Le rassegne dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazioni - ADiM

La sezione dedicata alle rassegne di ADiM fornisce ogni mese:

  • una selezione di articoli di stampa (“Rassegna stampa”) e di pubblicazioni scientifiche (“Rassegna scientifica”) ritenuti utili a promuovere un dibattito pubblico e scientifico informato;
  • un aggiornamento sulle principali pronunce della giurisprudenza internazionale, europea e nazionale (”Rassegna giurisprudenziale”).

 

CONSULTA LE RASSEGNE ADiM 2019

RASSEGNA STAMPA - ADiM

Consulta la rassegna stampa mensile dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazione - ADiM

RASSEGNE SCIENTIFICHE - ADiM

Consulta la rassegna scientifica mensile dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazione - ADiM

Libri

Stefano Amadeo, Fabio Spitaleri, Il diritto dell’immigrazione e dell’asilo dell’Unione Europea. Controllo delle frontiere, Protezione internazionale, Immigrazione regolare, Rimpatri, Relazioni esterne, Giappichelli, 2019

Il volume offre al lettore una ricostruzione organica del diritto dell’immigrazione e dell’asilo dell’Unione europea. Sono dunque esaminati i requisiti d’ingresso degli stranieri nello spazio giuridico europeo e le modalità comuni di sorveglianza delle frontiere esterne degli Stati membri; il sistema normativo diretto alla tutela dello straniero bisognoso di protezione internazionale; la disciplina del trattamento dello straniero autorizzato a soggiornare in uno Stato membro e del diritto di questi al ricongiungimento familiare; le regole sostanziali e procedurali per l’allontanamento dello straniero privo di un titolo di soggiorno (c.d. disciplina del rimpatrio); gli strumenti di rilevanza internazionale (accordi, dichiarazioni, atti politici e programmi d’azione) con i quali l’Unione e i suoi Stati membri attuano una collaborazione strutturata con Stati terzi, intesa al contenimento dei flussi migratori e alla protezione c.d. extraterritoriale degli stranieri che necessitano di accoglienza e rifugio. Lo studio fornisce un quadro d’insieme del diritto dell’immigrazione e dell’asilo dell’Unione europea, facendo emergere i principi propri della disciplina e, grazie ai numerosi rinvii incrociati, la loro applicazione orizzontale nei diversi settori regolamentati. L’auspicio è che questa visione d’insieme possa rendere l’opera fruibile anche come ausilio didattico per i corsi universitari. Ma ambizione degli autori è che essa possa costituire altresì un utile strumento per i professionisti, le amministrazioni e i giudici che, confrontati a un problema concreto, intendano trarre chiarimenti e ispirazione da una trattazione sistematica della materia, nutrita di ampi riferimenti alla giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia e della Corte EDU

 

Simon Behrman, Law and Asylum Space, Subject, Resistance, Routledge, 2020

In contrast to the claim that refugee law has been a key in guaranteeing a space of protection for refugees, this book argues that law has been instrumental in eliminating spaces of protection, not just from one’s persecutors but also from the grasp of sovereign power. By uncovering certain fundamental aspects of asylum as practised in the past and in present day social movements, namely its concern with defining space rather than people and its role as a space of resistance or otherness to sovereign law, this book demonstrates that asylum has historically been antagonistic to law and vice versa. In contrast, twentieth-century refugee law was constructed precisely to ensure the effective management and control over the movements of forced migrants. To illustrate the complex ways in which these two paradigms – asylum and refugee law – interact with one another, this book examines their historical development and concludes with in-depth studies of the Sanctuary Movement in the United States and the Sans-Papiers of France.The book will appeal to researchers and students of refugee law and refugee studies; legal and political philosophy; ancient, medieval and modern legal history; and sociology of political movements.

 

David Miller, Christine Straehle, The Political Philosophy of Refuge, Cambridge, 2019

How to assess and deal with the claims of millions of displaced people to find refuge and asylum in safe and prosperous countries is one of the most pressing issues of modern political philosophy. In this timely volume, fresh insights are offered into the political and moral implications of refugee crises and the treatment of asylum seekers. The contributions illustrate the widening of the debate over what is owed to refugees, and why it is assumed that national state actors and the international community owe special consideration and protection. Among the specific issues discussed are refugees’ rights and duties, refugee selection, whether repatriation can be encouraged or required, and the ethics of sanctuary policies.

 

Martin Ruhs, Kristof Tamas, Joakim Palme, Bridging the gaps: linking research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration, Oxford, 2019

This book explores the interplay between social science research, public debates, and policy-making in the area of international migration and integration. It has three core aims. First, it seeks to contribute to the conceptualization and theorization of the potential relationships between research, public debates, and policy-making on migration and integration. A second aim of the book is critically to discuss and identify the reasons for the failure or success of a range of initiatives aimed at using research to inform public debates and/or policy-making on migration and integration, both within national contexts and at supra-national levels of governance. A third core goal is to identify effective strategies and institutional designs for linking research to public debates and policy-making on migration and integration in different national and institutional contexts. This book provides a unique combination of scholarly research and personal experience from a group of experts and specialists in migration and integration policies, as well as media studies and public opinion. It includes contributions from researchers and public policy experts who are deeply involved in attempts to link research to policy-making in the field of migration and integration. It demonstrates the importance of going beyond the ‘research-policy nexus’ to show how the media, public opinion, and other dimensions of public debate can interact with research and policy-processes.

 

Maria Giulia Bernardini, Migranti con disabilità e vulnerabilità. Rappresentazioni, politiche, diritti, Jovene, 2019

 

Articoli

Ane Aranguiz, Miriam Quené, Is There a Way Where There’s a Will? The Tensions between the Court’s Case Law and the Pillar in Delimiting Transnational Solidarity, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, vol. 21, n. 4

European citizenship has often served as a proxy for political visions of far-reaching social integration within the EU. Over the last years, this has been challenged by a number of judgments of the CJEU, which appear to increasingly restrict the access of economically inactive mobile EU citizens to social benefits under the Citizens Directive. By contrast, the more recent European Pillar of Social Rights enshrines the right to a minimum income for all citizens of the Union, regardless of their economic status or the legality of their residence. This article aims to address the resulting asymmetry between the Pillar and the CJEU’s current interpretation of the Citizens Directive, examining whether and to what extent the former could influence the latter. In doing so, it will discuss the background, objectives and interpretation of the Citizens Directive’s right to equal treatment, examine the scope of the minimum income principle contained in the Pillar, and highlight the key differences between the two.

 

Eva Brems, Lourdes Peroni, Ellen Desmet, Migration and human rights: The law as a reinforcer of gendered borders, in Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 2019, vol. 37, n. 4

Borders follow migrants even inside the territory of their State of destination. These ‘sticky’ figurative borders may flow directly from immigration norms and practice or indirectly from other areas of law. This Special Issue focuses on the gendered nature of these borders, as they rely on/reinforce socially constructed norms of masculinity and femininity. As a result, these figurative borders undermine the equal enjoyment of human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers along gender lines. Specifically, gendered borders are analysed in relation to the themes of asylum, domestic labour and gender-based violence. The human rights of migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in these domains are analysed in an integrated and complex fashion. The analysis demonstrates that migrants, refugees and asylum seekers navigate and challenge not only sticky figurative borders, but also borders between different areas of law. The (non)interaction between these different areas of law may equally create or reinforce unequal human rights protection along gender lines. The law, across different areas and through the workings of diverse categories, definitions and standards, may thus work as a border-reinforcer.

 

David James Cantor, Farai Chikwanha, Reconsidering African Refugee Law, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2019, vol. 31, n. 2-3

Fifty years have now passed since the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa was adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Within international refugee law, the OAU Refugee Convention (OAU Convention) is often taken to encapsulate the ‘African’ legal approach to refugees. This anniversary represents an opportune moment to review the state of ‘African’ refugee law. This article seeks to contribute to that regional undertaking by providing insights based on a comparative analysis of national refugee laws in African States. This encompasses consideration of how national law engages with the OAU Convention, as a centre of gravity for refugee law development in the region, but it extends also to exploring whether an ‘African’ approach to refugee law can be discerned in the novel ways in which the national refugee laws of African States (i) implement other refugee and human rights law treaties, and (ii) create new refugee law rules without precedent in treaty law. By building a more comprehensive picture of comparative refugee law in Africa, the study aims to complement existing refugee law studies in Africa that focus mainly on the international law level or on local implementation within only one or two States.

 

Carmelo Danisi, Crossing borders between International Refugee Law and International Human Rights Law in the European context: Can human rights enhance protection against persecution based on sexual orientation (and beyond)?, in Netherlands Quarterly of H

In the last decades, international refugee law (‘IRL’) and international human rights law (‘IHRL’) have increasingly taken into account sexual minorities’ needs. Despite not being one of the grounds of persecution under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, sexual orientation has been identified as a relevant factor for the recognition of refugee status for more than twenty years. In parallel, IHRL has evolved to a point where sexual minorities are more fully included within the scope of rights and freedoms set forth in universal and regional human rights treaties, especially via the prohibition of discrimination. Yet, strange as it may seem, this simultaneous evolution has not always led to a fruitful intersection between IRL and IHRL, even in terms of interpretation despite what the Law of Treaties requires. Drawing from documentary and qualitative data and by taking people fleeing homophobia as example, this article looks at the role that IHRL may play in complementing and in intersection with IRL. It argues that IHRL may, firstly, raise obligations to facilitate the access of these claimants to asylum determination procedures and, secondly, inform the notion of persecution used in IRL more comprehensively than it currently does in practice.

 

Mel Cousins, The European Convention on Human Rights and Residence Requirement for the Purposes of Social Assistance Benefits, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, vol. 21, n. 4

This article examines the case law on whether a requirement that a person have a legal right of residence in order to be entitled to social assistance benefits is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. It looks, in particular, at a recent series of Dutch cases before the European Court of Human Rights in which the Court rejected as inadmissible arguments that the Dutch residence requirement was in breach of the Convention. The recent cases are of particular relevance as the ECtHR had previously taken a negative view of residence requirements in cases such as Niedzwiecki v Germany.1 In contrast to that case, the recent Dutch cases involved the residence status of a co-resident rather than the claimant herself.

 

Tiffany S Chu, Hosting Your Enemy: Accepting Refugees from a Rival State and Respect for Human Rights, in Journal of Global Security Studies, vol. 5, n. 1, 2020

This article argues that dynamics among rivals can affect how host states respond to refugees. Particularly, refugees from rival states can motivate host countries to promote inclusive action because they are exiled from an adversary. By treating refugees well and openly respecting their human rights, host states can, in effect, shame their rival, thereby undermining the adversary’s legitimacy and discrediting the opposing government in the eyes of the international community. In the absence of a strategic rivalry, host governments do not have this incentive to support refugee human rights. Using statistical analyses, I find support for these hypotheses. In particular, the arrival of refugees from a neighboring rival state are associated with the strongest increase in respect for human rights within the host country, whereas refugees from a noncontiguous, nonrival state are related to a decrease in respect for human rights.

 

Julia van Dessel, International Delegation and Agency in the Externalization Process of EU Migration and Asylum Policy: the Role of the IOM and the UNHCR in Niger, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, vol. 19, n. 4

This article examines the role of the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the implementation of the European Union (EU) migration and asylum policy in Niger. Building on policy analysis and qualitative interviews with stakeholders, it contributes to the literature on the externalization process of EU borders. The first part of the article focuses on the international and local context in which this process has taken place in Niger since 2015. The second part refers to the principal-agent (PA) theory inspired from economics to model the dynamics of the delegation relationships linking the European Commission (EC) to the IOM and the UNHCR in Niger. It is argued that the two main objectives pursued by the EU through the externalization of its migration and asylum policy—namely the offshoring of border control and the outsourcing of asylum claims processing—are respectively fulfilled by the IOM and the UNHCR in Niger. As such, this article highlights how the cooperation of International Organizations (IOs) is critical to enable the EU to filter and restrict human mobility from the Sahel region.

 

Giovanni Di Cosimo, Giudici e politica alle prese con i conflitti multiculturali, in Rivista AIC, 2019, n. 4

Nella società multiculturale si registrano divergenze, talvolta ampie, fra le culture degli immigrati e la cultura occidentale, radicata nel nostro Paese nelle sue molteplici e plurali espressioni. Spesso i punti di frizione fra la cultura maggioritaria e le culture minoritarie corrispondono ad aspetti sensibili della vita delle persone, a cominciare dai rapporti familiari. Frizioni che si trasformano in conflitti multiculturali quando le contrapposte culture danno indicazioni di comportamento inconciliabili. Dall’altra parte, l’irrompere sulla scena delle culture ‘altre’ non è soltanto causa di conflitti, ma anche, naturalmente, di opportunità.

 

Gemma Marolda Gloninger, From Humanitarian Rescue to Border Security: Managing Migration in the Central Mediterranean, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, vol. 21, n. 4

While images of boats in distress, overflowing with migrants in the Central Mediterranean, flash on television screens and front pages of Italian and European newspapers, search and rescue (SAR) missions continue to draw attention. This article takes a look at migratory flows across the Central Mediterranean from 2012 to 2018 and focuses on the response of governmental, inter-governmental, and non-governmental actors rescuing lives at sea. Using aggregate data on migrants’ sea arrivals and deaths as well as official documents from the UNHRC, the European Union, Italy’s Ministry of Interior, and NGOs, this study investigates 1) how different actors have responded to migratory flows across the Central Mediterranean, and 2) how actors’ narratives and response have impacted the situation at sea. The study finds that, although all three actors act on the humanitarian principle ‘to save lives,’ their narratives and response diverge as the intensity of sea arrivals persists.

