease when compared to the 35,563 incoming requests Italy received in 2023. Regarding transfers, it is relevant to note that no transfers took place in the take back procedure, probably due to the general suspension of transfers communicated by Italy to the other countries on 5 December 2022 and still maintained for 2024. It seems that this communication did not totally affect the take charge procedure: 48 transfers were realised based on the family procedure and 68 based on the humanitarian clause (Article 17(2)).^[1]

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 applicants 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 (in this case Romania)’s temporary suspension of transfers on the six-month time limit under Article 29 of the Dublin Regulation.^[2] There is currently still no decision by the CJEU in the case.^[3]

The state of emergency in Italy was extended on 10 October 2024.^[4]

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 2024, the number of incoming requests related to family unity were 101, and the realised transfers based on family criteria were 48. In the outgoing procedure, the requests related to family unity were 8 and the transfers were 3. ^[5]

Family unity involving unaccompanied minors

From 2019 to 2023, 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 applicants under the Dublin III Regulation.^[6] The project staff has drawn up and disseminated Guidelines for operators,^[7] 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.^[8]

Article 2(2)(c) of Presidential Decree No. 231/2023 assigns the Ministry of Labour a coordinating and supporting role, working in collaboration with the competent authorities to facilitate the exchange of information aimed at identifying family members of unaccompanied foreign minors. This includes identification efforts in the minors’ countries of origin or in third countries, through the conclusion of specific agreements with appropriate national and international bodies. As specified in the Ministry of Labour’s report, this information is also used to assess the possibility a family reunification pursuant to Dublin Regulation.

Between 1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024, based on the requests received, the IOM was asked to carry out 64 family tracing investigations in the countries of origin of the minors or in third countries. These investigations mainly concerned minors from Tunisia, Albania, Kosovo, Egypt and Morocco.^[9]

Outgoing procedure involving minors

According to the reports published by the Ministry of Labour,^[10] in 2024 only 5 minors asked to be reunited with family members present in other States, all of them between January and June 2024.

3 requests were based on Article 8 and 2 on Article 17(2).

3 minors requested reunification with a family member residing in France, 1 minor with a family member residing in Norway and one with a family member residing in Austria.

Regarding the degrees of kinship, 3 minors applied to be reunited with a parent, 1 minor with a sister and another with an aunt.^[11]

Regarding the age of minors, 3 minors were between 14 and 17 years old, while 2 were under 14.

The breakdown of outgoing requests of unaccompanied children in 2024 was as follows:

Source: Ministry of Labour, Monitoring report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2024, available here.

Incoming procedure involving minors 

According to the reports published by the Ministry of Labour,^[12] 90 incoming requests involving minors were managed in 2024. Out of these, 78 were based on Articles 8 and 12 were based on the humanitarian clause (Article 17(2). Out of the incoming requests based on Article 8, 33 minors were transferred to Italy.

Out of the 90 requests, 86 incoming requests came from Greece. The remaining: 1 from Cyprus, 1 from Bulgaria, 1 from Croatia and 1 from Switzerland.

The discretionary clauses

For 2024, the Italian Dublin Unit, replying to a FOIA request submitted by ASGI, stated that ‘the discretionary clause (Article 17(1)) was never applied, neither in the outgoing procedure nor in the incoming procedure.

The humanitarian clause (Article 17(2) was applied 28 times in the outgoing procedure (in 2 cases it involved minors) and 68 in the incoming procedure (in 12 cases it involved minors).

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 had 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 ultimately repatriated to their 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.^[13]

The CJEU published its judgement on 30 November 2023^[14] 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’.^[15]

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 highlighted by a legal study,^[16] there is no coincidence between the words used by Court    for the two hypotheses set out regarding Article 17(1): the expressions “not requiring” and “cannot compel”. Based on this interpretation, 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 examination of 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.^[17]
• 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.^[18]
• 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).^[19]
• On 11 March 2024, the Civil Court of Florence decided to recognise the importance of the applicant’s social path by considering the elements for the recognition of national protection and therefore for the application of the discretionary clause referred to in art. 17 (1) of the Regulation.^[20] On 9 April 2025, the same Court upheld the appeal of an asylum applicant declaring Italy responsible for examining the application. The Court considered the long time spent waiting for the CJEU’s decision during which the proceedings had been suspended, contrary to the speed requirements established by the regulation.^[21]

