Regular procedure


Country Report: Regular procedure Last updated: 30/11/20


General (scope, time limits)


According to the Procedure Decree, the Territorial Commission interviews the applicant within 30 days after having received the application and decides in the 3 following working days. When the Territorial Commission is unable to take a decision in this time limit and needs to acquire new elements, the examination procedure is concluded within 6 months of the lodging of the application. The Territorial Commission may extend the time limit for a period not exceeding a further 9 months, where:

  1. Complex issues of fact and/or law are involved;
  2. A large number of asylum applications are made simultaneously; or
  3. The delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with his or her obligations of cooperation.

By way of exception, the Territorial Commission, in duly justified circumstances, may further exceed this time limit by 3 months where necessary in order to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.[1] In light of the different possibilities of extension, the asylum procedure may last for a maximum period of 18 months.

In practice, however, the time limits for completing the regular procedure are not complied with. The procedure usually takes much longer, considering on one hand that the competent determining authorities receive the asylum application only after the formal registration and the forwarding of the C3 form through the case database, Vestanet. On the other hand, the first instance procedure usually lasts several months, while the delays in issuing a decision vary between Territorial Commissions. In cities such as Rome, Lazio the entire procedure is generally longer and takes from 6 up to 12 months.

Statistics on the average duration of the procedure in 2019 are not available. The number of asylum applications pending at first instance dropped from 145,906 at the end of 2017 to 98,369 as of 28 December 2018. Of those, in 52,420 (53.3%) cases asylum seekers were waiting for an appointment date for the personal interview.  In 2019, to 31 October 2019, pending asylum applications amounted to 42,323 with a decrease of 61 % compared to 2018.[2]

As of 31 October 2019, 30,468 asylum applications were filed, with a decrease of 35% compared to the same period of the previous year. In the same period the Territorial Commissions examined 81,162 instances, recognizing international protection in 18 % of cases. Out of these, 11 % for refugee status and 7 % for subsidiary protection. The denials amounted to 66 % of the requests. Humanitarian protection, due to the changes introduced by decree-law n. 113 of 2018, was granted to 1 % of the applicants.[3]

Termination and notification

The Procedure Decree states that when the applicant, before having been interviewed, leaves the reception centre without any justification or absconds from CPR or from hotspots, the Territorial Commission suspends the examination of the application on the basis that the applicant is not reachable (irreperibile).[4]

The applicant may request the reopening of the suspended procedure within 12 months from the suspension decision, only once. After this deadline, the Territorial Commission declares the termination of the procedure. In this case, applications made after the declaration of termination of the procedure are considered Subsequent Applications.[5]

However, not all subsequent applications submitted after the termination of the 12-month suspension period are subject to a preliminary admissibility examination.[6] During the preliminary examination, the grounds supporting the admissibility of the application and the reasons of the moving away from the centres are examined.[7] In 2017, ASGI received several reports of suspension of procedures for people whose accommodation had been revoked e.g. in Pordenone, Friuli-Venezia Giulia. This has also occurred due to lack of communication between reception centres and Questure in the case of transfers to different facilities, as was the case for people moved out of Cona, Veneto due to overcrowding.

Decree Law 13/2017 introduced a new procedure to notify interview appointments and decisions taken by the Territorial Commissions.[8] The CNDA issued a Circular a few days before the entry into force of the law which suspended the implementation of this procedure and required Questure to continue to carry out notifications.[9] However, as of 25 October 2018 the new notification procedure was implemented.

The Procedure Decree, as amended in 2017, provides for three different procedures depending on whether the recipients of the notification are: (i) accommodated or detained; (ii) in private accommodation; or (iii) not reachable (irreperibili):

  1. Accommodated or detained applicants: Interviews and decisions can be notified by the managers of reception or detention centres, who then transmit the act to the asylum seeker for signature. The notification is considered to be carried out when the manager of the reception centre facility communicates it to the Territorial Commission through a certified email message indicating the date and time of notification. The law specifies that such communication must be immediate.[10]


  1. Applicants in private accommodation: The notification must be made to the last address communicated to the competent Questura. In this case, notifications are sent by postal service.[11]


  1. Non reachable applicants: The interview summons or decision is sent by certified email from the Territorial Commission to the competent Questura, which keeps it at the disposal of the persons concerned for 20 days. After 20 days, the notification is considered to be completed and a copy of the notified deed is made available for the applicant’s collection at the Territorial Commission.[12]

Questure often place onerous conditions on the registration of address e.g. by requesting declarations of consent from the owners of the apartments where people are privately staying. Given those conditions, the law risks creating a presumption of legal knowledge of the act to be notified where there is none. The same risk exists for the Dublin returnees who had left Italy before receiving notification of the decision or of the interview appointment.