 

Isaac Lenaola, The Role of African Courts in Promoting Refugee Rights, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2019, vol. 31, n. 2-3

In every democracy, courts play a vital role in safeguarding, promoting, and protecting human rights. With the mandate of interpreting and applying the law, courts are the ultimate custodians of the law and hence occupy a sacrosanct place in the justice system. Refugees are entitled to human rights protection just like every other person. Furthermore, as vulnerable members of society – in that they reside in a foreign country – they deserve special protection. By adjudicating the cases that come before them, courts strengthen the refugee protection regime and develop the law to advance refugee rights.

 

J O Moses Okello, In Lieu of a Travaux Préparatoires: A Commentary on the Kampala Convention for IDPs, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2019, Volume 31, Issue 2-3

The Kampala Convention was adopted on 23 October 2009 and came into force on 4 January 2013. The first binding international instrument for the protection and assistance of internally displaced persons, it occupies an important space among the body of African regional humanitarian and human rights law. The Convention addresses all stages of internal displacement and provides a framework for coordinating activities by governments and humanitarian actors aimed at preventing and addressing internal displacement. The Kampala Convention is the result of many years of work, although no formal records of its drafting and negotiation were kept. This article contributes towards addressing this gap. Based on the author’s personal involvement in the Convention’s drafting, and supplementing earlier research, this article shares information previously unavailable in the public domain and provides a commentary on some of the Convention’s provisions.

 

Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi, Mauritian Courts and the Protection of the Rights of Asylum Seekers in the Absence of Dedicated Legislation, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2019, vol. 31, n. 2-3

Mauritius became a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention through succession but is yet to accede to the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. It has signed but not yet ratified the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa and has not signed the African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa. Unlike many other countries in Africa, Mauritius has not yet enacted domestic legislation dealing with the issue of refugees. However, international human rights obligations and domestic legislation allow the rights of asylum seekers to be protected in Mauritius. This article argues that the principle of non-refoulement bars Mauritius from extraditing or deporting an asylum seeker to a country where he or she will be persecuted or where his or her rights will be violated, and that asylum seekers and citizens are equally protected by the Constitution with regard to absolute rights. However, limitations may be imposed on asylum seekers in their enjoyment of non-absolute rights. For such limitations to be lawful, they must aim to achieve the objectives stipulated in section 3 of the Constitution.

 

Çiğdem Akın Yavuz, Analysis of the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement: a Unique Case, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, vol. 21, n. 4

The European Union (EU) has thus far developed a standard approach towards the negotiation processes and the content of readmission agreements with third countries. This approach encompasses offering a visa facilitation agreement and visa liberalization to third countries as an incentive for the conclusion of a readmission agreement. The approach has, however, changed in the case of the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement. This Agreement was signed simultaneously with the initiation of a Visa Liberalization Dialogue, by-passing the conclusion of a visa facilitation agreement. The content of the Agreement has also distinguishing features compared to EU readmission agreements. This article seeks to explain why the EU has changed its standard approach in the case of Turkey through analysing both the negotiation process and the content of the EU-Turkey Readmission Agreement. In this way, this article strives to demonstrate that this shift is mainly due to EU’s concerns about effective return of irregular migrants who have been ordered to leave the EU, as well as the unique characteristics of the multidimensional relationship between the EU and Turkey.

 

Christel Querton, Gender and the boundaries of international refugee law: Beyond the category of ‘gender-related asylum claims’, in Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 2019, vol. 37, n. 4

The adoption of gender guidelines aiming to ensure consistency in gender-sensitive interpretation of the UN Refugee Convention definition demonstrates a general acceptance that gender is relevant to the question of who is a refugee. However, there is evidence that States have failed to adequately undertake the process of gender-sensitive interpretation and implement these guidelines comprehensively. Accordingly, this article argues that the general rule of treaty interpretation in international law enables the identification of a legal obligation of State Parties to the Refugee Convention to take gender into account when interpreting the refugee definition. The precise scope and nature of the duty of States to take gender into account is identified through a dynamic approach to interpretation by reference to international human rights norms. Overall, this article claims that the conceptualisation of a legal obligation in international law to interpret the refugee definition in a way that takes gender into account is inhibited by the development of a distinct category of ‘gender-related asylum claims’ within gender and refugee law scholarship. Consequently, this article presents a challenge to the borders implicit in the category of ‘gender-related asylum claims’ by revisiting the boundaries of international refugee law.

 

Octávio Sacramento, Kati Turtiainen, Pedro Gabriel Silva, Policies of Refugee Settlement and Integration in Europe: the Cases of Portugal and Finland, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2019, vol. 21, n. 4

Though geographically distant from each other, Portugal and Finland present an interesting comparison concerning the policies and devices of asylum. Both provide an informed and critical appraisal of the current international response to the refugee issue, especially considering the European Union. The Finnish situation evidences a long-standing integrated resettlement frame, associated with the inclusive and pluralistic character of Nordic immigration policies, in spite of the growing threat of regression under the emergent xenophobic pressure. Unlike Portugal, where a finely-tuned response system is still lacking in spite of the existence of an assumed political will and commitment to receive increasing numbers of refugees.

 

Irene Schöfberger, The EU’s Negotiation of Narratives and Policies on African Migration 1999-2019, in European Foreign Affairs Review, 2019, vol. 24, n. 4

The European Union (EU) has been struggling to find a shared course on African migration since the entry into force of the Schengen Agreement (1995). It has done so through two interrelated processes of negotiation. To begin, parties have negotiated internal and external migration policies. In addition, they have negotiated narrative frames about migration and whether migration should be interpreted rather as an opportunity or as a threat. In times in which narrative frames increasingly shape policy negotiations, it becomes very important to analyse how policymakers negotiate narrative frames on migration and how these shape policy responses. However, such an analysis is still missing. This article investigates how the negotiation of EU policies on African migration from 1999 until 2019 has been influenced by a simultaneous process of negotiation of narrative frames on migration. It does so based on policy analysis and interviews with European and African policymakers. It finds two major trends in EU negotiation processes: migration-security narratives have strengthened national-oriented approaches, and migration-development narratives have strengthened transnational-oriented approaches. The two approaches have always been interlinked. However, in the last years, security-oriented national approaches have increasingly influenced development-oriented transnational approaches.

 

Natalie Sedacca, Migrant domestic workers and the right to a private and family life, in Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 2019, vol. 37, n. 4

Domestic workers are mainly women, are disproportionately from ethnic minorities and/or international migrants, and are vulnerable to mistreatment, often receiving inadequate protection from labour legislation. This article addresses ways in which the conditions faced by migrant domestic workers can prevent their enjoyment of the right to private and family life. It argues that the focus on this right is illuminating as it allows for the incorporation of issues that are not usually within the remit of labour law into the discussion of working rights, such as access to family reunification, as well as providing for a different perspective on the question of limits on working time – a core labour right that is often denied to domestic workers. These issues are analysed by addressing a case study each from Latin America and Europe, namely Chile and the UK. The article considers impediments to realising the right to private and family life stemming both from the literal border – the operation of immigration controls and visa conditions – and from the figurative border which exists between domestic work and other types of work, reflected in the conflation of domestic workers with family members and stemming from the public/private sphere divide.

 

Chantal Thomas, The Struggle Against Empire Continues. Reflections on Migration as Decolonization, in Stanford Law Review, 2019, vol. 72

Migration as Decolonization telegraphs the essence of a postcolonial approach to the assertion of sovereign territorial exclusion. Tendayi Achiume’s concept of “de-imperial migration” clarifies and enhances a set of important critiques and should justly impact not just legal scholarship but also broader public discourse. One of the article’s most valuable elements is its contribution to reframing the discourse on migration. By reinforcing the reframing of migration from the global South to the global North as a response to a history of domination and exploitation, the article sounds in a rich tradition of anti-colonial theoretical and political work on what it means to act and speak – to “strike back” – against empire.

 

Volker Türk, Madeline Garlick, Addressing Displacement in the Context of Disasters and the Adverse Effects of Climate Change: Elements and Opportunities in the Global Compact on Refugee, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2019, vol. 31, n. 2-3

The Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) aims fundamentally to strengthen the way in which the international community responds to large-scale and protracted displacement worldwide. Based on the New York Declaration of September 2016, and affirmed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on 17 December 2018,3 it acknowledges the challenges associated with refugee movements in many regions worldwide, providing a framework for more predictable and equitable responsibility sharing to reinforce support for refugees and the communities that host them.

 

Simona Vezzoli, State Expansion, Changing Aspirations and Migration: The Case of Cisternino, Southern Italy, in IMI Working Papers, 2020, vol. 158

This paper examines the social transformation processes that led to a mobility transition in Cisternino, a small agricultural town in Southern Italy. This transition entailed a shift from seasonal regional mobility in the 1940s to migration towards long-distance national and international destinations from the 1950s and to regional commuting and return migration from the 1970s. Building on mobility transition theories and the social transformation framework, the analysis examines the relation between the profound social change that affected this small agricultural town in the post-World War II period and shifts in migration. A combination of three broad processes explains the changing migration patterns: the expansion and consolidation of the state, the reshaping of the local economy and cultural transitions. By analysing the interplay and sequencing of these processes, we observe that, firstly, long-distance migration initially increased largely in reaction to deep cultural and political-economic shifts that altered local livelihoods; however, long-distance migration subsequently decreased as it was substituted by commuting in association with local economic growth and the expansion of state-driven sectors and safety net provisions that bore fruit in the 1960s. The article reveals the powerful and varied ways in which, in crucial moments of transition, the state affects local livelihoods and the population’s decision to either adapt locally or migrate.

 

Janna Wessels, The boundaries of universality – migrant women and domestic violence before the Strasbourg Court, in Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 2019, vol. 37, n. 4

This article explores the boundaries encountered by women fleeing domestic violence in countries located outside the Council of Europe (‘CoE’) when claiming non-refoulement before the Strasbourg Court. The main argument is that these boundaries are embedded in the different standards the Court applies in its Article 3 ECHR case law. To develop this argument, the article conducts an exemplary critical analysis of A.A. and Others v. Sweden in comparison with, firstly, Opuz v. Turkey and secondly, Othman v. UK. The first comparison exposes a territorial bias in the case law. It shows that the risk assessment is much more lenient in cases of women seeking international protection in CoE Member States, than in cases of women who suffer domestic violence within their CoE home States. The second comparison reveals a gender bias in the jurisprudence of different types of non-refoulement cases. The assessment of available protection from an established risk is separately assessed in cases of men fleeing harm from State actors, but not in cases of women escaping ‘private’ harm. As a result, migrant women’s rights are limited by two intersecting and mutually reinforcing inequalities – both as migrants and as women. Taken together, these biases make the purportedly absolute prohibition of torture as laid down in Article 3 ECHR malleable in respect of migrant women. In order to respond to these dissonances, the article suggests a reformulation of the real risk assessment in migrant women’s cases: It should consist in a two-step assessment, establishing first the risk and then the available protection, and be guided by due diligence standards.

 

Tamara Wood, Who Is a Refugee in Africa? A Principled Framework for Interpreting and Applying Africa’s Expanded Refugee Definition, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2019, vol. 31, n. 2-3

Africa’s expanded refugee definition – article I(2) of the 1969 Convention – provides the legal basis of protection for a significant number of the world’s refugees. It is a gateway to a host of rights aimed at protecting refugees from future harm and preserving their dignity until a durable solution can be found. The expansive nature of the African definition has seen it praised for being more humanitarian, more reflective of current causes of displacement, and an exemplar for the development of refugee protection regimes elsewhere. Despite this, the scope of the definition and the meaning of its terms remain poorly understood in both literature and practice. Attempts to interpret the definition to date have been largely superficial and often lacking in any principled interpretative framework. This undermines its implementation in practice, potentially risking the lives and security of those entitled to protection as refugees in Africa. This article sets out a principled framework for interpreting and applying Africa’s expanded refugee definition. The framework is drawn from international law principles of treaty interpretation, as set out in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and customary international law. However, this article goes beyond merely reciting the relevant principles: it analyses their scope, applicability to Africa’s expanded refugee definition, and implications for the interpretation of the definition’s terms. It also identifies, and describes in detail, four key principles for interpreting the expanded refugee definition. These four key principles are critical to addressing the shortcomings of existing understandings of the definition and some of the main controversies that arise in its interpretation and application. They also provide a practical and accessible source of guidance for refugee status decision makers and others that could assist in promoting consistency, transparency, and fairness in refugee status determination within African States.

 

Post

Vitalba Azzolini, Accoglienza senza criteri. Il caos normativo in materia di accoglienza di richiedenti e titolari di protezione umanitaria, in rivistailmulino.it, 9 gennaio 2020

La continuità con il passato delle attuali politiche in tema di immigrazione è già stata rilevata sotto molteplici aspetti. Nei giorni scorsi ne ha fornito ulteriore dimostrazione una circolare dal Servizio Centrale Siproimi, istituito dal ministero dell’Interno, che ribadisce la prosecuzione di quanto disposto dal precedente governo in tema di accoglienza di richiedenti asilo e titolari di protezione umanitaria. Al riguardo, serve fare una premessa: in base al primo decreto Sicurezza (d.l. 113/2018 convertito in l. 132/2018), le citate categorie di stranieri non possono più essere ospitate negli ex Sprar, ora Siproimi – sistema di accoglienza finalizzato all’integrazione e alla formazione – in quanto tali centri sono oggi riservati esclusivamente a titolari di protezione internazionale e minori non accompagnati. La disciplina transitoria di tale decreto, peraltro, prevede che richiedenti asilo e titolari di protezione umanitaria possano rimanere nel Sistema di protezione “non oltre la scadenza del progetto di accoglienza” (art. 12, commi 5 e 6). I primi sono ora destinati a strutture di prima accoglienza (Cas), all’interno delle quali permangono fino alla definizione del loro status.