The United Sections of the Court of Cassation, with the decision no. 935 of 2025, stated that the right to national protection can represent a reason for challenging the transfer decree adopted pursuant to the Dublin Regulation, and that the right to national protection is also one of the reasons on which the judge can order the State to exercise the discretionary clause (Article 17 (1) of the Dublin III Regulation.^[22]

On 5 May 2025, the Court of Cassation, with decision no. 11713/2025 also highlighted that, in Italy, the national protection has to be ensured in case of expulsion there is a risk of persecution or risk of torture or inhuman treatment or when constitutional and international obligations in theme of fundamental human rights apply. Therefore, if the applicant has highlighted in the appeal reasons why he or she would be entitled to national protection, the judge can evaluate the tacit refusal by the State to exercise the sovereignty clause and evaluate whether this refusal constitutes a violation of the right to national protection.^[23]

Procedure

The staff of the Italian Dublin Unit significantly benefits from the support of EUAA and AMIF personnel, mainly in relation to outgoing requests.

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.^[24] However, no peripheral units have been implemented since 2020, including in 2024.

All asylum applicants are photographed and fingerprinted (fotosegnalamento) by Questure which systematically store their fingerprints in Eurodac. After the lodging of the asylum application, on the basis of the Eurodac hits and/or other information gathered, if it is considered that the responsibility might lie on another EU+MS according to the Dublin Regulation, the Questura transmits the case file to the Dublin Unit which examines the criteria set out in the Dublin Regulation to identify the responsible Member State.

Since December 2017, a specific procedure has been implemented in Questure of Friuli-Venezia Giulia region, on the basis that most asylum applicants 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,^[25] instead of “applicants for international protection” (“Category 1”).^[26] The Dublin Unit therefore justified, even in court proceedings, 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.^[27]

Since 2020 and including 2024, this practice has not been recorded by ASGI.

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.^[28] The CJEU then published its judgement on 30 November 2023^[29] (see Personal interview).

Individualised guarantees

The Dublin Unit systematically issues outgoing requests to all countries where 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 may not be informed about vulnerability by Questure. This  could be due to the applicant only disclosing their vulnerabilities at a later stage (for example, during the hearing), or the vulnerabilities may emerge after the submission of the protection request. According to ASGI’s experience and taking into account the Court decisions issued on the violation of information obligations in the Dublin procedure, 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 below Personal interview).

Transfers

In case another Member State is considered responsible under the Dublin Regulation, the asylum procedure in Italy is terminated.^[30] The Dublin Unit issues a decision that is transmitted to the applicant through the Questura, mentioning the country to which the asylum applicant will be returned and the modalities for appealing against the Dublin decision.^[31] 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 and the appeal includes a request for suspension of the effects of the transfer decision, the six-month time limit for the transfer starts running from the rejection of the request for suspensive effect or, if the request is granted, from the notification of the decree rejecting the appeal.^[32] 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 need to accompany the person concerned etc. However, according to information collected by ASGI, the Questure manage to organise the transfer within 6 months only in a limited number of cases. Also, in case 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.

In a case decided by the Civil Court of Trieste after the submission of an urgent appeal by an asylum applicant who was asked to present himself for the transfer to Romania 12 months after Romania’s  acceptance of the take back request , the Court stated that the Questura of Trieste and the Italian Dublin Unit had unjustifiably considered the applicant unreachable and consequently applied the extension of the terms allowed up to 18 months by Article 29(2) of the Dublin Regulation because the applicant, who was still accommodated in a reception centre, had missed only one appointment scheduled by the police station but not the previous ones or the subsequent ones. The Court, recalling the duty of cooperation of the asylum seeker who must communicate changes in the place of domicile, which had never changed in the specific case, and taking into account that the concept of unavailability is different from the concept of risk of absconding required by the Dublin Regulation as the latter requires a more onerous evidentiary burden, consisting in the unequivocal demonstration of the desire to escape searches by the authorities, declared that the Dublin procedure had to be considered closed 6 months after the take back acceptance from Romania and consequently the responsibility of the Italian State to examine the asylum application.^[33]

At the same time, the applicant was affected by a withdrawal of reception conditions due to failure to present himself for the transfer. The appeal before the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Administrative Court against the revocation is still pending as of April 2025.