In practice, the new notification procedure has created different problems as Territorial Commissions were not promptly informed about accommodation transfers. Often, people moved from one reception centre to another found out about their appointment for the interview when the date scheduled by the Territorial Commission has already passed. In addition, many ASGI lawyers have experienced problems in notifications of privately housed asylum seekers as notifications have often not been made.

From 1 January to 31 December 2019, the Territorial Commissions issued 2,546 suspension decisions on the ground that the applicant was not reachable.

Outcomes of the procedure

There are six possible outcomes to the regular procedure, following additions and substantial changes by Decree Law 113/2018. Under the amended Article 32 of the Procedure Decree, the Territorial Commission may decide to:

  1. Grant refugee status;


  1. Grant subsidiary protection;


  1. Recommend to the Questura to issue a one-year “special protection” residence permit;

Decree Law 113/2018 has abolished the status of humanitarian protection by repealing the provision of the TUI concerning the issuance of a residence permit on serious grounds, in particular of a humanitarian nature or resulting from constitutional or international obligations of the Italian State.[13]

Special protection permits are granted to persons who, according to the law, cannot be expelled or refouled.[14] This covers cases where a person risks being persecuted for reasons of race, sex, language, citizenship, religion, political opinions, personal or social conditions, or may risk being sent back to another country where he or she is not protected from persecution, or to a country where there are reasonable grounds to believe that he or she risks being subjected to torture.[15] These permits are granted for a duration of one year (see Residence Permit). Special protection is not granted when it is possible to transfer the applicant to a country, which could offer equivalent protection (protezione analoga) to Italy.[16]

Decree Law 113/2018 does not regulate the situation of asylum seekers who applied for international protection before its entry into force on 5 October 2018 and who are still waiting for a first instance decision. As of that date, the Territorial Commissions have already stopped examining the possibility to grant humanitarian protection, pursuant to instructions from the Ministry of Interior.[17]

However, the Civil Courts and Courts of Appeal have so far agreed on the non-retroactivity of the reform and have continued to grant humanitarian protection to asylum seekers after 5 October 2018, al least for appeals that were submitted prior to the entry into force of the law. According to ASGI, the principle of non-retroactivity should apply to all asylum applications lodged prior to the entry into force of the reform.[18]

In February 2019, the Court of Cassation held that Decree Law 113/2018 should be considered non-retroactive for all asylum procedures already initiated at the time of its entry into force.[19] At the moment, however, Territorial Commissions are unequivocally applying the new regime to all ongoing procedures, therefore not granting humanitarian protection, in light with the instructions received by CNDA from the Ministry of Interior to disregard the Court of Cassation judgment, as reported by ASGI.

  1. Reject the asylum application as unfounded;


  1. Reject the application as manifestly unfounded;[20]

According to the new Article 28-ter of the Procedure Decree, an application is deemed to be “manifestly unfounded” where the applicant:

  1. Has only raised issues unrelated to international protection;
  2. Comes from a Safe Country of Origin;
  3. Has issued clearly inconsistent and contradictory or clearly false declarations, which contradict verified information on the country of origin;
  4. Has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to his or her identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision, or in bad faith has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish his or her identity or nationality;
  5. Irregularly entered the territory, or irregularly prolonged his or her stay, and without justified reason, did not make an asylum application promptly;
  6. Refuses to comply with the obligation of being fingerprinted under the Eurodac Regulation;
  7. Is detained in a CPR for reasons of exclusion under Article 1F of the 1951 Convention, public order or security grounds, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the application is lodged solely to delay or frustrate the execution of a removal order (see Grounds for Detention).[21]


  1. Reject the application on the basis that an internal protection alternative is available.[22]

For the internal protection alternative to apply, it must be established that in a part of the country of origin the applicant has no well-founded fear of being persecuted or is not at real risk of suffering serious harm or has access to protection against persecution or serious harm. In addiction, he or she can safely and legally travel to that part of the country, gain admittance and reasonably be expected to settle there.

In 2019, as monitored by ASGI, in many cases rejections of manifestly unfounded applications were notified together with expulsion orders. Therefore, before the time for appeal was expired, applicants were already moved to CPRs.