 

Harald Bauder, Urban Citizenship: A Path to Migrant Inclusion, in verfassungsblog.de, 23 gennaio 2020

If urban citizenship is emancipated from national citizenship, then all inhabitants of a municipality could be recognised as members of the local communities in which they live. Such emancipation would mitigate the tension between the de-facto political community and the categories imposed by the nation state that exclude people who lack national citizenship or resident status. This tension has recently erupted into open conflict between the Trump administration and New York, Chicago, and many other sanctuary cities in the USA. It can also be observed in solidarity cities like Berlin in Germany, cities of refuge like Barcelona in Spain, or the “Commune of Reception” (Comuna de Acogida) of Quilicura outside of Santiago de Chile.

 

David Scott FitzGerald, Remote Control of Asylum Seekers. How States Evade their Protection Obligation, in publicseminar.org, 17 dicembre 2019

Aristide Zolberg coined the term “remote border control” in 1997 to describe the system of issuing visas at consulates abroad and screening passengers at European ports of embarkation. These mechanisms devised in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries created for the first time a permanent means to select migrants from abroad before they could reach an intended destination like the United States. Scholars from neighboring disciplines and traditions have developed concepts similar to “remote control,” such as policies of “non-entrée,” shifting migration control “out” from state borders, “deterritorialized” control, and “externalization”.

 

Antonio Morone, Verso una guerra regionale?, in nigrizia.it, 3 gennaio 2020

C’è il rischio di uno scontro tra Turchia ed Egitto, a spese dei libici. La prima ha alzato l’asticella e deciso l’invio di truppe a sostegno del governo di al-Sarraj, il secondo è a fianco di Haftar e del suo Esercito nazionale libico. L’Unione europea è divisa e gli Usa sembrano voler stare alla finestra.

 

Michael Spencer, Immigration and Article 8: what did we learn in 2019?, in ukhumanrightsblog.com, 17 gennaio 2020

Another year passes, with another series of higher court cases on human rights in the immigration context. As in previous years, the courts in 2019 were particularly concerned with Theresa May’s attempts as Home Secretary to codify the Article 8 proportionality exercise into legislation. Those changes have had a significant impact on the approach of tribunals to appeals against deportation and removal on grounds of private and family life. Judges now have to apply a series of prescribed tests under the immigration rules, before going on to consider whether there are exceptional circumstances requiring a grant of leave.

 

Vladislava Stoyanova, The Grand Chamber Judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary: Immigration Detention and how the Ground beneath our Feet Continues to Erode, in strasbourgobservers.com, 23 dicembre 2019

The ECtHR has been for a long time criticized for its approach to immigration detention that diverts from the generally applicable principles to deprivation of liberty in other contexts. As Cathryn Costello has observed in her article Immigration Detention: The Ground beneath our Feet, a major weakness in the Court’s approach has been the failure to scrutinize the necessity of immigration detention under Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR. The Grand Chamber judgment in Ilias and Ahmed v Hungary delivered on 21 November 2019 has further eroded the protection extended to asylum-seekers under the Convention to the point that restrictions imposed upon asylum-seekers might not even be qualified as deprivation of liberty worthy of the protection of Article 5. The Grand Chamber overruled on this point the unanimously adopted Chamber judgment that found that the holding of asylum-seekers in the ‘transit zone’ between Hungary and Serbia actually amounts to deprivation of liberty.

 

Catherine Warin, Individual rights in EU migration and asylum law, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 6 gennaio 2020

Individual rights have been a key concept of EU law ever since the CJEU laid down its methodology for identifying such rights in Van Gend en Loos and Defrenne. These founding cases made clear that individual rights are correlatives of obligations laid down by EU law, and are triggered into existence by individual interests in the fulfilment of these obligations. Awareness of this relationship between rights, obligations and interests allows to think about rights in a flexible and coherent manner, which is essential in the increasingly complex field of EU migration law.

Libri

Matthew Scott, Climate Change, Disasters, and the Refugee Convention, Cambridge, 2020

Climate Change, Disasters and the Refugee Convention is concerned with refugee status determination (RSD) in the context of disasters and climate change. It demonstrates that the legal predicament of people who seek refugee status in this connection has been inconsistently addressed by judicial bodies in leading refugee law jurisdictions, and identifies epistemological as well as doctrinal impediments to a clear and principled application of international refugee law. Arguing that RSD cannot safely be performed without a clear understanding of the relationship between natural hazards and human agency, the book draws insights from disaster anthropology and political ecology that see discrimination as a contributory cause of people’s differential exposure and vulnerability to disaster-related harm. This theoretical framework, combined with insights derived from the review of existing doctrinal and judicial approaches, prompts a critical revision of the dominant human rights-based approach to the refugee definition.

 

 

Giovanni Carlo Bruno Fulvio Maria Palombino, Adriana Di Stefano (ed.), Migration Issues before International Courts and Tribunals, Roma, 2019

The volume is intended to analyze in detail the case law of international Courts and Tribunals on questions connected to migration and to migrants and to explore their contribution to the application and the development of legal rules on human migration. Its main goals include the dissemination of the relevant judicial practice; the investigation of the possibility for a wider application of international rules and standards on migration issues; the assessment of the extent to which international judges have played or could play a law-making role in the field of international migration law.

 

Articoli

 

Alessandro Zampone, Il c.d. «decreto sicurezza-bis»: profili di diritto della navigazione, in Diritto pubblico, 2019, n. 3

The first two articles of the d. lg. 14 June 2019 n. 53, converted with modifications with l. 8 August 2019 n. 77, c.d. «decreto sicurezza-bis», establish new provisions regarding the entry, transit or stop of ships in the territorial sea. These provisions, which became part of d. lg. 25th July 1998 n. 286 (Immigration Consolidated Law), introduce new enforcement powers by the Minister of the Interior directly affecting the masters of the ships and the shipowners. Therefore, questions arise concerning aspects of Navigation Law that this essay tries to highlight. Firstly, the exercise of the new functions on vessel traffic attributed to the Minister of the Interior by the new paragraph 1 ter of the art. 11 t.u.i. raises the issue of the compatibility with the art. 83 c. nav. and with the responsibilities of waterway police that the navigation code reserves to the Ministry of infrastructure and transport and to the Maritime Authority. Moreover, it emerges a troublesome relationship between the prohibitions on the masters of the ships as a consequence of the application of the new paragraph 1 ter of the art. 11 t.u.i. and the rules of international law of the sea. These, in fact, on the one hand, impose the masters of the ships to rescue people in distress at sea and to lead them to a safe place (and the States to make sure that this duty is effectively observed); on the other hand, these rules expressly establish as innocent the passage in the territorial water of the ship that intends to stop and anchor in the territorial sea in the event that this is functional to rescue operations (art. 18, par 2 of the UNCLOS).

 

Aldo Travi, Le nuove leggi sui migranti e l’”altro” diritto, in Diritto pubblico, 2019, n. 3

The author claims that the new immigration provisions recently introduced in Italy with the two security bills have confirmed the trend to reduce the fundamental rights of migrant people and to affirm a different right for them than that more general established for European citizens. The target is also to attribute a different value to constitutional principles when they are applied towards migrants, with relevant effects with respect to administrative law, whose principles are distorted.

 

Paolo Bonetti, L’insostenibilità costituzionale delle recenti norme sugli stranieri. I limiti all’ingresso e al soggiorno che violano i diritti fondamentali e il sistema delle fonti del diritto non assicurano sicurezza, né alcuna disciplina efficace dell’immigrazione, in Diritto pubblico, 2019, n. 3

The paper explains why the latest Italian provisions on foreigners are unconstitutional. The new entry and residence restrictions violate both fundamental rights and the system of law sources; on the other hand, they fail in guaranteeing security as well as in providing effective rules for immigration. Firstly, constitutional, international and European guarantees on the legal status of foreigners seem to be intrinsically weak in the short term. On one hand, excluding foreigners from the electorate stresses the democratic principle and may endanger also the personalist principle; that could foster the adoption of rules which restrict those guarantees, just aiming to reassure those voters who perceive immigration as a treat to their own security. On the other hand, according to the Constitutional Court security itself is a value that the legislator must take into account in regulating immigration outside the field of fundamental rights of foreigners, albeit with many limits, and such legislator’s choices on entry and residence must respect the only limit of not being manifestly unreasonable. However, the very meaning of the Law is at stake when unlawful, inconsistent or ineffective rules, adopted by an unconstitutional or exceptional use of certain sources of law, follow one another: those rules aim to regulate migration, even if migration is an ordinary phenomenon with objective characteristics that must be taken in account by lawmakers and that aren’t avoidable even if border controls and the right of asylum are both outsourced. The paper focuses on the inability of European countries to adopt in EU a common and effective regulation of migration: in the absence of such common regulation, each country responds with the illusion of restore his borders and his full sovereignty, to the extent of barring his ports, disposing refusals of entry and even at the point that Parliament legitimate illegal physical oppression of personal freedom made by government authorities. Another problem is the practice of avoiding parliamentary control on foreign policy regarding agreements on migration, including those with Libyan authorities. The paper also recalls that the recent repeal of the permit for humanitarian reasons isn’t retroactive and doesn’t erase in any way the need to guarantee full protection to the right of asylum on the basis of constitutional and international obligations. After recalling other recently introduced legislations which aim at narrowing further fundamental rights, it’s pointed out that it’s necessary to respect the Constitution again in order to shape a rational and forward-looking regulation of both immigration and the right of asylum.

 

Gaetano Azzariti, I problemi di costituzionalità dei decreti sicurezza e gli interventi del Presidente della Repubblica, in Diritto pubblico, 2019, n. 3

In this article the author analyses the more problematic aspects of the last two decrees on migration and security (decree law no. 113/2018; decree law no. 53/2019), in particular focusing on the statements of the President of the Italian Republic. The author underlines the problematic implications related to human rights and the fundamental principles of the Italian Constitution.

 

Riccardo Luporini, Liability for Crimes Against Humanity in the Offshore Detention of Asylum Seekers: Some Thoughts Regarding the So-called ‘Australian Model’ of Refugee Policy, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2019, n. 3

In February 2017 a group of legal experts gathered by the International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic of the Stanford Law School and the Global Action Network submitted a Communi-qué with the aim of urging the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an investigation into the possible perpetration of crimes against humanity in the de-tention of asylum seekers in Nauru and Manus Island. The living conditions in these offshore detention centres, whose management is entrusted to private companies, are extensively reported as inhumane. Along with raising an issue of State and corporate responsibility for the alleged infringement of a series of basic human rights recognised and protected by international human rights law, this case may pro-vide a legal and factual basis for the potential individual liability of government and corporate officials. After an illustration of the basic facts concerning Australian refugee policy and the offshore detention of asylum seekers, the article examines the Communiqué to the OTP, focusing on the alleged offences, the attribution of individual liability, and the jurisdiction of the ICC. Considering that a series of situ-ations – especially at the borders of Europe – is already revealing a striking similarity, the ultimate aim of the article is to shed light on the possible repercussions that may ensue from the emulation of the so-called ‘Australian model’ of refugee policy, not least at an individual level.

 

Andrea De Petris, Pursuing Public Insicurity? The New Italian Decree on “Immigration and Security”, in The Review of European Affairs, 2019, vol. 3, n. 1

In December 2018, the Italian Parliament definitely confirmed the so-called “Immigration and Security” Decree, which deeply reformed the regulation of Migration and Integration. The present work aims at summarizing the innovations introduced by the new Decree and confront them with the critical remarks and concerns of legal scholars and asylum experts, stressing its conceivable risks of unconstitutionality. Final goal of the article is to challenge what the real aim of the new Decree is: if it ends up increasing precarious and instable living conditions for migrants on Italian soil and therefore threatening social security, rather than improving public safety and protection for citizens and legal residents.

 

Vasile Cucerescu, The Eastern Borders of the European Union in the Field of Migration, in The Review of European Affairs, 2019, vol. 3, n. 1

The paper explores the characteristics and the significance of the European Union’s eastern border in regular and irregular migration processes considering that migration is on the top of the European Union’s agenda as well as of the United Nations. It focuses on problematic and positive aspects of migration issues at the eastern border of the European Union. The investigation pays attention to European acts on migration policy and law, eastern border countries and neighbours of the European Union; it analyses dimensions of the European Union’s eastern border, migration challenges of the eastern border route, enhancement of migration management at the eastern border through the use of diverse instruments such as the European neighbourhood policy, the Eastern Partnership, the European Union–Russia relations, the Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign and Security Policy and the Eastern Borders’ Risk Analysis Network. Migration at the eastern border of the European Union is also marked by the concepts of “Schlechtegranzen” and “Rechtegrenzen”. The results and conclusions point out relevant issues that are peculiar to the eastern border of the European Union in terms of migration challenges and migration management.

 

Edina Lilla Mészáros, The Role of Romania in the Current European Union Refugee Crisis: is the Country Able to Integrate Asylum Seekers?, in The Review of European Affairs, 2019, vol. 3, n. 1

This research examines the role Romania played in the current refugee/migration crisis, and the measures that it has taken in order to integrate the incoming refugees. Quantitative analysis was used in order to reveal the perceptions of the citizens towards the third country nationals at the beginning and after the refugee crisis. We argue that Romania represents a paradox, as it is mostly a country of emigrants with millions of Romanian citizens living, studying or working abroad in other EU/non-EU states. Thus, the question is, will Romania be able to handle the increased number of asylum claims from third country nationals and their subsequent accommodation and integration, if it cannot stop its own citizens from going abroad and making a living there?