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 most cases, it is only thanks to the help of NGOs providing adequate information that asylum applicants are able to go through the whole Dublin procedure. When necessary, 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.^[34] 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, 2023 and 2024 no significant changes were recorded in most cases.

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

The new Article 6-ter of the Reception Decree foresees the possibility to detain asylum applicants awaiting the Dublin transfer when there is a significant risk of absconding and unless alternative measures to detention can apply.^[35] 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 a 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 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.^[36]

In a case decided on 19 August 2023 by the Civil Court of Trieste, the detention was validated by taking into account that the asylum applicant was “homeless, moving along the national territory without financial resources, and was the recipient of multiple criminal complaints”.^[37]

In a case decided on 16 January 2025, the Court of Appeal of Trieste decided not to validate the detention of an asylum applicant who had already sought asylum in Belgium, as detention started even before a transfer request was issued and sent to Belgium. According to the Court the conditions laid down in Article 6 ter Reception Decree were not met.^[38]

Personal interview

Except for the lodging of the asylum application by the competent Questura, personal interviews of asylum applicants are rarely envisaged during the Dublin procedure.

Often, it coincides with the interview taken for the lodging of the application. This means that no specific questions are asked that could change the decision on responsibility determination. The interview should in fact be useful to clarify – especially in cases where the information leaflet is not written in a language understandable by the applicant – some important aspects of the applicant’s personal and family situation. On the other hand, for example, the form used for lodging the asylum application does not contain questions and information on the asylum request submitted by family members in other Member States or on the insecurity of the Member State abstractly responsible for examining the application.

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,^[39] the Civil Court of Trieste^[40] and the Civil Court of Milan^[41] had 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.^[42]

The CJEU decision 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.^[43]

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”.^[44]

During 2024, some Civil Courts, such as the one of Bologna, ordered to listen to asylum applicants in cases where the information duties had been not fulfilled by Questure.

Appeal

Asylum applicants 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. Information about the legal remedies available is provided in the transfer decision, where the time limits applicable for seeking such remedies are indicated, as well as the possibility to ask for the suspension of the decision’s effect. However, without support by specialised NGOs it is extremely difficult for the applicant to understand their rights.

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.^[45]

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.^[46]

• In case applicants are accommodated when notified about the transfer decision, territorial jurisdiction is determined based on where the centres are located and therefore fall within the specialised sections of the territorially competent Civil Courts.^[47]
• 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 included in the appeal.^[48] 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.

In practice, to ASGI’s knowledge, in 2024, as in the previous five 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 the parties of the decision. The parties then 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.^[49] In ASGI’s experience, the Civil Courts have never complied with these deadlines since 2020, including in 2024.

The appeal procedure is mainly written. Within 15 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.^[50] The court will set a hearing only if it considers it useful for the purposes of the decision.^[51]

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 applicant 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.^[52]

Legal assistance

The same law and practices described under the section on Regular Procedure: Legal Assistance apply to the Dublin procedure regarding 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 asylum applicants concerned have submitted appeals, leading to transfers being suspended by the courts, while others have become untraceable.

In some cases, Courts annulled the transfers or suspended them, but there are no stable jurisprudential guidelines and each case is based on an individual exam of the applicant’s appeal.

Greece: Based on ASGI’s observations, no Dublin transfers to Greece were carried out in 2020 and 2021, nor in 2022, 2023 and 2024.

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 applicants.^[53]

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 applicants before the Ukrainian crisis and that with the arrival of thousands of people from Ukraine the situation reached an extremely critical level.^[54]

On 12 January 2023, the Civil Court of Rome annulled the transfer of an asylum applicant 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 for 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.^[55]

On 1 July 2024, the Civil Court of Rome annulled the transfer on an asylum applicant to Romania, considering that, due the deficiencies in the accommodation system and in procedural guarantees, the transfer to Romania was in conflict with the art. 3(2) of the Dublin Regulation and with art. 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, not guaranteeing with certainty or, in any case, beyond any reasonable doubt, respect for the applicant’s fundamental rights in that State.