In two cases the Judge of the Peace of Agrigento cancelled the expulsion orders regarding two Tunisian citizens who disembarked in Lampedusa considering the orders unlawfully issued pending the deadline to appeal the rejection of their asylum applications, deemed manifestly unfounded due to the fact that Tunisia is considered as a safe country of origin.[23]


Prioritised examination and fast-track processing


Article 28 of the Procedure Decree, last amended in 2018, provides that the President of the Territorial Commission identifies the cases to be processed under the prioritised procedure, when:

a.   The application is likely to be well-founded;

b.          The applicant is vulnerable, in particular if he or she is an unaccompanied child or a person in need of special procedural guarantees;

c.               The application is made by an applicant detained in a CPR or a hotspot;[24]

c-bis      The applicant comes from one of the countries identified by the CNDA that allow the omission of the personal interview when considering that there are sufficient grounds available to grant subsidiary protection. The competent Territorial Commission, before adopting such a decision, informs the applicant of the opportunity, within 3 days from the communication, to request a personal interview. In absence of such request, the Territorial Commission takes the decision;[25]

c-ter            The applicant comes from a designated Safe Country of Origin.[26]

In practice, the prioritised procedure is applied to those held in CPR and rarely to the other categories. Nevertheless, practice shows that vulnerable applicants have more chances to benefit from the prioritised procedure, even though this possibility is more effective in case they are assisted by NGOs or they are identified as such at an early stage. With regard to victims of torture and extreme violence, the prioritised procedure is rarely applied, since these asylum seekers are not identified at an early stage by police authorities. In fact, torture survivors are usually only recognised as such in a later phase, thanks to NGOs providing them with legal and social assistance or during the personal interview by the determining authorities.

Regarding unaccompanied children, L 47/2017 has allowed a faster start of the procedure as it allows the manager of the reception centre to represent the child until the appointment of a guardian.[27] That said, according to ASGI’s experience, the prioritised procedure was not widely applied to unaccompanied children in 2018 and 2019.


Personal interview


The Procedure Decree provides for a personal interview of each applicant, which is not public.[28] During the personal interview the applicant can disclose exhaustively all elements supporting his or her asylum application.[29]

In practice, asylum seekers are systematically interviewed by the determining authorities. However, Article 12(2) of the Procedure Decree foresees the possibility to omit the personal interview where:

  1. Determining authorities have enough elements to grant refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention without hearing the applicant; or
  2. The applicant is recognised as unable or unfit to be interviewed, as certified by a public health unit or by a doctor working with the national health system. In this regard, the law provides that the personal interview can be postponed due to the health conditions of the applicant duly certified by a public health unit or by a doctor working with the national health system or for very serious reasons.[30] The applicant recognised as such is allowed to ask for the postponement of the personal interview through a specific request with the medical certificates.[31]
  3. For applicants coming from those countries identified by the CNDA, when considering that there are sufficient grounds to grant them subsidiary protection.[32] The competent Territorial Commission, before adopting such a decision, informs the applicant that he or she has the opportunity, within 3 days from the communication, to be admitted to the personal interview. In absence of such request, the Territorial Commission takes the decision to omit the interview. This provision is particularly worrying, considering that it derogates from the general rule on the basis of which the personal interview is also aimed to verify first whether the applicant is a refugee, and if not, the conditions to grant subsidiary protection.

According to the amended Article 12(1-bis) of the Procedure Decree, the personal interview of the applicant takes place before the administrative officer assigned to the Territorial Commission, who then submits the case file to the other panel members in order to jointly take the decision (see First Instance Authority). Upon request of the applicant, the President may decide to hold the interview him or herself or before the Commission. In practice, the interview is conducted by the officials appointed by the Ministry of Interior.


In the phases concerning the registration and the examination of the asylum claim, including the personal interview, applicants must receive, where necessary, the services of an interpreter in their language or in a language they understand. Where necessary, the documents produced by the applicant shall be translated.[33]

At border points, however, these services may not always be available depending on the language spoken by asylum seekers and the interpreters available locally. Given that the disembarkation of asylum seekers does not always take place at the official border crossing points, where interpretation services are generally available, there may therefore be significant difficulties in promptly providing an adequate number of qualified interpreters able to cover different idioms.

In practice, there are not enough interpreters available and qualified in working with asylum seekers during the asylum procedure. However, specific attention is given to interpreters ensuring translation services during the substantive interview by determining authorities. The Consortium of Interpreters and Translators (ITC), which provides this service, has drafted a Code of Conduct for interpreters.