 

Alina Șorlei, The European Union–Turkey Statement on Refugees: a Deal on the Verge of Collapse?, in The Review of European Affairs, 2019, vol. 3, n. 1

The Syrian War has brought about one of the greatest refugee crises of our time. Turkey represents a country that many refugees pass through in order to reach Europe, where supposedly they can find a better life. In order to be able to cope with the thousands of refugees that cross the Turkish border, the EU and Turkey have agreed on the “EU–Turkey Statement on Refugees” that was implemented in order to lower the number of irregular migrants coming from the Middle Orient, as well as to reduce migrant deaths, smuggling and human rights violations. The purpose of the article is to shed light on the main reasons why Turkey lacks commitment to the Statement. The article is composed of four parts. The first section elaborates on the deal itself, the conditions of the statement and the action points that were established. The following part outlines the opinions of the countries involved and the perspectives of the refugees on the EU–Turkey Statement. The third section contains a quantitative analysis in order to evaluate the efficiency of the deal, while the last section focuses on the influences of the Turkish coup d’état on the deal and the reasons for Turkey’s lack of commitment to the Statement. The findings show that for the deal to be functional both parties have to prove commitment; in the case of Turkey, financial reasons, visa-free travel and reopening EU accession talks seem to be the key factors necessary for proper commitment.

 

Gabriella Carella, Inapplicabilità del regolamento Dublino III a talune fattispecie di migrazioni irregolari nel Mediterraneo, in Studi sull’integrazione europea, 2020, n. 1

 

Post

Giuseppe Campesi, L’approccio hotspot e il prezzo della coercizione, in rivistailmulino.it, 14 febbraio 2020

Nella quasi totale indifferenza della stampa nazionale, le migliaia di migranti confinati sull’isola di Lesbo hanno inscenato violente proteste per denunciare le pessime condizioni di accoglienza e la situazione di protratto confinamento sull’isola che sono costretti a subire a causa delle politiche adottate dal governo greco, in attuazione del cosiddetto «approccio hotspot».Nell’agenda europea sulle migrazioni, l’approccio hotspot è descritto come una delle azioni immediate a supporto di Grecia e Italia per «identificare, registrare e foto-segnalare rapidamente i migranti in ingresso». Stando alla descrizione offerta dalla Commissione, si tratta di una misura di supporto operativo attivata per aiutare i Paesi frontalieri che affrontano una «pressione migratoria sproporzionata» nello svolgere le procedure amministrative che seguono l’arrivo dei migranti via mare.

 

Stefano Gallo, Abrogazione della legge 1092/1939 contro l’urbanesimo, in rivistailmulino.it, 10 febbraio 2020

Il 10 febbraio 1961 venne abrogata una legge del 1939 intitolata “Provvedimenti contro l’urbanesimo” di contrasto all’immigrazione urbana. Con questa norma il fascismo aveva costruito intorno alle città italiane tante barriere burocratiche contro gli immigrati, ovviamente italiani: chi voleva iscriversi all’anagrafe municipale venendo da fuori – dalle campagne o da altre città – doveva dimostrare di avere un lavoro; per avere un lavoro era necessario registrarsi all’ufficio di collocamento, ma l’iscrizione era riservata ai soli residenti. I vantaggi che rispetto alle campagne potevano dare i contesti urbani (lavoro, servizi, sussidi) dovevano rimanere esclusivamente nelle mani degli abitanti “storici”, di chi vantava un maggior tempo di permanenza e quindi una certificazione nei registri di popolazione: sotto Mussolini non esistevano ancora gli slogan “Roma ai romani” o “Verona ai veronesi”, ma il criterio della restrizione dei diritti ai soli residenti e delle porte chiuse verso gli estranei – italianissimi – era stato tradotto in una normativa molto stringente.

 

Hein de Haas, Why development will not stop migration, in heindehaas.blogspot.com, 7 febbraio 2020

Among the many myths perpetuated about migration, one of the most common is that ‘South–North’ migration is essentially driven by poverty and underdevelopment. Consequently, it is often argued that stimulating economic development would reduce migration from developing countries to North America and Europe. However, this ignores evidence that most migration neither occurs from the poorest countries nor from the poorest segments of the population.

 

Hein de Haas, Climate refugees: The fabrication of a migration threat, in heindehaas.blogspot.com, 31 gennaio 2020

In recent years, it has become popular to argue that climate change will lead to massive North-South movements of ‘climate refugees’. Concerns about climate change-induced migration have emerged in the context of debates on global warming. Without any doubt, global warming is one of the most pressing issues facing humanity, and the lack of willingness of states and the international community to address it effectively – particularly through reducing of carbon emissions – is a valid source of major public concern and global protest.

 

Jefferi Hamzah Sendut, Climate Change as a Trigger of Non-Refoulement Obligations Under International Human Rights Law, in EJIL:Talk!, 6 febbraio 2020

The recently published decision of the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) pursuant to Individual Communication No. 2728/2016 (Teitiota v New Zealand) offers an insight into how the international legal system is coming to address climate change displacement. Teitiota is significant for its recognition that climate change impacts affecting migrants in their State of origin can trigger obligations of non-refoulement binding on the States they enter. The HRC expounded on the effect of climate change on migrants’ right to life under Article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and provided guidance on how the applicable test of a ‘real risk of irreparable harm’ is to be deployed in this novel context.

 

Catharina Ziebritzki, Refugee Camps at EU External Borders, the Question of the Union’s Responsibility, and the Potential of EU Public Liability Law, in verfassungsblog.de, 5 febbraio 2020

‘The EU hotspot approach as implemented in Greece is the single most worrying fundamental rights issue that we are confronting anywhere in the European Union’. This quote by the head of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) might sound drastic. Yet, it is not far-fetched. EU bodies, national institutions, international organisations including the Council of Europe, and NGOs, have, during the past four years, continuously documented that the asylum processing centres at the EU external borders lead to fundamental rights violations on a daily basis. The EU hotspot administration indeed jeopardises the respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law as enshrined in Article 2 TEU.

 

Carolyn Moser, A Very Short Introduction to Frontex— Unravelling the Trajectory of one of the EU’s Key Actors, in verfassungsblog.de, 3 febbraio 2020

We have gotten used to a European Union without borders—without internal borders. The memory of long waiting queues and passport controls at border crossing points is fading while we enjoy freely moving around between European nations. For a continent plagued for centuries by bloody wars over territory and boundaries, this is a remarkable development. The gradual abolition of checks at internal borders in Europe was an incremental process that started in the 1990s with the creation of the Schengen area. In 1997, the Treaty of Amsterdam incorporated the Schengen acquis into the EU framework. And ten years later, in 2007, the Lisbon Treaty elevated the existence of the area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers to one of the core aims of the Union (Article 3(2) TEU).

 

Samuel Hartwig, Quo Vadis Frontex: Crossing the Fine Line Between Prevention and Repression?, in verfassungsblog.de, 4 febbraio 2020

For many years, Frontex and border control were of little interest to the wider European public. This changed in the wake of the so-called ‘migrant crisis’ as the agency and its various activities were thrust into the limelight due to a steady stream of allegations of misconduct. What has so far received only limited attention, though, is an underlying change of direction as the agency increasingly moves from a preventive mindset to a more repressive one. This progressive slide from a mandate focussed on coordination and prevention to a far more robust mandate including executive functions following a repressive logic will constitute the core of this blogpost.

 

Elisabeth Badenhoop, Contextualising Frontex: A Long-Term Perspective on Database Monitoring of Migrants, in verfassungsblog.de, 4 febbraio 2020

Population monitoring through data collection has increased and become part of the everyday life in Western liberal states since the 1980s and 1990s. Whether we make a phone call, a bank transfer, log in to work, or visit the hospital, a variety of state and non-state actors gather and process our information to enable and constrain access to various goods. In what has been convincingly described as a ‘surveillance society’, migrants, especially non-EU citizens, are under particularly close scrutiny in Europe. In this light, the most recent reform that again expanded mandate of Frontex in the area of data analysis and exchange is perhaps not surprising. However, for the agency to carry out these new tasks of monitoring migratory flows and performing risk analyses, Frontex requires extensive, reliable data supply. This, in turn, revives the question of the role of databases in the monitoring of migration.

 

Florin Coman-Kund, The Territorial Expansion of Frontex Operations to Third Countries: On the Recently Concluded Status Agreements in the Western Balkans and Beyond…, in verfassungsblog.de, 6 febbraio 2020

Since its inception, Frontex has been at the forefront of the Union’s policy in the field of external border management. In the wake of the 2015 ‘migratory crisis’, Frontex underwent a swift and unprecedented upgrade of its powers, resources, and capacities. The 2016 and 2019 mandate revisions arguably mark a ‘quantum leap’ gradually transforming Frontex into a more integrated and hierarchical administrative body. One of the most spectacular developments introduced by the recent reforms concerns the territorial extension of the agency’s operations. Henceforth, Frontex is mandated to carry out operational activities, including executive powers, in third countries. This blog post first sketches out the agency’s successive mandate expansions allowing for a broader geographic theatre of operations. It then examines the law currently governing the extraterritorial activities of Frontex, in particular the recently concluded status agreements with Western Balkan countries.

 

Carolyn Moser, Rabia Ferahkaya, Lukas Märtin, Frontex goes Africa: On Pre-emptive Border Control and Migration Management, in verfassungsblog.de, 6 febbraio 2020

Where does the European polity end? This fundamental question has kept generations of European thinkers busy. Defining who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ is indeed a tricky issue. Next to a multitude of political, legal, and also cultural factors, context matters a lot when (re)drawing European boundaries. The significant migratory increase Europe experienced in 2015 propelled the protection of the EU’s external borders to the top of the political agenda. Consequently, Frontex—the Union’s agency in charge of external border control—experienced an important upgrade in terms of competences and capabilities. The logic underpinning this move was that more power and resources would help to improve the control and management of the EU’s external borders in relation to migratory pressures, transboundary criminality, and other security threats.

 

Constantin Hruschka, Frontex and the Duty to Respect and Protect Human Rights, in verfassungsblog.de, 7 febbraio 2020

The discussion on human rights obligations and potential human rights violations has been part of the history of Frontex ever since the agency´s foundation in 2004. Yet, the focus of the human rights discourse on Frontex is on the protection against human rights violations ‘committed by Frontex’. Much less attention, though, is paid to the duty of Frontex to respect and protect human rights in its operations. The call for streamlining fundamental rights protection into all Frontex operations is, obviously, less likely to gain public attention than a law suit against an EU agency. Mindful of this important gap in the current human rights debate surrounding Frontex, this blogpost will look at both levels of human rights protection and suggest a way forward in light of the agency’s extended tasks and competencies.

 

Ruben Wissing, Push backs of “badly behaving” migrants at Spanish border are not collective expulsions (but might still be illegal refoulements), in strasbourgobservers.com, 25 febbraio 2019

On 13 February, the Grand Chamber rendered a long awaited judgment, meandering over more than one hundred pages, in the N.D. and N.T case on the push-back practices against migrants at the Moroccan-Spanish border fence surrounding the city of Melilla – the so-called devoluciones en caliente or ‘hot returns’ by the Spanish border police. The Court did not qualify them as collective expulsions, thus acquitting Spain of having violated Art. 4 of Protocol No. 4. However, the specific circumstances of the case, as well as the absence of an examination of the principle of non-refoulement, have been ultimately decisive for the outcome of this case, thus restricting the extent to which the Court’s findings can be generalised to similar practices at the EU external borders.

 

Anna Lübbe, The Elephant in the Room. Effective Guarantee of Non-Refoulement after ECtHR N.D. and N.T.?, in verfassungsblog.de, 19 febbraio 2020

The ECtHR’s Grand Chamber judgement N.D. and N.T. v. Spain may be perceived as a referral of two migrants from illegal to legal pathways of entry, two migrants who were not in need of protection. Those celebrating the judgement for this outcome miss its unsettling implications for the effective guarantee of the principle of non-refoulement. There has been a basic legal consensus (e.g. M.S.S., Hirsi, Sharifi, Gnandi) that states, in order to comply with their duty not to bring deportation candidates into an inhuman or degrading situation, must give the opportunity to apply for protection and must assess an alleged risk before deportation. Art. 3 of the Convention is an absolute right and has to be guaranteed, as the Court stresses (para 171), in a practically effective manner. As per Art. 13 of the Convention an (at least preliminary) legal protection mechanism must be available and, if requested, be completed before removal. Otherwise protection may come too late, or rather will fail all together, because those removed are usually unable to actuate a complaint from abroad, especially when trapped in an inhuman situation. In short: Under returns without the above provisos (“hot returns”) Art. 3 of the Convention is not guaranteed in a practically effective manner.

 

Carlos Oviedo Moreno, A Painful Slap from the ECtHR and an Urgent Opportunity for Spain, in verfassungsblog.de, 14 febbraio 2020

“[…] the Court considers that it was in fact the applicants who placed themselves in jeopardy by participating in the storming of the Melilla border fences […]”.This is the conclusion of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) in its judgement published on 13th February in the case N.D and N.T v. Spain. The Grand Chamber shockingly endorses a practice which opposes the core principles of International Law and the protection of fundamental rights. This decision repeals a previous ECtHR judgement of 2017 which had condemned push-backs and which Spain had asked to be referred to the Grand Chamber. But all hope is not lost: The Spanish Constitutional Court will rule on the “rejections at the border” provision in the near future and has the chance to uphold Spain’s international legal obligations.

 

Maximilian Pichl, Dana Schmalz, “Unlawful” may not mean rightless. The shocking ECtHR Grand Chamber judgment in case N.D. and N.T., in verfassungsblog.de, 14 febbraio 2020

Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is short. Its title reads “Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens”, its text reads: “Collective expulsion of aliens is prohibited.” It comes as a historical disappointment that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in its decision in the case N.D. and N.T. v. Spain from 13 February 2020 distorts this clear guarantee to exclude apparently “unlawful” migrants from its protection. The decision is a shock for the effective protection of rights in Europe and at its external borders. Consequently the Guardian titled that the Court is “under fire“. Reading the majority opinion is at times a puzzling experience, to say the least.