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, the 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 applicants, to the detention conditions and to the obstacles for asylum applicants to be properly represented by lawyers during the asylum procedure.^[56]

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 situation of the applicant, who was vulnerable because disabled and as a 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 applicant 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 to a real and established risk of deterioration of his health, such as to constitute an inhuman and degrading treatment because the transfer in Germany would have stopped the social path – that he had 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.^[57]

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).^[58] Also, on 9 June 2023 the Civil Court of Turin annulled the transfer of an asylum applicant 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’.^[59]

Austria: on 13 March 2024, the Civil Court of Rome annulled the transfer to Austria of an asylum applicant 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 applicants 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 applicants.^[60]

On 18 November 2024, the Court of Rome annulled a transfer to Austria, in application of the art. 17 of the Dublin Regulation, after having ascertained with multiple sources of information the serious systemic deficiencies in both the asylum and reception procedures in this Country.^[61]

The situation of Dublin returnees

In 2024, Italy received 113 incoming Dublin transfers following take charge requests. No transfers were carried out based on take back procedures.

The low numbers are due to the fact that Italian authorities still claim the validity of the suspension of incoming transfers to be carried out pursuant to the declared state of emergency (see above, Dublin procedure – General).

Reception guarantees and practice

In February 2025, replying to ASGI’s information request, the Ministry of Interior stated that “the accommodation system does not have places reserved for Dublin returnees who access the accommodation system at the same conditions as the other asylum applicants”.^[62]

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.^[63]

The circular does not clarify how the prefectures should facilitate the transfer of the asylum applicant. This circumstance may externally expose the Dublin returnee to face, on their own, the obstacles in accessing the asylum procedure at Questure, especially in the absence of a domicile (see Registration of the asylum application).

As better detailed in the following paragraph “Re-accessing the asylum procedure”, the laws 50/2023 and 187/2024 affected the right of Dublin returnees to re-access the asylum procedure.

Following the Tarakhel v. Switzerland ruling,^[64] in practice the guarantees requested to Italy by other Member States were ensured mainly for 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.^[65] However, after regaining access in 2020, since L. 50 of 5 May 2023, asylum applicants once again cannot access second line reception SAI,^[66] unless they meet the definition of vulnerable people per the Reception Decree, Article 17.^[67] Following LD 20/2023, there are much less mandatory services in first reception centres, CAS and temporary centres (see Reception Conditions)

Below are some examples of the treatment of Dublin returnees to Italy:

• 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.^[68]
• In 2022, the Civil Court of Trieste annulled the expulsion notified in August 2021 to an Iraqi asylum applicant who had already applied for asylum in Germany and had afterwards autonomously moved to Italy to join their 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 applicant 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.^[69]

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 applicants in Milan Malpensa is operated by the cooperative Ballafon.^[70] 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 applicants 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 where they should go in Italy.^[71]

In 2023, the Inlimine project was authorised to access the transit zone at the airport of Milano Malpensa by the Administrative Court of Rome.^[72] Regarding the operation of the office for assistance to asylum seekers and Dublin returnees, the report prepared after having accessed the transit zone underlines that the office is not manned and it is for most of the time closed. Even during service hours, the operator is in fact in another room, in proximity to the Police offices. People who want to contact the office can only ring the intercom located outside the door and ask the operator to reach them.

In 2024, the agreement between the Ballafon cooperative and the Prefettura of Milan is still operating.^[73]

At the Fiumicino airport of Rome, in 2022 the Prefecture of Rome entrusted the I.T.M. society (Interpreti Traduttori Mediatori) with informing and managing foreign people arriving at the air border who want to seek asylum or who are Dublin returnees.^[74] 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.^[75]

According to 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 centres; 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.^[76]

At Venice airport, Marco Polo, until January 2022 the cooperative Giuseppe Olivotti was responsible, per an agreement with the Prefecture of Venice, for arrivals of asylum applicants 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 applicants’ reception centres before leaving Italy, they could encounter problems upon 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.^[77]

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.^[78] They further reported that in Italy until now there is no standardised, 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 under Registration of the asylum application. Asylum applicants 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.^[79] The competent Questura is often located very far from the airport and asylum applicants 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.