Recording and transcript

The personal interview may be recorded. The recording is admissible as evidence in judicial appeals against the Territorial Commission’s decision. Where the recording is transcribed, the signature of the transcript is not required by the applicant.[34] Following Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, the law states that the interview has to be taped by audio-visual means and transcribed in Italian with the aid of automatic voice recognition systems.[35] The transcript of the interview is read out to the applicant by the interpreter and, following the reading, the necessary corrections are made by the interviewer together with the applicant.

All of the applicant’s observations not implemented directly in the text of the transcript are included at the bottom of the document and signed by him or her. The transcript itself is signed only by the interviewer – or the President of the Commission – and by the interpreter.[36] The applicant does not sign the transcript and does not receive any copy of the videotape, but merely a copy of the transcript in Italian. A copy of the videotape and the transcript shall be saved for at least 3 years in an archive of the Ministry of Interior and made available to the court in case of appeal. The applicant can only access the tape during the appeal,[37] meaning that it is not available at the time of drafting the appeal.

The applicant can formulate a reasoned request before the interview not to have the interview recorded. The Commission makes a final decision on this request.[38] This decision cannot be appealed.[39] When the interview cannot be videotaped for technical reasons or due to refusal of the applicant, the interview is transcribed in a report signed by the applicant.[40]

In 2019, interviews were still never audio- or video-recorded due to a lack of necessary equipment and technical specifications, for example on how to save the copies and transmit them to the courts. This means that in practice after the interview a transcript is given to the applicant with the opportunity to make further comments and corrections before signing it and receiving the final report. The quality of this report varies depending on the interviewer and the Territorial Commission, which conducts the interview. Complaints on the quality of the transcripts are frequent.




Appeal before the Civil Court

The Procedure Decree provides for the possibility for the asylum seeker to appeal before the competent Civil Court (Tribunale Civile) against a decision issued by the Territorial Commissions rejecting the application, granting subsidiary protection instead of refugee status or requesting the issuance of a residence permit for special protection instead of granting international protection.[41]

Specialised court sections

Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, has established specialised sections in the Civil Courts, responsible for immigration, asylum and free movement of EU citizens’ cases.[42] Judges to be included in the specialised sections should be appointed on the basis of specific skills acquired through professional experience and training. EASO and UNHCR are entrusted with training of judges, to be held at least annually during the first three years.[43]

By the end of September 2018, 13 Civil Courts had established specialised sections following the 2017 reform, counting a total of 75 ordinary judges and 82 honorary judges.

The Civil Courts of Milan and Messina had pre-existing specialised sections dealing with immigration and asylum cases.[44] Other courts (Cagliari, Campobasso, Catania, Catanzaro, L'Aquila, Lecce, Napoli, Perugia, Potenza, Turin, Trento) have not set up such sections yet.[45]

Not all of the specialised sections of the Civil Courts deal with the backlog of appeals pending before the entry into force of Decree Law 13/2017.[46]

The competence of the Court is determined on the basis of the location of the competent Territorial Commission, but also on the basis of the place where the applicant is accommodated (governmental reception centres, CAS, SIPROIMI and CPR).[47]

Rules for the lodging of appeals

The appeal must be lodged within 30 calendar days from the notification of the first instance decision and must be submitted by a lawyer.[48]

However, the time limit for lodging an appeal is 15 days for persons placed in CPR and negative decisions taken under the Accelerated Procedure.[49]

The appeal has automatic suspensive effect, except where:[50]

  1. The applicant is detained in CPR or a hotspot;
  2. The application is inadmissible;
  3. The application is manifestly unfounded;
  4. The application is rejected on some of the grounds for applying the Accelerated Procedure.

However, in those cases, the applicant can individually request a suspension of the return order from the competent judge. The court must issue a decision within 5 days and notify the parties, who have the possibility to submit observations within 5 days. The court takes a non-appealable decision granting or refusing suspensive effect within 5 days of the submission and/or reply to any observations.[51]

In practice, asylum seekers who file an appeal, in particular those who are held in CPR and those under in the Accelerated Procedure, have to face several obstacles. The time limit of 15 days for lodging an appeal in those cases concretely jeopardises the effectiveness of the right to appeal since it is too short for finding a lawyer or requesting free legal assistance, and for preparing the hearing in an adequate manner. This short time limit for filing an appeal does not take due consideration of other factors that might come into play, such as the linguistic barriers between asylum seekers and lawyers, and the lack of knowledge of the legal system.