 

Gaia Lott, Solidarity and Dublin I: a missed opportunity, in EUIdeas, 18 febbraio 2020

On 15 June 1990, eleven of the twelve Member States of the European Community signed the Dublin Convention, the first binding agreement on asylum between European governments (the twelfth, Denmark, signed it one year later). Dublin defined the criteria that determines responsibility for the examination of asylum applications. It put down in black and white, for the first-time, ideas and principles that are still at the core of the system for allocating asylum seekers in Europe. On the eve of the 30th anniversary of the Convention, the debate about the system is still open. Conditions have changed, however, with several countries facing crisis situations and demands for greater solidarity among member states ever more urgent.

 

Daniel Thym, A Restrictionist Revolution? A Counter-Intuitive Reading of the ECtHR’s N.D. & N.T.-Judgment on ‘Hot Expulsions’, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 17 febbraio 2020

In times of twitter and social media, we get used to quick reactions and clear-cut opinions that lend themselves to intuitive approval or rejection. Not surprisingly, the immediate response to the Grand Chamber’s N.D. & N.T. judgment rectifying the Spanish policy of ‘hot expulsions’ of irregular migrants was met with ‘shock’ – a ‘slap in the face’ of human rights law that “refutes the raison d’être” of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These first analyses are correct insofar as they express the utter disappointment of the authors at the immediate outcome of the case and the initial conclusion that judges backtracked from an earlier dynamic interpretation of the prohibition of collective expulsion.

 

Jessica Schultz, The end of protection? Cessation and the ‘return turn’ in refugee law, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 31 gennaio 2020

With increasing enthusiasm, European states are reviving the Refugee Convention’s cessation provisions in service of their return-oriented refugee policies. This practice threatens the careful balance established by refugee law between the security of refugee status, on the one hand, and its impermanence on the other. This post reviews the legal requirements for cessation of refugee status as well as how the focus on return distorts their application. Through the lens of Norwegian practice, it is possible to see how reliance on an internal protection alternative (IPA) and non-state actors of protection dilute the requirement of durable protection, especially for women and children.

 

Matteo Villa, Migrazioni in Italia: tutti i numeri, in Ispionline.it, 31 gennaio 2020

In questa pagina raccogliamo una serie di grafici commentati, aggiornati periodicamente, che permettono di fare il punto sulla situazione delle migrazioni in Italia. Dalle richieste d’asilo all’accoglienza, dal numero stimato di stranieri irregolari presenti ai rimpatri.

Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza,

Fascicolo n. 1, marzo 2020

 

Editoriale

William Chiaromonte, A un anno dai decreti sicurezza: eppur (qualcosa) si muove?

 

Saggi

Tecla Mazzarese, Diritto di migrare e diritti dei migranti. Una sfida al costituzionalismo (inter)nazionale ancora da superare

Irini Papanicolopulu e Giulia Baj, Controllo delle frontiere statali e respingimenti nel diritto internazionale e nel diritto del mare

Alberto Pasquero, La comunicazione alla Corte Penale Internazionale sulle responsabilità dei leader europei per crimini contro l’umanità commessi nel Mediterraneo e in Libia. Una lettura critica

Alessandra Lang, La conservazione dei diritti di soggiorno in tempo di Brexit

Michela Castiglione, L’interesse superiore del minore al ricongiungimento familiare tra sovranità statale e regolamento Dublino III

Simona D’Antonio, L’accesso degli stranieri al lavoro nelle pubbliche amministrazioni

 

Commenti

Giandonato Caggiano, L’interoperabilità fra le banche-dati dell’Unione sui cittadini degli Stati terzi

Carol Ruggiero, Dalla criminalizzazione alla giustificazione delle attività di ricerca e soccorso in mare. Le tendenze interpretative più recenti alla luce dei casi Vos Thalassa e Racket

Giulia Mentasti, Campi di detenzione per migranti in Libia: il caso Matammud. Nota a sentenza Corte ass. app. Milano, Sezione I, n. 9/2019, ud. 20.03.2019

 

Accedi all’intero fascicolo

 

 

Libri

Mariagiulia Giuffrè, The Readmission of Asylum Seekers under International Law, Hart Publishing, 2020

This monograph could not be more timely, as discourses relating to refugees’ access to territory, rescue at sea, push-back, and push-back by proxy dominate political debate. Looking at the questions which lie at the junction of migration control and refugee law standards, it explores the extent to which readmission can hamper refugees’ access to protection. Though it draws mainly on European law, notably the European Convention on Human Rights, it also examines other international frameworks, including those employed by the United Nations and instruments such as the Refugee Convention. Therefore, this book is of importance to readers of international law, refugee law, human rights and migration studies at the global level. It offers an analysis of both the legal and policy questions at play, and engages fully with widely-disputed cases concerning readmission agreements, deportation with assurances and interception at sea. By so doing, this book seeks to clarify a complex field which has at times suffered from partiality in both its terminology and substance.

 

Víctor Luis Gutiérrez Castillo, Lina Pannella (et al.), Controllo e gestione dei flussi migratori nell’Europa del Sud. Studio comparato dell’esperienza spagnola e italiana, Supplemento 1/2020 – Ordine internazionale e diritti umani

Il volume è diviso in tre parti. Nella prima viene affrontato il problema dei controlli dei flussi migratori sia dal punto di vista del diritto internazionale che dal punto di vista del diritto interno italiano e spagnolo, mettendone in evidenza gli aspetti positivi, ma anche le carenze soprattutto dal punto di vista della protezione dei diritti umani. La seconda sessione è, invece, dedicata alla gestione della migrazione nei Paesi del Sud Europa ed agli strumenti che la Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea e la Corte europea di diritti dell’uomo da un lato, e le amministrazioni statali dall’altro hanno adottato in tale materia. Infine, nell’ultima parte, dal titolo “Immigrazione irregolare e criminalità organizzata. L’espulsione dei migranti irregolari”, il fenomeno migratorio viene studiato dal punto di vista del diritto penale, evidenziando come molto spesso il migrante venga considerato, anche dalle normative interne, il “nemico” da emarginare ed escludere, senza alcun riguardo per la tutela dei diritti fondamentali che gli spettano in quanto persona.

 

Justine N. Stefanelli, Judicial Review of Immigration Detention in the UK, US and EU. From Principles to Practice, Hart Publishing, 2020

Immigration detention is considered by many states to be a necessary tool in the execution of immigration policy. Despite the apparently key role it plays in immigration enforcement, the law on immigration detention is often vague, especially in relation to determining the circumstances under which prolonged detention remains lawful. As a result, the courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate these matters, with scant legal tools at their disposal. Though there have been some significant judgments on the legality of detention at the constitutional level, the extent to which these judgments have had an impact at the lower end of the judiciary is unclear. Indeed, it is the lower courts which are tasked with judging the legality of detention through habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings. This book examines the way this has occurred in the lower courts of two jurisdictions, the UK and the US, and contrasts this practice not only in those jurisdictions, but with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, a constitutional court at the other end of the judicial spectrum whose judgments are applied by courts and tribunals in the EU Member States. Although these three jurisdictions use similar tests to evaluate the legality of detention, case outcomes significantly differ. Many factors contribute to this divergence, but key among them is the role that fundamental rights protection plays in each jurisdiction. Through a forensic evaluation of 191 judgments, this book compares the laws on detention in the UK, US and EU, and makes recommendations to these jurisdictions for improvement.

 

Articoli

Hartmut Aden, Interoperability Between EU Policing and Migration Databases: Risks for Privacy, in European Public Law, 2020, vol. 26, n. 1

The interoperability initiative passed in May 2019 as Regulations (EU) 2019/817 and 818 seeks new strategies for identifying dangerous individuals who use false or multiple identities. The EU’s databases in the Area of Freedom Security and Justice (AFSJ) for policing and migration purposes will be interconnected. This constitutes a paradigm shift for purpose limitation as a core element of data protection. This article identifies regulatory patterns and shortcomings in the technical and legal data protection arrangements of the interoperability regulations. The legal framework for data protection in the EU has developed considerably with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) 2016/679 and with Directive 2016/680 for policing and criminal justice. The European Data Protection Board, a multilevel accountability forum in which European and national data protection authorities cooperate has been established. From a trans-disciplinary legal, public administration, and public policy perspective, this article analyses the regulatory patterns and institutional settings established for the upcoming interoperability of databases for policing and migration.

 

Ruth Brittle and Ellen Desmet, Thirty Years of Research on Children’s Rights in the Context of Migration. Towards Increased Visibility and Recognition of Some Children, But Not All?, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 2020, vol. 28, n. 1

This article presents a tentative analysis of 30 years of academic research in the field of children’s rights and migration (1989–2019). Much research has addressed the plight of unaccompanied, refugee and asylum-seeking children, trying better to link children’s rights considerations with international refugee law. Many publications address the best interests of the child principle and the right to be heard. Most research focuses on (migration towards) Europe. This has led to an increased visibility and recognition of children’s rights in the context of migration. However, there are still various blind spots in the research reviewed. Most research focuses on some children, but not all (e.g., accompanied children), on some rights, but not all (e.g., economic, social and cultural rights), and on some types of migration, but not all (e.g., economic migration). Moreover, refugee and migrant children tend to be studied as a group, which risks reducing attention for their internal diversity.

 

Evelien Brouwer, Large-Scale Databases and Interoperability in Migration and Border Policies: The Non- Discriminatory Approach of Data Protection, in European Public Law, 2020, vol. 26, n. 1

In the EU, different measures have been adopted with regard to the storage and exchange of personal data of third-country nationals for external border controls. Large-scale databases and risk assessment are used to facilitate the entry of those considered as ‘bona fide travelers’ and to identify those considered as a risk of irregular migration or security threat. The purposes of existing databases have been gradually extended, blurring the line between the objectives of immigration control and security and law enforcement. Emphasizing the non-discriminatory approach of data protection and applying criteria from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), this contribution questions the legitimacy of these measures from the perspective of the principles of necessity and proportionality.

 

Nicola Canzian, La non retroattività dell’abrogazione della protezione umanitaria, in Osservatorio AIC, 2020, n. 2

Decree Law n. 113/2018 repealed the permit for humanitarian reasons, intending to lower the protection provided to foreigners. The paper focuses on the intertemporal law profiles: the new law does not provide transitional rules governing all the previous pending cases. Therefore, Courts had to rule if the new regulation is or is not retroactive. Finally, the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court of Cassation ruled that the humanitarian protection is a fundamental human right; therefore, the repeal does not affect the rights already acquired by foreigners.

 

Omar Caramaschi, La dimensione regionale del fenomeno immigratorio tra interventi normativi, riparto di competenze e giurisprudenza costituzionale, in federalismi.it, 2020, n. 5

La sentenza n. 194 del 2018 – con cui la Corte costituzionale si occupa del c.d. “Decreto sicurezza” – consente di tornare a ragionare circa le competenze regionali in tema di immigrazione. Dopo un breve inquadramento delle materie coinvolte ex art. 117, secondo comma, Cost., viene affrontata, nell’ambito del fenomeno migratorio, la questione del riparto delle competenze tra Stato e Regioni, in particolare alla luce della giurisprudenza costituzionale. Nel solco di quest’ultima, la Corte arriva, in quest’ultima decisione, ad ampliare la “ridondanza” e gli ambiti di ricorso regionali, nonché, in modo particolare, a riconfermare il ruolo delle Regioni nell’ambito dell’immigrazione e della tutela dei diritti fondamentali. Pertanto viene ribadita la possibilità per le Regioni di occuparsi delle politiche sociali di inclusione e integrazione, potendo esse prevedere forme di assistenza in favore dei cittadini stranieri immigrati presenti sul territorio regionale, anche non (o non ancora) dotati di un regolare permesso di soggiorno. In conclusione, tale riaffermazione giurisprudenziale apre la possibilità di una più ampia ottimizzazione di tali ambiti di intervento regionale, la quale potrebbe essere perseguita sia attraverso l’attivazione di taluni dei meccanismi di coordinamento tra Stato e Regioni ex art. 118, terzo comma, Cost., sia – potenzialmente – attraverso una possibile declinazione del riconoscimento di «ulteriori forme e condizioni particolari di autonomia» di cui all’art. 116, terzo comma, Cost.

 

Gabriella Carella, Inapplicabilità del regolamento Dublino III a talune fattispecie di migrazioni irregolari nel Mediterraneo, in Studi sull’integrazione europea, 2020, n. 1

 

Laura Cleton, Reinhard Schweitzer, Using or Inducing Return Aspirations? On the role of return counsellors in the implementation of ‘assisted voluntary return’ policies in Austria and the Netherlands, in IMI Working Papers, 2020, vol. 162

In this paper, we investigate how state and non-state provides of return counselling try to influence aspirations for return among (rejected) asylum seekers. Existing literature has highlighted both the importance and malleability of migration aspirations in a wide range of migratory trajectories. Yet, it paid little attention to the situation of people who at some stage of their asylum procedure are confronted with the prospect of eventually having to return to their country of citizenship. This confrontation is institutionalised in the form of state or NGOled ‘return counselling’, which helps the returning state to uphold the fine line between forced and allegedly ‘voluntary’ returns. Building on Carling’s aspirations/ability model and using qualitative data from Austria and the Netherlands, we identify three ways in which return counsellors try to obtain the departure of (rejected) asylum seekers. Firstly, by identifying existing aspirations among potential returnees who for personal reasons decided to return but lack the ability to do so. Secondly, by merely obtaining informed consent to return ‘voluntarily’ in the absence of aspirations to return. And thirdly, by actively inducing the wish to return with the aim of aligning migrants’ own aspirations with the requirements of restrictive migration law. We argue that this distinction is important to better understand the critical role and everyday workings of ‘migration aspirations management’ (Carling and Collins 2018) within contemporary migration governance in Europe.

