The “safe country of origin” concept has been introduced in Italian legislation by Decree Law 113/2018, implemented by L 132/2018.
Definition and list of safe countries of origin
According to the law, a third country can be considered a safe country of origin if, on the basis of its legal system, the application of the law within a democratic system and the general political situation, it can be shown that, generally and constantly, there are no acts of persecution as defined in the Qualification Decree, nor torture or other forms of inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment, nor danger due to indiscriminate violence in situations of internal or international armed conflict.
The assessment aimed at ascertaining whether or not a country can be considered a safe country of origin shall take into account the protection offered against persecution and ill-treatment through:
- The relevant laws and regulations of the country and the manner in which they are applied;
- Respect for the rights and freedoms established in the ECHR, in particular the non-derogable rights of the Convention, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the United Nations Convention against Torture;
- Compliance with the principles set out in Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention; and
- The existence of a system of effective remedies against violations of these rights and freedoms.
The assessment shall be based on information provided by the CNDA, as well as on other sources of information, including in particular those provided by other Member States of the European Union, EASO, UNHCR, the Council of Europe and other competent international organisations.
A list of safe countries of origin is adopted by decree of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in agreement with Ministry of Interior and Ministry of Justice. The list must be periodically updated and notified to the European Commission.
The list, adopted by decree of 4 October 2019 and entered into force on 22 October 2019, includes the following countries: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cape Verde, Ghana, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Morocco, Montenegro, Senegal, Serbia, Tunisia and Ukraine.
Even if the law provides that the designation of a safe country of origin can be done with the exception of parts of the territory or of categories of persons, the decree merely refers to States without making any distinction and exception.
Indeed, information collected by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, assisted by the CNDA COI Unit, had indicated, for many countries, categories of persons or parts of the country for which the presumption of safety cannot apply.
The existence of parts of the territory or categories for which the country cannot be considered safe should have led to the non-inclusion of these countries in the list.
In any case, as highlighted by ASGI, the decree appears illegitimate in several respects, as it does not offer any indication of the reasons and criteria followed for the inclusion of each country in the list. Moreover, the country files elaborated by the CNDA and by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reveal that the choice of countries has not been based on a plurality of sources and, in some cases, the inclusion of only partially safe countries without the distinctions indicated by the CNDA is in contradiction with the results of the same investigation.
An applicant can be considered coming from a safe country of origin only if he or she is a citizen of that country or a stateless person who previously habitually resided in that country and he or she has not invoked serious grounds to believe that the country is not safe due to his or her particular situation.
The Questura shall inform the applicant that if he or she comes from a designated country of safe origin, his or her application may be rejected.
An application submitted by applicants coming from a safe country of origin can be rejected as manifestly unfounded, whether under the regular procedure or the accelerated procedure. In this case the decision rejecting the application is based on the fact that the person concerned has not shown that there are serious reasons to believe that the designated safe country of origin is not safe in relation to his or her particular situation.
Following the entry into force of the safe countries of origin list, the CNDA issued two circulars, on 28 October 2019 and 31 October 2019, giving directives to the Territorial Commissions on the application of the new provisions. In particular the CNDA assumed that the inclusion of a country of origin in the safe countries list introduces an absolute presumption of safety, which can be overcome only with a contrary proof presented by the asylum seeker. CNDA also underlined that, in the event of rejection, the applications should always be regarded as manifestly unfounded applications. In practice, according to ASGI experience, Territorial Commissions are applying the CNDA directives to all rejections of asylum applications in case of safe country of origin.
However, an overall exam of the rules of the Procedure Decree shows that the manifestly unfounded decision is only one of the possible outcomes of the examination of the asylum application when the applicant comes from a country designated as safe.
On 22 January 2020, the Civil Court of Florence deemed the exclusion of the automatic suspensive effect to an appeal lodged by an asylum seeker from Senegal as illegitimate as the applicant belongs to a category, that of LGBTI, whose treatment in Senegal, should have resulted in the exclusion of Senegal from the list of safe countries or should have determined at least the provision, within the decree, of a specific exception for this social group to the rules dictated for asylum applications submitted by safe countries nationals. Consequently, according to the Court, the Territorial Commission should not have refused the asylum application as manifestly unfounded only because of the safe country of origin of the applicant. However, since the amendments made by Decree law 130/2020 the lack of automatic suspensive effect is connected to all applications made under the accelerate procedure, with the sole exclusion of applications made under the border procedure.
The Court of Cassation, with judgement 19252/2020, stated that the circumstance of coming from a country included in the list of safe countries does not preclude the applicant from being able to assert the origin from a specific area of the country itself, affected by phenomena of violence and generalized insecurity which, even if territorially circumscribed, may be relevant for the purposes of granting international or humanitarian protection, nor does it exclude the duty of the judge, in the presence of such an allegation, to proceed with a concrete ascertainment of the danger of said area and of the relevance of the aforementioned phenomena.
 Article 2-bis Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 7 Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.
 Article 2-bis(2) Procedure Decree.
 Article 2-bis(3) Procedure Decree.
 Article 2-bis(4) Procedure Decree.
 Article 2-bis(1) Procedure Decree.
 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Decree, 4 October 2019, Identification of Safe Countries of origin, according to Article 2-bis of the Procedure Decree published on 7 October 2019 n. 235.
 Article 2 bis (2) Procedure Decree.
 This is the case of Algeria, Ghana, Morocco, Senegal, Ukraine and Tunisia.
 The information sheets drawn up for each country were then sent to all the Territorial Commissions as an attachment to the CNDA circular no. 9004 of 31 October 2019, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2TBVjiF.
In this sense, Civil Court of Florence, interim decision of 22 January 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/2TA3hZD; see also Questione Giustizia, I primi nodi della disciplina sui Paesi di origine sicuri vengono al pettine, Cesare Pitea, 7 February 2020, https://bit.ly/2zgXZeG; see also EDAL, Italy: The region of Casamance, Senegal, excluded by the presumption of “safe third countries”, 22 january 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/2yx3Qfu.
 ASGI, Nota di commento del Decreto del Ministro degli affari esteri e della cooperazione internazionale 4 ottobre 2019 sull’elenco dei Paesi di origine sicuri, 27 November 2019, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3edVetq.
 Article 2-bis(5) Procedure Decree.
 Article 10(1) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 7 Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.
 Article 28-bis (2) (c) as amended by Decree Law 130/2020.
 Article 28-ter(1)(b) Procedure Decree, inserted Article 7 Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.
 Article 9(2-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by Article 7 Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.
 Article 32 (1 b bis) read together with Article 2 bis (5) Procedure Decree must be interpreted as meaning that the asylum request is manifestly unfounded only when the applicant has not invoked serious grounds to believe that the country is not safe due to his or her particular situation. Moreover, Article 35 bis of the Procedue Decree links the halving of the time limits for appeal and the absence of automatic suspensive effect to applications that are manifestly unfounded and not, in general, to applications from asylum seekers from countries designated as safe. See Questione Giustizia, Le nuove procedure accelerate, lo svilimento del diritto d’asilo, 3 November 2019, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2XqA8Rs.
 Civil Court of Florence, interim decision of 22 January 2020, cited above; see also: https://bit.ly/3bWqjA4.
 Article 35 -bis (3) Procedure Decree.
 Court of Cassation, judgment 19252/2020, mentioned in Court of Cassation decision ceiling of 2020, available at: https://bit.ly/3eDGDdS.