Despite the aforementioned provisions on automatic suspensive effect of appeals, the Questura of Naples continued to make an incorrect interpretation of the law in 2018, claiming that, for all appeals submitted after the entry into force of L 46/2017, suspensive effect had to be requested and obtained. The Questura deemed that all applicants automatically fell within the Accelerated Procedure on the ground that they had applied for asylum after being apprehended for avoiding or attempting to avoid border controls or found irregularly on the territory with the sole aim of avoiding removal or refusal of entry. Following a ruling of the Court of Appeal of Naples which clarified the nature of the accelerated procedure, ASGI requested the Questura to immediately stop this unlawful practice.[52]

With a Circular of 13 January 2020, the Ministry of Interior considered that after the terms provided for Article 35-bis (4) of the Procedure Decree without the Judge's decision on the suspension having intervened, the measures of removal could legitimately be adopted.

As highlighted by ASGI, these indications appear illegitimate in the light of Article 46 (8) of the Directive 2013/32/EU, which establishes the applicant's right to remain on the national territory, until a judge decision on the suspension request has been taken and in light of Article 41, which provides for specific exceptions to this rule.[53]

After the appeal is notified to the Ministry of Interior at the competent Territorial Commission, the Ministry may present submissions (defensive notes) within the next 20 days. The applicant can also present submissions within 20 days.[54] The law also states that the competent Commission must submit within 20 days from the notification of the appeal the video recording and transcript of the personal interview and the entire documentation obtained and used during the examination procedure, including country of origin information relating to the applicant.[55] In 2018, a substantial part of EASO caseworkers deployed to Territorial Commissions have assisted in the drafting of submissions in appeal proceedings. In 2019 Interim Experts from EASO deployed as Caseworkers to the Territorial Commissions could draft the Commission’s submissions in the appeal procedure, although they had no competence to represent the Commission before the Court. Their submissions was supposed to focus exclusively on factual issues and evidence assessment and not enter into legal argumentation.[56] The termination of activities of the Interim Experts deployed at the Territorial Commissions expected by the end of 2019 [57] took place one month before, on November 2019.


According to the appeal procedure following Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, oral hearings before the court sections are a residual option. The law states that, as a rule, judges shall decide the cases only by consulting the videotaped interview before the Territorial Commission. They shall invite the parties for the hearing only if they consider it essential to listen to the applicant, or they need to clarify some aspects or if they provide technical advice or the intake of evidence.[58] A hearing is also to be provided when the videotaping is not available or the appeal is based on elements not relied on during the administrative procedure of first instance.[59]

Since the adoption of Decree Law 13/2017, ASGI has claimed that the use of video recorded interviews, potentially replacing asylum seekers’ hearings by the court, does not comply with the right to an effective remedy provided by Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, as an applicant’s statements are often the only elements on which the application is based. Therefore, there is no certainty that judges will watch the videos of the interviews, and in any case they will not watch them with the assistance of interpreters so as to understand the actual extent of applicants’ statements.

Throughout 2017 and 2018, insofar as Territorial Commissions were still not video-recording interviews, most of the court sections have always held oral hearings with asylum seekers, as set out in the law in case the interview is not video-recorded.[60] Although Civil Courts such as Naples interpreted the law as leaving discretion to the court to omit a hearing even if the videotape is not available, the Cassation Court clarified in 2018 that in such cases the oral hearing is mandatory and cannot be omitted.[61]

On 6 March 2018, the Civil Court of Venice adopted a Protocol for its Immigration Section,[62] which immediately alarmed part of the judiciary and ASGI. The most critical aspect of the Protocol concerns the hearing of the asylum seeker without the presence of the lawyer and the duty of the lawyer to inform the judge, before the hearing, about the possible existence of infectious diseases of the applicant with the obligation to produce medical certification attesting the absence of risks of contagion.[63]


The Civil Court can either reject the appeal or grant international protection to the asylum seeker within 4 months.[64] Since the entry into force of Decree Law 13/2017, the appeal procedure has sped up considerably.

No information on the average duration of the appeal procedure for appeals is available for 2019. However, according to what is recorded by ASGI, since 2019, in many cases the Civil Courts have set asylum hearings for 2021 or even for 2022. Even those hearings already scheduled for 2020 have been postponed for one or two years. This will have a major impact on the average length of proceedings.

Onward appeal

Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, abolished the possibility to appeal a negative Civil Court decision before the Court of Appeal (Corte d’Appello). This provision applies to appeals lodged after 17 August 2017.