 

Gareth Davis, How Citizenship Divides: The New Legal Class of Transnational Europeans, in European Papers, in European Papers, 2019, n. 3

Union Citizenship is intended to bring Europeans together. This Article explores one of the ways in which it may divide them. It argues that Union Citizenship creates a new transnational class, and gives the members of that class a legal status with the following characteristics: they are legally separate, or differentiated, from other Europeans; they are privileged, and they are threatening, in the sense that their rights have the potential to disrupt or undermine institutions and laws in a way that is disadvantageous to non-members of that class, or at least likely to seem so. The members of that class share certain qualities: they are economically self-sufficient, they live lives in which their families or work or study are cross-border, and they are only partially allowed to share in the solidarity of static national majorities. On the other hand, their link with the EU is legally direct and important, and they often have more in common with each other than with locals: they form a European community. They could be described as economically successful, partially uprooted, truly European, cosmopolitan outsiders. It is almost as if EU law has set out to create a class whose role in Europe is an echo of that fulfilled by the Jews that the continent lost.

 

Iris Goldner Lang, No Solidarity without Loyalty: Why Do Member States Violate EU Migration and Asylum Law and What Can Be Done?, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 1

The aim of this paper is twofold. First, it will display an ever-increasing phenomenon of Member States’ infringements of EU migration and asylum law as an instance of the violation of the principle of solidarity and discuss the reasons behind it. It will be suggested that EU inter-state solidarity is just as much about respecting EU law, as it is about helping each other, as the latter cannot subsist without the former. Second, the paper will consider whether the existing mechanisms of reducing the number of violations are sufficient and discuss the new mechanisms that are being developed—particularly the rule of law conditionality and other conditionality instruments. When addressing the reasons behind the frequent violations, the text will identify two groups of reasons, the first group being applicable to the whole of EU law, and the second one specifically to EU migration and asylum law. In this context, Member States’ violations will be construed as the process of political withdrawal or retrenchment from certain parts of the commonly adopted EU migration and asylum law. This will be explained by relying on the notion of “spillback” or disintegration (as opposed to further European integration based on the neofunctionalist concept of “spillover” effect into more policy areas) and on the concepts of “exit” and “voice” conceived by Albert Hirschman and developed further by Joseph Weiler in his seminal work “The Transformation of Europe”.

 

Luisa Marin, The Cooperation Between Frontex and Third Countries in Information Sharing: Practices, Law and Challenges in Externalizing Border Control Functions, in European Public Law, 2020, vol. 26, n. 1

The aim of this article is to investigate whether the cooperation of Frontex with third countries in information sharing is in compliance with EU’s constitutional normative rules and values. Since more than a decade, border control and surveillance have been developed as policies instrumental to migration control. The shift towards risk management in many areas of public governance has implied that EU’s action at the external borders is built upon a combination of policies of securitization of migration and externalization of border management. Against this theoretical background, the article focuses on the external competences or powers of Frontex, mapping in particular practices of information sharing with third country authorities, which are functional to risk analysis, one of the core tasks of Frontex. It analyses working arrangements, intelligence sharing communities and cooperation taking place within the context of technical assistance. The article further discusses the legal challenges these types of cooperation brings to the EU, as a governance system based on the rule of law. These are indicated in transparency and accountability, respect for fundamental rights and privacy challenges.

 

Luisa Marin, Waiting (and Paying) for Godot: Analyzing the Systemic Consequences of the Solidarity Crisis in EU Asylum Law, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 1

What is left of the principle of solidarity in the context of EU asylum law? The aim of this article is to analyze the follow-up of the solidarity crisis the EU has experienced with the failure of relocation schemes. Relocation schemes have tried to alleviate the consequences of the so-called migration crisis of 2015–2016, but did not prove to be successful, because of the low relocation rates, in addition to open contestation by states of the Visegrad group. Against the background of the stalemate of the reform of the Dublin Regulation, the article analyzes ‘measures’ adopted after the failure of relocation schemes, focusing in particular on administrative arrangements to counter secondary movements and ‘ad hoc’ temporary disembarkation schemes. Both measures are aiming at fixing longstanding questions (e.g., limiting secondary movements, providing safe disembarkation for irregular migrants): in the first case, States proceed at bilateral level with arrangements creating fast-track returns and stopping secondary movements; in the second case, the EU is trying to support states’ arrangements for disembarkation of migrants after SAR operations. The article shows that, while reforms of legislative instruments are not progressing, Member States and, to some extent, also EU institutions are going down the lane of ‘operational and informal arrangements’, which are ‘bricolage solutions’ to counterbalance undesired effects of the status quo, while waiting for structural solutions that are necessary but not in sight. The article discusses the dangers of such a trend toward informal operational solutions, as a challenge to the EU as a system of governance based on the rule of law.

 

Luisa Marin, Simone Penasa, Graziella Romeo, Migration Crises and the Principle of Solidarity in Times of Sovereignism: Challenges for EU Law and Polity, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 1

The Treaties expressly mention the pivotal role of the principle of solidarity in the EU integration process, as one finds in Articles 2 and 3 of the TEU, where solidarity is among the fundamental values of the EU. To be more precise, solidarity is also one of the founding principles of the internal market, which aims at achieving a social market economy, realizing solidarity between generations and among Member States. In the field of migration and asylum law, solidarity between Member States is a core element of the common policies on asylum, immigration and external border controls, together with fairness toward third-country nationals.4 For example, Article 80 TFEU mirrors the concern about solidarity by stating that migration policies shall be “governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility”.5 Moreover, in his Opinion in the case Slovakia and Hungary v. Council,6 Advocate General Bot stressed that “solidarity is among the cardinal values of the Union and is even among the foundations of the Union”. According to Bot, “solidarity is both a pillar and at the same time a guiding principle of the European Union’s policies on border checks, asylum and immigration”.

 

Sílvia Morgades-Gil, The “Internal” Dimension of the Safe Country Concept: the Interpretation of the Safe Third Country Concept in the Dublin System by International and Internal Courts, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 1

The non-refoulement principle has been interpreted extensively as regards what kind of threats prevent removal to another country through the interpretation of the international instruments for the protection of human rights. Nevertheless, authors and institutions acknowledge that this principle does not prohibit the removal to a safe country and thus that a number of States participate in a system of shared responsibility, in which refugees and asylum seekers are transferred from one country to another in order to try to obtain (the Dublin EU system) or to benefit from international protection (resettlement). The academic literature has extensively addressed the meaning of the concept of the safe third country. This contribution is aimed at analyzing the application of this concept within a system where all States are supposed to be safe for all asylum seekers, and the principle of mutual trust and equivalence of protection applies. The paper reviews the safe country concept in the context of the Dublin system and examines when and why International, European and internal courts and other institutions have considered that one of the States participating in the system was not safe ad intra. Some final thoughts consider the impact that the analysis may have on the principle of mutual trust that is at the heart of the area of Freedom, Security and Justice.

 

Lea Müller-Funk, Sonja Fransen, Return aspirations and coerced return: A case study on Syrian refugees in Turkey and Lebanon, in IMI Working Papers, 2020, vol. 162

This paper studies return aspirations and current return movements of Syrian refugees residing in Turkey and Lebanon to understand who aspires to return after the end of the war, and why and when refugees return with the conflict still ongoing. To do so, we embed future return aspirations into refugees’ broader life aspirations and study how these interact with perceived opportunities (capabilities) in the home and host countries in shaping those aspirations to return. Drawing on 757 survey interviews we present, first, quantitative analyses of the factors underlying current return reflections and future return aspirations. They differ significantly across individuals, and more refugees residing in Lebanon consider to return currently and in the future. Second, we analyse information from 41 in-depth interviews and show how life aspirations (i) are a crucial element in shaping return aspirations and (ii) interact particularly with social, professional and political aspects in home and host countries in shaping return aspirations. The paper also highlights that while most refugees retain a profound belief in return, there is a strong mismatch between aspiring to return and realising it. While return after the war’s end is driven by a wish to realise broader life goals, current return migration is driven by legal, medical and financial vulnerability, family obligations and discrimination in the host country.

 

Simone Penasa, Graziella Romeo, Sovereignty-based Arguments and the European Asylum System: Searching for a European Constitutional Moment?, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 1

The article expresses a twofold claim: a) sovereignty-based argument finds a fertile ground in EU’s weaknesses in terms of asylum strategy and b) sovereignty arguments in asylum issues can (and must) be confronted with the legal instruments afforded by the existing framework of EU law. To develop the argument, this article is divided into two parts. The first part addresses sovereignism in asylum law and policies, by exploring sovereignist claims and their translation into domestic legislation and policies, with specific reference to the Italian context. It then analyses the recent changes in asylum strategy, within the EU, to test to what extent arguments based on sovereignty stand as a bulwark against full cooperation among EU member states. In the second part, the article examines the legal instruments that EU institution can use and develop to implement solidarity and reduce the margin for the use of sovereignty-based arguments in asylum policies.

 

Valerio Piergigli, Lingue e minoranze: tra eguaglianza, identità e integrazione, in Rivista AIC, 2020, n. 1

Il contributo esamina, in chiave comparata, gli approcci giuridici che gli ordinamenti di democrazia pluralista, soprattutto quelli del continente europeo, riservano al tema delle relazioni tra “lingue e minoranze”. Gli obiettivi dell’indagine sono fondamentalmente i seguenti. In primo luogo, si intende rimarcare che la lingua della minoranza (autoctona o immigrata che sia), lungi dal costituire elemento di discriminazione ed emarginazione – il che non è affatto scontato neppure nell’epoca attuale – dovrebbe piuttosto fungere, mediante adeguate politiche pubbliche, da veicolo di trasmissione della cultura e della identità dell’altro, cultura e identità che vanno salvaguardate e valorizzate non nell’interesse esclusivo del gruppo che ne è portatore, bensì della società nel suo complesso. In secondo luogo, si intende evidenziare il fatto che la lingua della maggioranza non dovrebbe concretizzare, a sua volta, un fattore di discriminazione tale da impedire irragionevolmente l’integrazione nel paese di accoglienza dei singoli componenti della minoranza (autoctona o immigrata che sia), integrazione che, opportunamente regolata, gioverebbe alla coesione e allo sviluppo culturale, oltre che economico, dell’intera società. In sostanza, l’analisi evidenzia l’estrema attualità del tema della (non) discriminazione per ragioni di lingua e di appartenenza culturale/etnica, in modo particolare se si ha riguardo ad alcune tipologie minoritarie: certamente quelle “nuove”, ma anche quelle disperse sul territorio e dunque più difficili da tutelare o quelle verso le quali permangono tuttora stereotipi e pregiudizi da parte della società maggioritaria. The article aims at analyzing, in a comparative perspective, the legal approaches that the pluralist democratic States, especially those of the European continent, reserve to the relations between “languages and minorities”.

 

Teresa Quintel, Interoperable Data Exchanges Within Different Data Protection Regimes: The Case of Europol and the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, in European Public Law, 2020, vol. 26, n. 1

In recent years, the discourse surrounding migration, asylum and related security concerns have, in most EU Member States, become deeply contentious. Following the 2015 migration crisis, the shortcomings of the EU asylum system became strikingly evident. The subsequent terrorist attacks inaugurated the beginning of a series of revisions to databases used for border control, the registration of asylum seekers and visa applicants, or for alerts regarding criminals. As a final step, the Commission issued two proposals to render all EU databases interoperable in order to provide authorities with better information to tackle identity fraud, prevent irregular migration and mitigate security risks. In May 2019, the Interoperability Regulations were adopted by the co-legislators. Europol and Frontex, two EU Agencies that have been actively engaged in a wide range of operational activities at the external Schengen borders, will be authorized to consult and may subsequently request full access to the interoperable system. This contribution will address some of the concerns that emerge with the connection of originally disconnected databases and seeks to analyse the discrepancies that may arise in the context of interoperability where systematic data exchanges take place between actors that apply different data protection regimes.

 

Carola Ricci, The Necessity for Alternative Legal Pathways: The Best Practice of Humanitarian Corridors Opened by Private Sponsors in Italy, in German Law Journal, 2020, vol. 21, n. 2

The scope of this Article is to understand to what extent a recent and fruitful private initiative sponsoring a safe alternative legal pathway spread from Italy, called “humanitarian corridors,” may in the future become a general and uniform alternative model for all the European Union States. Such a practice—which currently represents an exceptional route for vulnerable migrants to enter the country without harm after a security screening and to be materially supported by the same sponsors in the crucial initial phase of integration—is at present restricted to a relatively small number of beneficiaries, but it could potentially be extended to other States. In order to achieve this goal, it is argued that the present model should be slightly adjusted—especially with regard to the actual reference to Article 25 of the Visa Code as its legal basis. The latter seems difficult to be formally maintained after the much criticized 2017 judgment X and X v. Belgium, in which the Court of Justice of the European Union conferred to Member States a wide margin of discretion when requested to grant humanitarian visas by vulnerable people exposed to serious irreversible harm. Against this background, clear obligations to grant humanitarian visas to vulnerable people at risk already exist. This obligation stems from international law—both general and conventional—and constitutes the adequate legal basis both for States and civil society to act in a “multi-stakeholder alliance” to find solutions to the challenges and opportunities deriving from international migration, as indicated in the Global Compact for Migration.