Moreover, generally, reports from civil society and NGOs confirmed the difficulty in accessing the asylum procedure in 2024.^[80] 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 being in possession of a passport.^[81]

In 2023 and 2024 two laws with the potential to affect the rights of Dublin returnees came into force: DL 133/2023 introduced the Article 6 (3 bis) according to which if the third country national citizens do not present themselves 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; moreover,  after L. 187/2024, Article 23 bis of the Procedure Decree rules the implicit withdrawal of the asylum application stating that, in case the asylum applicants leave the accommodation centre without a justified reason (and without updating the authorities on their address) or do not appear at the hearing before the Commission, the Commission can reject the application or suspend the procedure for 9 months, during which the applicants can request reopening only once. After these months the procedure is declared extinct.

Also, in case the asylum request had been not lodged, re-accessing the asylum procedure can be allowed, but a criminal procedure can be started if the applicant was notified an expulsion order and an entry-ban.

In February 2025, the Criminal Court of Trieste acquitted a Bangladeshi citizen who had been prevented from accessing the asylum procedure in Udine and had applied for asylum in France before returning to Italy and submitting a new asylum application in the country. The Court held that the applicant had not violated the entry ban (art. 13(13) TUI) because he had been prevented from requesting asylum upon first access to Italy and because the Dublin Regulation should apply.^[82]

Therefore, 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.^[83]

 The various situations 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,^[84] 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 case they were already notified of an expulsion order and of an entry ban in Italy, the non-official return (meaning the return not based on agreements by the States) could lead to a criminal conviction based on Article 13(13) TUI.
• In “take back” cases where the person had already lodged an asylum application and absconded from the accommodation centre before being informed of the hearing for the personal interview, the Territorial Commission may have applied the implicit withdrawal procedure, therefore the Dublin returnee could be able to ask to re-open the asylum application if Commission had suspended it and 9 months have not passed or could find that his asylum application has been declared closed.  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 who will also evaluate the reasons for absconding.^[85]
• In take-back cases where the person had already lodged an asylum application and became 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 cannot be reopened within 10 days proving justified reasons and the lack of knowledge of the convocation because DL 145/2024 repealed the law that provided for this possibility.^[86] The implicit withdrawal procedure could apply also in this case.^[87] Therefore, the applicant will have to submit a subsequent application.
• 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 apply the implicit withdrawal procedure as well 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,^[88] if the applicant was notified of the decision and lodged no appeal, they may be issued an expulsion order and placed in a CPR upon re-entering Italy. 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.^[89]

^[1]          Response of the Dublin Unit to the public access information request sent by ASGI.

^[2]          See for reference: AIDA Dublin statistical update, available here, pp. 22-23.

^[3]          The case is registered before the court as case C-560/23, Tang, and its progress can be checked here.

^[4]     Delibera del Consiglio dei Ministri del 10 ottobre 2024 – 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, published on 11 November 2024, available here.

^[5]          Response of the Dublin Unit to the public access information request sent by ASGI.

^[6]          Project webpage, available at: https://bit.ly/3kxuY24.

^[7]          Guidelines available at: https://bit.ly/3vwqe34.

^[8]          Multilingual materials accessible and downloadable at: https://bit.ly/3OS7P8I.

^[9]          Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 20243, available here.

^[10]        Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 31 December 2024, available here;  and Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2024, available here.

^[11]         Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2024, available here.

^[12]       Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 31 December 2024, available here;  and Ministry of Labour, Monitoring six months report on unaccompanied foreign minors, 30 June 2024, available here.

^[13]         Court of Justice of the 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).

^[14]       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.

^[15]         Ibid, par. 141.

^[16]       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.

^[17]         Civil Court of Bologna, decision of 20 February 2024.

^[18]         Civil Court of Rome, decision of 21 February 2024.

^[19]         Civil Court of Trento, decision of 29 February 2024.

^[20]         Civil Court of Florence, decision of 11 March 2024.

^[21]         Civil Court of Florence, decision of 9 April 2025.

^[22]         Court of Cassation, United Sections, decision no. 935 of 15 January 2025, available in Italian here.

^[23]         Court of Cassation, decision no. 11713/2025 of 5 May 2025.

^[24]         Article 3(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 11 Decree Law 113/2018.

^[25]         Article 17 Eurodac Regulation.

^[26]         Article 9 Eurodac Regulation.

^[27]         Article 17(3) Eurodac Regulation.

^[28]         Court of Cassation, decision no. 8668 of 23 February – 29 March 2021.

^[29]         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.

^[30]         Article 30(1) Procedure Decree.

^[31]       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.