In case of a negative decision, the asylum seeker can only lodge an appeal before the Court of Cassation within 30 days, compared to 60 days granted before the reform.[65]

The onward appeal is not automatically suspensive. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found in its F.R. judgment of 27 September 2018 that this provision complies with EU law as the recast Asylum Procedures Directive does not contain any provisions requiring a second level of jurisdiction against negative asylum decisions and therefore does not require any automatic suspensive effect for onward appeals.[66]

The request for suspensive effect is examined by the judge who rejected the appeal at Civil Court level and has to be submitted within 5 days from the notification of the appeal.[67]

The 2017 reform has sparked strong reactions from NGOs,[68] and even from some magistrates. Cancelling the possibility to appeal the Civil Court decisions at Court of Appeal, making the hearing of the applicant a mere residual option, further complicating access to free legal aid, reducing the time for appeal to the Court of Cassation, and entrusting the assessment of the request for suspensive effect of onward appeals to the same Civil Court judge who delivered the negative first appeal ruling, drastically reduces the judicial protection of asylum seekers. The Cassation Section of the Magistrates’ National Association (Associazione Nazionale Magistrati) also highlighted the unreasonableness of the choice to abolish the second level of appeal, which is still provided for civil disputes of much lower value if compared to international protection cases, bearing in mind that the procedure before the Court of Cassation is essentially a written procedure.

The reform has had a visible impact on the caseload before the Court of Cassation, which rose from 374 appeals in 2016 to 10,341 in 2019. In 2019, 3,053 asylum proceedings were decided. [69]

The average duration of the appeal process in 2019 is not available.

As regards appeals lodged before the entry into force of L 46/2017, a second appeal can still be brought before the Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation has clarified that these second-instance appeals follow the same procedure as before the entry into force of the Reception Decree.[70]


Legal assistance



Legal assistance at first instance

According to Article 16 of the Procedure Decree, asylum seekers may benefit from legal assistance and representation during the first instance of the regular and prioritised procedure at their own expenses.

In practice, asylum applicants are usually supported before and sometimes also during the personal interview by legal advisors or lawyers financed by NGOs or specialised assisting bodies where they work. Legal assistance provided by NGOs depends mainly on the availability of funds deriving from projects and public or private funding.

A distinction should be made between national public funds and those which are allocated by private foundations and associations. In particular, the main source of funds provided by the State is the National Fund for Asylum Policies and Services, financed by the Ministry of Interior. The Procedure Decree provides that the Ministry of Interior can establish specific agreements with UNHCR or other organisations with experience in assisting asylum seekers, with the aim to provide free information services on the asylum procedure as well on the revocation one and on the possibility to make a judicial appeal. These services are provided in addition to those ensured by the manager of the accommodation centres.[71] However, following the reform of the reception system brought about by Decree Law 113/2018, implemented by L 132/2018, the new tender specifications scheme (capitolato d’appalto) adopted by way of Ministry of Interior Decree on 20 December 2018 has ceased funding for legal support in different reception hotspots, first reception centres, CAS and CPR, and replaced it with “legal information” services (see Forms and Levels of Material Reception Conditions).

National funds are also allocated for providing information and legal counselling at official land, air, sea border points and in the places where migrants arrive by boat.[72] In addition, some funds for financing legal counselling may also be provided from European projects / programmes or private foundations. However, it should be highlighted that these funds are not sufficient.

The lawyer or the legal advisor from specialised NGOs prepares asylum seekers for the personal interview before the determining authority, providing them all necessary information about the procedure to follow, pointing out the main questions that may be asked by the Territorial Commission members and underlining the relevant information concerning their personal account. Moreover, the lawyer or the legal advisor has a key role in gathering the information concerning the personal history of the applicant and the country of origin information, and in drafting a report that, when necessary, is sent to the Territorial Commission, in particular with regard to vulnerable persons such as torture survivors. In this regard, the lawyer or the legal advisor may also inform the determining authorities of the fact that the asylum seeker is unfit or unable to undertake the personal interview so that the Commission may decide to omit or postpone it.

Lawyers may be present during the personal interview but they do not play the same role as in a judicial hearing. The applicant has to respond to the questions and the lawyer may intervene to clarify some aspects of the statements made by the applicant.

Nevertheless, the vast majority of asylum applicants go through the personal interview without the assistance of a lawyer since they cannot afford a lawyer and specialised NGOs have limited capacity due to lack of funds.

Legal assistance in appeals

With regard to the appeal phase, free state-funded legal aid (gratuito patrocinio), is provided by law to asylum seekers who declare an annual taxable income below €11,493.82 (up from €11,369.24) and whose case is not deemed manifestly unfounded.[73] Legal aid is therefore subject to a “means” and “merits” test.