 

Kerilyn Schewel, Sonja Fransen, Who aspires to stay? Immobility aspirations among youth in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam, IMI Working Papers, 2020, vol. 161

This article studies immobility aspirations – or aspirations to stay – among individuals with high migration propensities (aged 16 to 23) in Ethiopia, India, Peru, and Vietnam. Assuming that aspirations to stay are not simply the absence of migration aspirations, we explore which individual and household factors determine who aspires to stay and why, using unique survey data collected for the Young Lives project. We find that the majority of young people surveyed – between 61 percent (Ethiopia) and 82 percent (Vietnam) – aspire to stay in their home country. Between 32 percent (Ethiopia) and 57 percent (Vietnam) of young people aspired to stay at their current location, meaning they aspired to move neither internally nor internationally. Across country contexts, aspirations to stay were most often highest among the poorest. Further, the desire to stay decreases with higher levels of education, which suggests that widening access to formal schooling is an important driver of internal and international migration aspirations. Finally, respondents most often mentioned family-related reasons as the main motivation to stay in place. These findings contribute to a broader debate about the relationship between development and migration by challenging the linear relationship between poverty levels and migration aspirations that conventional migration theories implicitly or explicitly assume. Moreover, our findings on family reasons driving the aspiration to stay highlight the importance of non-economic factors in migration decision-making.

 

Davide Strazzari, Resettlement, Populism and the Multiple Dimensions of Solidarity: Lessons from US and Canada, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 1

Resettlement is the selection and transfer of refugees from a State in which they have sought protection to a third State which has agreed, voluntarily, to admit them. Since resettlement is subject to State planning and control, it is usually immune from current populist narratives that depicts immigration as contrary to national interests. By looking at the experience of both US and Canada, the paper argues that this is not always the case.Resettlement involves not only an international dimension of solidarity, but also an intra-national one which, in turn, is both vertical and horizontal. The former refers to the role of the subnational units with regard to the selection and the distribution of refugees crossover the country, while the latter relates to the involvement of civil society in some elements of their identification or reception. A lack of coordination among these multiple dimensions of solidarity may result in local resistances that in the long run can influence the enforcement of national resettlement policy.

 

Marta Tomasi, Verso la definizione di uno statuto giuridico dei minori stranieri non accompagnati in europa? Modelli astratti e concreti di tutela della vulnerabilità, in Rivista AIC, 2020, n. 1

I minori stranieri non accompagnati sono una categoria particolare di migranti, la cui condizione di estrema vulnerabilità rappresenta una cartina al tornasole, utile a qualificare le regole e i sistemi dell’accoglienza e a svolgere una verifica, in punto di diritto costituzionale, di scelte fondamentali e intime effettuate dagli ordinamenti intorno alla tutela delle persone. Lo scopo del presente contributo è quello di analizzare criticamente e comparare soluzioni e approcci adottati, in alcuni specifici ambiti (quali l’identificazione e l’accertamento dell’età, la detenzione, le modalità della rappresentanza e la transizione verso la maggiore età), da alcuni Stati membri dell’Unione europea, che si sono di recente interrogati sui bilanciamenti che ruotano intorno alla tutela dei minori stranieri non accompagnati. L’analisi svolta mira a rilevare assonanze e distonie nel dare contenuto al generale criterio ordinatore dei best interests del minore, con lo scopo, da un lato, di apprezzare quale sia la collocazione del sistema di tutela italiano nel panorama disegnato e, dall’altro, di vagliare l’esistenza di linee di convergenza verso l’individuazione di uno statuto giuridico europeo del minore straniero non accompagnato. In conclusione, stante l’impossibilità di discernere un approccio uniforme, si propongono alcuni indici capaci di orientare l’impiego del paradigma dei best interests del minore nel senso della concretezza e dell’effettività.

 

Post

Fernando D’Aniello, Un conflitto che va spento, in Il Mulino, 5 marzo 2020

Per capire perché al confine tra Grecia e Turchia c’è nuovamente tensione – data dal tentativo dei profughi siriani di entrare in Europa e dalla contestuale chiusura dei confini da parte del governo greco, sostenuto dalla Commissione europea – occorre aver chiaro quanto sta avvenendo a Idleb, in Siria, in quelle che si spera siano le ultime fasi della guerra civile siriana. La Turchia, in due operazioni distinte (all’inizio del 2018 e nell’autunno del 2019), ha occupato i territori siriani a Ovest e poi a Est del fiume Eufrate, nella parte settentrionale della Siria, controllati sin dall’inizio della guerra civile dalle forze curde. Questa illegittima annessione è stata giustificata con la necessità di prevenire azioni terroriste curde, data la contiguità dei gruppi siriani con il Pkk. La motivazione è insufficiente, secondo il diritto internazionale: le operazioni antiterrorismo devono essere ispirate al principio della proporzionalità e avere una durata limitata, mentre l’obiettivo turco è alterare in modo significativo il delicato equilibrio demografico tra curdi e arabi “fedeli” al governo ad Ankara.

 

Giuseppe Campesi, Ordine ai confini, in Il Mulino, 5 marzo 2020

Qualcuno sostiene che la situazione al confine greco-turco fosse come una bomba ad orologeria pronta ad esplodere e che l’Unione europea abbia perso l’occasione, durante questi anni anni in cui il controverso accordo con la Turchia sembrava aver creato una vasta zona cuscinetto in cui tenere a distanza dal confine europeo la gran massa di profughi in fuga dal conflitto siriano, per trovare un accordo sulla riforma del sistema d’asilo. In particolare, si sia lasciata sfuggire l’opportunità per trovare un accordo su uno stabile meccanismo di distribuzione del cosiddetto “onere” dell’accoglienza, che necessariamente passa dalla riforma del regolamento di Dublino, su cui peraltro il Parlamento europeo aveva lavorato. Al contrario, si è puntato tutto sul rafforzamento di Frontex, sulla necessità di ripristinare “l’ordine ai confini”, come ha sottolineato la stessa presidente della Commissione europea Ursula von der Leyen nel corso della conferenza stampa congiunta di martedì 3 marzo.

 

Joanna Curtis, EU border transit zones and deprivation of liberty: Ilias v Hungary, in UK Human Rights Blog, 19 marzo 2020

Amid recent news reports of Turkey’s re-opening of migration routes to Europe, clashes at the Turkey-Greece border, and EU countries closing their borders due to Covid-19, this post looks back to a decision from the ECtHR Grand Chamber last November and the applicability of Article 5 ECHR in temporary border transit zones. Ilias v Hungary (Application no. 47287/15) was the first case in which the ECtHR considered a land border transit zone between two member states of the Council of Europe, where the host state, Hungary, was also a member of the EU and had applied the safe third country rule under the EU asylum regime. The Grand Chamber held that the applicants’ detention did not breach Article 5 (the right to liberty and security of the person).

 

Eleonora Frasca, Francesco Luigi Gatta, The Malta Declaration on search & rescue, disembarkation and relocation: Much Ado about Nothing, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 3 marzo 2020

On 23 September 2019 an informal “mini-summit” was held in Malta to find a solution to the long-standing controversy over Search and Rescue (SaR), disembarkation and relocation of migrants in the Mediterranean, which had become a burning political issue since the summer of 2018. It convened Interior Ministers of Italy and Malta, searching for solidarity and fair responsibility-sharing, Germany and France, seemingly willing to offer some support in this regard, representatives of the European Commission and Finland, holding the Presidency of the Council.

 

Zara Freudenberg, Karl Mauer, Florian Schöler, Marco Goldoni, The Island of Hope in a Sea of Misery. The Italian Court of Cassation’s Unequivocal Stance on the Right to Disembark, in verfassungsblog.de, 10 marzo 2020

On 17 January 2020, the Italian Court of Cassation (‘Court’) ruled that Carola Rackete, captain of the Sea-Watch 3, was not criminally liable for hitting an Italian Guardia di Finanza (GdF) vessel and allowing 40 shipwrecked to disembark in Lampedusa in July 2019. The recently released reasoning of the judgment is remarkable for three reasons: Firstly, the Court outright grants a right to disembarkation for shipwrecked (p. 11 et seq), something no other Court, or piece of binding legislation has declared in such an unambiguous and uncompromising manner. Secondly, the Court does so at the same moment as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has failed its duty to uphold human rights at Europe’s borders in the face of mounting political pressure. Thirdly, the Court significantly reduces the leeway with which the Italian government (current or future) may circumvent the content of the decision using executive decrees.

 

Hanana Hakiki, N.D. and N.T. v. Spain: defining Strasbourg’s position on push backs at land borders?, in strasbourgobservers.com, 26 marzo 2020

On 13 February 2020, the Court published its long awaited Grand Chamber judgment in the case of N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, the first case addressing the Spanish policy of immediate expulsions at the Ceuta and Melilla enclaves. In a speech the Court’s president had announced that the judgment would be “instrumental to the issue of push backs” in Europe, the most “burning issue in European politics today” (M.A. v Lithuania; concurring opinion, §1). Legally, the case of N.D. and N.T. addressed the applicability of the prohibition of collective expulsions to push backs at European land borders. The judgement has already been analysed in detail and widely criticised for its incompatibility with EU law, the principle of non-refoulement and Spain’s obligation to protect unaccompanied minors. Though the judgment brings in an entirely new approach, some have questioned the impact of the judgment on the Court’s approach to push backs more generally. This blogpost considers the application by the Court of its new approach in light of the factual evidence in the case, and whether this allows for any conclusions to be drawn as to the broader impact of this judgment on the situation at European borders. Thus the blogpost will first assess the new legal test in light of the Court’s jurisprudence on the terms “genuine and effective.” and secondly how the new test was applied in this case. Third, the blogpost will look at how the Grand Chamber assessed evidence in this case. The final section explores the potential significance of this judgement.

 

Constantin Hruschka, Hot returns remain contrary to the ECHR: ND & NT before the ECHR, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 28 febbraio 2020

In its judgement N.D. and N.T. of 13 February 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejected the finding that Spain had violated the ban on collective expulsions enshrined in Article 4 Protocol No. 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). To conclude from this that the practice of so-called hot returns, i.e. the direct deportations without individual examination directly at the border, was approved by the ECHR, is understandable in view of the press statement of the ECHR but wrong. The practice of hot returns was and remains illegal. In the case before it, the ECtHR merely interpreted the wording of article 4 of Protocol 4 to the EHCR (“Collective expulsions of foreign persons are not permissible”) – in a legally questionable manner – by adding a (narrowly limited) exception in a case that resulted in the aftermath of “an attempt by a large number of migrants to cross that border in an unauthorised manner and en masse.” Consequently, the ECtHR did not find any violation in the specific individual cases. However, the Spanish border control measures (or even “Fortress Europe”) have thus neither been approved nor has the principle of non-refoulement or the question of access to an asylum procedure been made dependent on the person first trying to enter Europe legally. Rather, hot returns are still prohibited, not according to Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR, but according to Art. 3 ECHR prohibiting inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment. One could also interpret the judgment as meaning that the ECHR did try to avoid a political statement on the issue before it.

 

Constantin Hruschka, The pandemic kills also the European solidarity, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 20 marzo 2020

In the fast-growing Corona crisis, governments in Europe are currently trying to find ways to contain the virus. Many measures seem at first sight to make sense (like school closures and other restrictions on public life) to slow down the spread of the virus, and to serve as symbolic measures to point out the seriousness of the situation. On top of that, many States in the Schengen area have decided to reintroduce internal border controls and absolute entry bans for persons from “risk areas”. This, too, allegedly serves to flatten out the growth in the rate of infections but shows a law-and-order understanding of virus control which largely lacks the necessary health policy component.

 

Francesco Maletto, Non-refoulement e cambiamento climatico: il caso Teitiota c. Nuova Zelanda, in SIDI Blog, 23 marzo 2020

Le considerazioni (Views) sul caso Teitiota c. Nuova Zelanda (comunicazione n. 2728/2016), adottate dal Comitato per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite (d’ora in avanti, “il Comitato”) nell’ambito della sessione tenutasi dal 14 ottobre all’8 novembre 2019, e pubblicate il 7 gennaio 2020, costituiscono una pronuncia di notevole importanza in materia di cambiamento climatico e dell’impatto di tale fenomeno sui diritti umani. In particolare, come si vedrà, nel quadro della decisione in oggetto, il Comitato ha – per la prima volta – avuto l’occasione di prospettare l’applicazione del divieto di refoulement in caso di rischio per la vita derivante da disastri ambientali legati a cambiamenti climatici.

 

Francesca Mussi, La sentenza N.D. e N.T. della Corte europea dei diritti umani: uno “schiaffo” ai diritti dei migranti alle frontiere terrestri?, in SIDI Blog, 19 marzo 2020

Con sentenza resa il 13 febbraio 2020 nel caso N.D. e N.T. c. Spagna, la Grande Camera della Corte europea dei diritti umani ha affrontato per la prima volta la questione dei respingimenti sommari di migranti alle frontiere terrestri che separano la città autonoma di Melilla, énclave spagnola di circa 12 km2 situata sulla costa nord-africana, dal Regno del Marocco. La pronuncia in esame rappresenta l’epilogo di una vicenda processuale iniziata il 12 febbraio 2015, con il deposito, da parte di due cittadini di nazionalità maliana e ivoriana, di due ricorsi volti ad accertare se la misura di rimpatrio immediato adottata nei loro confronti dalla Guardia civile spagnola di stanza a Melilla costituisse una violazione dell’obbligo di non respingimento, del diritto a non essere sottoposti a espulsioni collettive e del diritto a un ricorso effettivo, come affermati, rispettivamente, nell’art. 3, nell’art. 4 del IV Protocollo e nell’art. 13 CEDU.