^[32]         Article 3(3-octies) Procedure Decree, as amended by L 46/2017.

^[33]         Civil Court of Trieste, decision of 30 December 2024, available in Italian here.

^[34]     Ministry of Labour, I minori stranieri non accompagnati in Italia, 31 December 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2FvU6Aj, 14.

^[35]         Article 6 ter (1) of the Reception Decree introduced by L. 50/2023 converting into law with amendments the DL 20/2023.

^[36]         Article 6 ter ( 2 and 3) of the Reception Decree introduced by L. 50/2023 converting into law with amendments the DL 20/2023.

^[37]         Civil Court of Trieste, decision of 19 August 2023.

^[38]         Court of Appeal of Trieste, decision of 16 January 2025.

^[39]         Case C-228/21.

^[40]         Case C-328/21.

^[41]         Case C-315/21.

^[42]     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.

^[43]         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.

^[44]        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.

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

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

^[47]        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”.

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

^[49]         Article 3(3-quater) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

^[50]       Article 3(3-quinquies) and (3-sexies) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

^[51]         Article 3(3-septies) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

^[52]         Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 2 September 2022, available at: bit.ly/3KHoCMa.

^[53]         Council of State, Decision 4004/2016, 27 September 2016, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2kWlO1d.

^[54]         Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 13 October 2022

^[55]         Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 12 January 2023, available at: bit.ly/3IyzWaH.

^[56]         Civil Court of Rome, Decision of 21 February 2023.

^[57]         Civil Court of Bologna, Decision of 3 November 2022, available at: bit.ly/3m80szY.

^[58]         Civil Court of Trieste, decision of 16 February 2024

^[59]         Civil Court of Turin, decision of 9 June 2023.

^[60]         Civil Court of Rome, decision of 13 March 2024.

^[61]         Civil Court of Rome, decision of 18 November 2024, available in Italian here.

^[62]         Answer to the FOIA request, sent on February 2025.

^[63]         Ministry of Interior Circular of 14 January 2019, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2P7G5OZ.

^[64]         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.

^[65]         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.

^[66]         Article 5 ter L. 50/2023 converting into Law with amendments the Decree Law no. 20/2023 (the so-called “Cutro Decree”).

^[67]         Article 17 Reception Decree to whom Article 9 of the Reception Decree as amended by L. 50/2023 refers.

^[68]         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.

^[69]         Civil Court of Trieste, Decision of 12 August 2022.

^[70]         See ASGI, In Limine FOIA access, La frontiera di Malpensa: alcuni riscontri dalla pubblica amministrazione, 13 November 2022, available at: bit.ly/3UPzz15.

^[71]         See ASGI; Ballafon relation on activities carried out from February to November 2022, available at: bit.ly/43JowdO.

^[72]         Administrative Court of Lazio, decision no. 3392/2023. See ASGI, Inlimine, La situazione emersa dal sopralluogo della Zona di transito internazionale dell’aeroporto di Milano Malpensa, December 2023, available here.

^[73]         Available here.

^[74]         See ASGI, In Limine, La frontiera di Fiumicino: i riscontri della pubblica amministrazione, 10 November 2022, available at: bit.ly/3GZzbav.

^[75]         See ASGI, In LImine FOIA request, ITC relation on activities carried out at Fiumicino airport, available at: bit.ly/43O8jUD.

^[76]         See, ASGI In Limine, FOIA request, Detailed information on ITC activities, available at: bit.ly/43C4z8G.

^[77]         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.

^[78]         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.

^[79]         Danish Refugee Council and Swiss Refugee Council, Mutual Trust is still not enough, December 2018.

^[80]         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.

^[81]         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.

^[82]         Criminal Court of Trieste, decision no. 242/2025 of 19 February 2025.

^[83]         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.

^[84]         Article 13 Dublin III Regulation.

^[85]         Article 23(bis) Procedure Decree as amended by D.L. 145/2024 converted with amendments into L. 187/2024 

^[86]         DL 145/2024 converted into L. 18772024 repealed Article 12 (5) of the Procedure Decree.

^[87]         Article 23(bis) Procedure Decree as amended by D.L. 145/2024 converted with amendments into L. 187/2024.

^[88]         Article 18(1)(d) Dublin III Regulation.

^[89]         Article 11(3-ter) and (3-quater) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.