Means test

The law specifies that in case of income acquired abroad, the foreigner needs a certification issued by the consular authorities of their country of origin.[74] However, the law prescribes that if the person is unable to obtain this documentation, he or she may alternatively provide a self-declaration of income.[75] Regarding asylum seekers, Article 8 PD 21/2015 clarifies that, in order to be admitted to free legal assistance, the applicant can present a self-declaration instead of the documents prescribed by Article 79 PD 115/2002.

A worrying practice on the part of some Bar Associations (Consigli dell’ordine degli avvocati) such as Florence, Genova and Rome, which refused legal aid to applicants who could not provide consular certificates attesting their income abroad, seems to have ceased as of 2017.

Merits test

In addition, access to free legal assistance is also subject to a merits test by the competent Bar Association which assesses whether the asylum seeker’s motivations for appealing are not manifestly unfounded.[76] During 2017 and 2018, some Bar Associations such as Milan and Trieste rejected almost all requests to access to free legal assistance, generally deeming the petitioners’ claims as manifestly unfounded.

Moreover, it may occur that the applicant is initially granted free legal aid by a Bar Council but, as prescribed by law, the Court revokes the decision if it considers that the admission requirements assessed by the Bar Association are not fulfilled.[77] The Court of Cassation has ruled that the withdrawal of legal aid may only be ordered after a concrete assessment of the circumstances of the case, fulfilling both criteria of being manifestly unfounded and gross negligence.[78]

L 46/2017 has substantially curtailed access to legal aid, as it reverses the rule applicable to all other proceedings. It establishes that, when fully rejecting the appeal, a judge who wishes to grant legal aid has to indicate the reasons why he or she does not consider the applicant's claims as manifestly unfounded.[79]

Applicants who live in large cities have more chances to be assisted by specialised NGOs or legal advisors compared to those living in remote areas, where it is more difficult to find qualified lawyers specialised in asylum law. As discussed in the section on Regular Procedure: Appeal, in the Italian legal system, the assistance of a lawyer is essential in the appeal phase. Concretely the uncertainty of obtaining free legal aid by the State, as well as the delay in receiving State reimbursement discourages lawyers from taking on the cases. In some cases, lawyers evaluate the individual case on the merits before deciding whether to appeal the case or not.

In relation to the presence of the lawyer during the hearing, the Civil Court of Venice adopted a Protocol for its Immigration Section, which provided that the hearing of the asylum seeker is to take place without the presence of the lawyer (see Regular Procedure: Appeal).[80] After the letter sent to the President of the Court of Venice by ASGI and Giuristi Democratici,[81] the Court partially corrected the rule, arguing that it was not intended to exclude the assistance of the lawyer but only to limit his intervention during the hearing, to be held between judge and appellant.

[1]           Article 27(2)(3) Procedure Decree.

[2]           Ministry of Interior, hearing at Parliament, 7 November 2019, available in Italian at:

[3]           Ministry of Interior, hearing at Parliament, 7 November 2019

[4]           Article 23-bis Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 25 Reception Decree.

[5]           Article 2(1)(b-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 9 Decree Law 113/2018 as amended by L 132/2018.

[6]           This is a preliminary examination governed by Article 29(1-bis) Procedure Decree, to which Article 23-bis expressly refers.

[7]           Article 23-bis Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 25(r) Reception Decree.

[8]           Article 11(3) Procedure Decree et seq, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 as amended by L 46/2017.

[9]           CNDA Circular No 6300 of 10 August 2017; Circular No 8124 of 19 October 2018.

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

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

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

[13]          Article 5(6) TUI, as amended by Article 1(1)(b)(2) Decree Law 113/2018.

[14]         Article 32(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 1(2)(a) Decree Law 113/2018.

[15]          Articles 19(1) and 19(1.1) TUI.

[16]          Article 32(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 1(2)(a) Decree Law 113/2018.

[17]          See e.g. Ministry of Interior, Circular No 83774 of 18 December 2018.

[18]          ASGI, Il regime intertemporale ai tempi del d.l. 113/2018, October 2018, available in Italian at: See also in English:

[19]          Court of Cassation, Decision 4890/2019, 23 January 2019, EDAL, available at:

[20]         Article 32(1)(b-bis) Procedure Decree, as amended by Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.

[21]          Article 28-ter(g) Procedure Decree, citing Article 6(2)-(3) Reception Decree.

[22]          Article 32(1)(b-ter) Procedure Decree, inserted by Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.

[23]          ASGI, In Limine, Giudice di Pace di Agrigento: illegittimo il provvedimento di espulsione prima che sia decorso il termine previsto per l’impugnazione delle pronunce di diniego della domanda di protezione internazionale, 15 December 2019, available in Italian at:

[24]          Article 28(1)(c) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 3(2)(b) Decree Law 113/2018.

[25]          Article 28(1)(c-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by the Reception Decree.

[26]          Article 28(1)(c-ter) Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 7-bis(1)(d) Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.

[27]          Article 6(3) L 47/2017.

[28]          Article 12(1) Procedure Decree; Article 13(1) Procedure Decree.

[29]          Article 13(1-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by the Reception Decree.

[30]         Article 12(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by the Reception Decree.

[31]          Article 5(4) PD 21/2015.

[32]          Article 12(2-bis) Procedure Decree, read in conjunction with Article 5(1-bis).

[33]         Article 10(4) Procedure Decree, as amended by the Reception Decree.

[34]         Article 14(2-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by the Reception Decree.

[35]          Article 14(1) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[36]          Article 14(2) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017.

[37]          Article 14(5) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017.

[38]          Article 14(6-bis) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[39]          Article 14 (6 bis) Procedure Decree.

[40]          Article 14(7) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[41]          Articles 35(1) and 35-bis(1) Procedure Decree.

[42]          Article 1 Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017.

[43]          Article 2(1) Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017.

[44]          CSM, Monitoraggio sezioni specializzate, October 2018, available in Italian at:, 7.

[45]          Ibid, 6.

[46]          Ibid, 11.

[47]          Article 4(3) Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017.

[48]          Article 35-bis(2) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017.

[49]          Ibid.

[50]          Article 35-bis(3) Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by Article 3 Decree Law 113/2018.

[51]          Article 35-bis (4) Procedure Decree.

[52]          Court of Appeal of Naples, Decision 17/2018, 3 January 2018, available at:

[53]          ASGI, Asilo e procedure accelerate: commento alla circolare del Ministero dell’Interno, 6 March 2020, available in Italian at:

[54]          Article 35-bis(7) and (12) Procedure Decree.

[55]          Article 35-bis(8) Procedure Decree.

[56]          ECRE, The role of EASO operations in national asylum systems, 2019, 23, available at:, p. 23.

[57]          ECRE, The role of EASO operations in national asylum systems, 2019, 20, available at:

[58]          Article 35-bis Procedure Decree, introduced by Article 6(10) Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[59]          Article 6(11) Decree Law 13/2017.

[60]          CSM, Monitoraggio sezioni specializzate, October 2018, 27-28.

[61]          Court of Cassation, 1st Section, Decision 28424/2018, 27 June 2018, available in Italian at:; Decision 17717/2018, 5 July 2018, available in Italian at:  See also: EDAL, Italy – Supreme Court of Cassation, 27th June 2018, no. 28424, available at:

[62]          Civil Court of Venezia, Immigration Section Protocol, 6 March 2018, available in Italian at:

[63]          Magistratura Democratica, ‘Il diritto di difesa non è uguale per tutti’, 18 March 2018, available in Italian at: See also ASGI, Letter to the Civil Court of Venice, 19 March 2018, available in Italian at:

[64]          Article 35-bis(13) Procedure Decree.

[65]          Article 35-bis(13) Procedure Decree.

[66]          CJEU, Case C-422/2018 F.R. v Ministero dell’interno – Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano, Judgment of 27 September 2018, EDAL, available at:

[67]          Article 35-bis(13) Procedure Decree.

[68]          See ASGI and Magistratura Democratica, ‘D.L. 13/2017, sempre più distanza tra giudici e cittadini stranieri’, February 2017, available in Italian at:; Antigone, ‘Il pacchetto Minniti calpesta i diritti’, 12 February 2017, available in Italian at:

[69]          Court of Cassation, Report of the Court of Cassation President on the administration of justice in 2019, 31 January 2020, available in Italian at:, 47

[70]          Court of Cassation, Decision 669/2018, 12 January 2018.

[71]          Article 10(2-bis) Procedure Decree.

[72]          Article 11(6) TUI.

[73]          Article 16(2) Procedure Decree.

[74]          Article 79(2) PD 115/2002.

[75]          Article 94(2) PD 115/2002.

[76]          Article 126 PD 115/2002.

[77]          Article 136 PD 115/2002.

[78]          Court of Cassation, Decision 26661/2017, 10 November 2017.

[79]          Article 35-bis(17) Procedure Decree.

[80]          Civil Court of Venice, Immigration Section Protocol, 6 March 2018, available in Italian at:

[81]          ASGI, ‘ASGI e Giuristi Democratici sul Protocollo Immigrazione del Tribunale di Venezia : gravissima violazione del diritto di difesa’, 19 March 2018, available in Italian at:


Table of contents

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