 

Cecilia Sanna, Il COVID-19 ferma i trasferimenti Dublino da e per l’Italia, in Eurojus.it, 2 marzo 2020

Il Ministero dell’interno italiano ha deciso di sospendere sino a fine marzo 2020 i trasferimenti dei richiedenti asilo nel quadro del sistema Dublino da e per l’Italia al fine di consentire alle autorità di predisporre misure sanitarie atte a fronteggiare l’emergenza sanitaria riconducibile al Covid-19. Lo annuncia con un comunicato del 26 febbraio 2020 la Segreteria di Stato per la migrazione svizzera (SEM), nonché secondo quanto riportato da alcune testate giornalistiche italiane, l’Ufficio federale per la migrazione e i rifugiati tedesco (BAMF). Il Ministero dell’Interno non ha dato direttamente notizia del provvedimento, ma la decisione risulta essere stata “veicolata” alle Unità Dublino con una lettera e una successiva circolare. Nessun atto normativo è stato adottato.

 

Andrea Spagnolo, Un gioco delle parti sulla pelle delle persone. L’insostenibilità delle ragioni greche, turche ed europee nella crisi migratoria in corso, in SIDI Blog, 14 marzo 2020

L’epidemia da Coronavirus ha giustamente catalizzato tutta l’attenzione mediatica delle ultime settimane, impedendo agli organi di stampa di dedicare spazi adeguati alla nuova ‘crisi dei migranti’ in corso al confine greco-turco. Cionondimeno, la vicenda, per sommi capi, può essere così riassunta. L’intervento militare turco nel nord della Siria, che, iniziato a gennaio, ha raggiunto il suo culmine a inizio marzo 2020, secondo l’OCHA, avrebbe causato, dal suo inizio, circa novecentomila sfollati, che sono andati ad aggiungersi ai circa quattro milioni di rifugiati siriani presenti in Turchia. Il Governo turco ha fatto transitare i potenziali richiedenti asilo (stimati in centomila dal Ministro degli Interni) per il proprio Paese, permettendo loro di giungere al confine (anzi: ai confini) con la Grecia. Quest’ultima ha deciso di ‘militarizzare’ le aree di confine, dichiarando di non accettare ulteriori richieste di asilo, respingendo potenziali richiedenti con ogni mezzo, e invocando l’art. 78, comma 3, del TFUE, il quale stabilisce che il Consiglio può adottare misure temporanee a beneficio di uno Stato membro dell’Unione che affronti una situazione di emergenza. Nel frattempo, gli individui che hanno tentato di attraversare il confine greco-turco sono stati oggetto di violenze inaccettabili e – notizia di tre giorni fa – trattenuti in località segrete e sottoposti a trattamenti inumani e degradanti.

 

Daniel Thym, Travel Bans in Europe: A Legal Appraisal, 18 marzo 2020, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 18 marzo (Parte I) e 19 marzo (Parte II) 2020

In a joint statement of 12 March 2020, President von der Leyen and President Michel ‘disapproved’ the decision of the Trump administration to impose a travel ban on persons coming from much of Europe. Less than a week later, the European Council unanimously agreed on sweeping restrictions on travel to the Schengen area. Any ‘non-essential’ movements across the external Schengen borders are suspended. This astonishing about-turn followed a week of political activism across Europe to fight the epidemic, including temporary border controls and far-reaching travel restrictions at the internal borders between several Member States. It is no coincidence that borders play a prominent role in the fight against the coronavirus, since they can fulfill important symbolic functions transcending the practical effects of more police checks. Donald Trump has always been good at exploiting the discursive and symbolic potential of borders to convey a message of political power and to bolster a national sense of belonging, which can be enhanced in times of crisis, when the population feels insecure and threatened. Similar dynamics are at play when Member States reintroduce border controls in the Schengen area. The staggeringly strict new border regimes reinforce that trend.

 

Daniel Thym, Travel Bans in Europe: A Legal Appraisal, in verfassungsblog.de, 19 marzo 2020

In a joint statement of 12 March 2020, President von der Leyen and President Michel ‘disapproved’ of the decision of the Trump administration to impose a travel ban on persons coming from much of Europe. Less than a week later, the European Council unanimously agreed on sweeping restrictions on travel to the Schengen area. Any ‘non-essential’ movements across the external Schengen borders are suspended. This astonishing about-turn followed a week of political activism across Europe to fight the epidemic, including temporary border controls and far-reaching travel restrictions at the internal borders between several Member States. It is no coincidence that borders play a prominent role in the fight against the coronavirus, since they can fulfil important symbolic functions transcending the practical effects of more police checks. Donald Trump had always been good at exploiting the discursive and symbolic potential of borders to convey a message of political power and to bolster a national sense of belonging, which can be enhanced in times of crisis, when the population feels insecure and threatened. Similar dynamics are at play when Member States reintroduce border controls in the Schengen area. The staggeringly strict new border regimes reinforce that trend.

German Law Journal,

 Special Issue 3, aprile 2020

 

Cathryn Costello, Itamar Mann, Border Justice, Migration and Accountability for Human Rights Violations

Nikolas Feith Tan, Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, A Topographical Approach to Accountability for Human Rights Violations in Migration Control

Başak Çalı, Cathryn Costello, Stewart Cunningham, Hard Protection through Soft Courts? Non-Refoulement before the United Nations Treaty Bodies

Violeta Moreno-Lax, The Architecture of Functional Jurisdiction: Unpacking Contactless Control—On Public Powers, S.S. and Others v. Italy, and the “Operational Model”

Efthymios Papastavridis, The European Convention of Human Rights and Migration at Sea: Reading the “Jurisdictional Threshold” of the Convention Under the Law of the Sea Paradigm

Vladislava Stoyanova, The Right to Life Under the EU Charter and Cooperation with Third States to Combat Human Smuggling

Carla Ferstman, Human Rights Due Diligence Policies Applied to Extraterritorial Cooperation to Prevent “Irregular” Migration: European Union and United Kingdom Support to Libya

Daria Davitti, Beyond the Governance Gap: Accountability in Privatized Migration Control

Evangelia (Lilian) Tsourdi, Holding the European Asylum Support Office Accountable for its role in Asylum Decision-Making: Mission Impossible?

Melanie Fink, The Action for Damages as a Fundamental Rights Remedy: Holding Frontex Liable

Gabrielle Holly, Challenges to Australia’s Offshore Detention Regime and the Limits of Strategic Tort Litigation

Ioannis Kalpouzos, International Criminal Law and the Violence against Migrants

Itamar Mann, The Right to Perform Rescue at Sea: Jurisprudence and Drowning

 

Accedi all’intero fascicolo

 

Libri

Karine Côté-Boucher, Border Frictions Gender, Generation and Technology on the Frontline, Routledge, 2020

How did Canadian border officers come to think of themselves as a “police of the border”? This book tells the story of the shift to law enforcement in Canadian border control. From the 1990s onward, it traces the transformation of a customs organization into a border-policing agency. Border Frictions investigates how considerable political efforts and state resources have made bordering a matter of security and trade facilitation best managed with surveillance technologies. Based on interviews with border officers, ethnographic work carried out in the vicinity of land border ports of entry and policy analysis, this book illuminates features seldom reviewed by critical border scholars. These include the fraught circulation of data, the role of unions in shaping the border policy agenda, the significance of professional socialization in the making of distinct generations of security workers and evidence of the masculinization of bordering. In a time when surveillance technologies track the mobilities of goods and people and push their control beyond and inside geopolitical borderlines, Côté-Boucher unpacks how we came to accept the idea that it is vital to deploy coercive bordering tactics at the land border. Written in a clear and engaging style, this book will appeal to students and scholars in criminology, sociology, social theory, politics, and geography and appeal to those interested in learning about the everyday reality of policing the border.

 

Christian Lahusen (ed.), Citizens’ Solidarity in Europe? Civic Engagement and Public Discourse in Times of Crises, Elgar, 2020

Citizens’ Solidarity in Europe systematically dissects the manifestations of solidarity buried beneath the official policies and measures of public authority in Europe. In this exciting and innovative book, contributors offer comprehensive and original data and highlight the detrimental factors that tend to inhibit or annihilate solidarity, and those that are beneficial for the nurturing of solidarity.

 

Paolo Morozzo Della Rocca, Il ricongiungimento con il familiare residente all’estero. Categorie civilistiche e diritto dell’immigrazione, Torino, 2020

Come esplicitato già nel suo titolo, l’opera monografica “Il ricongiungimento con il familiare residente all’estero. Categorie civilistiche e diritto dell’immigrazione” offre un’esegesi ragionata e multilivello delle norme sul ricongiungimento familiare mettendole a confronto con gli istituti del diritto civile della famiglia, nella consapevolezza che la specialità del diritto dell’immigrazione e della libertà di circolazione non possa tuttavia contraddire princìpi fondamentali del diritto delle relazioni familiari e richiede comunque il rispetto di canoni di coerenza, proporzionalità e ragionevolezza. Ne emergono indicazioni e prospettive utili sia per l’operatore del diritto che per l’interprete desideroso di ricostruire la coerenza a sistema delle norme e degli orientamenti giurisprudenziali.

 

Kate Pincock, Alexander Betts, Evan Easton-Calabria, The Global Governed? Refugees as Providers of Protection and Assistance, Cambridge, 2020

When refugees flee war and persecution, protection and assistance are usually provided by United Nations organisations and their NGO implementing partners. In camps and cities, the dominant humanitarian model remains premised upon a provider-beneficiary relationship. In parallel to this model, however, is a largely neglected story: refugees themselves frequently mobilise to create organisations or networks as alternative providers of social protection. Based on fieldwork in refugee camps and cities in Uganda and Kenya, this book examines how refugee-led organisations emerge, the forms they take, and their interactions with international institutions. Developing an original theoretical framework based on the concept of ‘the global governed’, the book shows how power and hierarchy mediate the seemingly benign notion of protection. Drawing upon ideas from anthropology and international relations, it offers an alternative vision for more participatory global governance, of relevance to other policy-fields including development, humanitarianism, health, peacekeeping, and child protection.

 

Lili Song, Chinese Refugee Law and Policy, Cambridge, 2020

This book is the first to systematically examine Chinese refugee law and policy. It provides in-depth legal and policy analysis and makes recommendations to relevant stakeholders, drawing upon not only existing legal and policy scholarships but also empirical information acquired through field visits and interviews with refugees, former refugees, and staff of governmental and non-governmental organisations working with displaced population. It is a timely response to rapidly growing international interest in and demand for information about Chinese and Asian approaches to refugee protection in academia and the policy sector.

 

Justine N Stefanelli, Judicial Review of Immigration Detention in the UK, US and EU. From Principles to Practice, Hart Publishing, 2020

Immigration detention is considered by many states to be a necessary tool in the execution of immigration policy. Despite the apparently key role it plays in immigration enforcement, the law on immigration detention is often vague, especially in relation to determining the circumstances under which prolonged detention remains lawful. As a result, the courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate these matters, with scant legal tools at their disposal. Though there have been some significant judgments on the legality of detention at the constitutional level, the extent to which these judgments have had an impact at the lower end of the judiciary is unclear. Indeed, it is the lower courts which are tasked with judging the legality of detention through habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings. This book examines the way this has occurred in the lower courts of two jurisdictions, the UK and the US, and contrasts this practice not only in those jurisdictions, but with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, a constitutional court at the other end of the judicial spectrum whose judgments are applied by courts and tribunals in the EU Member States. Although these three jurisdictions use similar tests to evaluate the legality of detention, case outcomes significantly differ. Many factors contribute to this divergence, but key among them is the role that fundamental rights protection plays in each jurisdiction. Through a forensic evaluation of 191 judgments, this book compares the laws on detention in the UK, US and EU, and makes recommendations to these jurisdictions for improvement.

 

Daniel Thym, Questioning EU Citizenship. Judges and the Limits of Free Movement and Solidarity in the EU, Hart Publishing, 2020

The question of supranational citizenship is one of the more controversial in EU law. It is politically contested, the object of prominent court rulings and the subject of intense academic debates. This important new collection examines this vexed question, paying particular attention to the Court of Justice. Offering analytical readings of the key cases, it also examines those political, social and normative factors which influence the evolution of citizens’ rights. This examination is not only timely but essential given the prominence of citizen rights in recent political debates, including in the Brexit referendum. All of these questions will be explored with a special emphasis on the interplay between immigration from third countries and rules on Union citizenship.

 

Articoli

Harald Bauder, State of exemption: migration policy and the enactment of sovereignty, in Territory, Politics, Governance, 2020, vol. 8, n. 2

Migration is a policy area through which current nationalist governments enact territorial state sovereignty. This paper builds on Giorgio Agamben’s work to suggest that the liberal territorial state enacts itself as sovereign by claiming to be exempt from its own liberal principles. While enlightenment philosophies provide little guidance on the link between sovereignty, territory and migration, a materialist perspective offers valuable insights into how migration policy asserts sovereignty. Using the case of the United States, the paper illustrates how control over migration has always been important to enact this settler society as a sovereign state, and how migration policy has continued to maintain state sovereignty. The plenary power doctrine has facilitated this practice by permitting the state to disband the liberal domestic norms engrained in the US Constitution. Migration policies that blatantly violate liberal principles render the state sovereign by demonstrating its unaccountability.

 

Maarten den Heijer, Transferring a refugee to homelessness in another Member State: Jawo and Ibrahim, in Common Market Law Review, 2020, vol. 57, n. 2

The judgments inJawoandIbrahim and Othersaffirm that the prohibition of refoulement may also interrupt  the  Union system  of  intra-Member  Statetransfers of asylum seekers in the event the asylum seeker is granted asylum inthe other Member State. A transfer is prohibited if a person being grantedasylum in the receiving Member State will face extreme material poverty. The troubling background  of  the  cases  is  that  according  to  some  reports,international   protection  beneficiaries   (in   common   parlance:   refugees)routinely face destitution and official neglect in some Member States. Thejudgments flesh  out  the  legal  and  practical  consequences  in  terms  ofinterpreting  and  applying  the  Dublin  Regulation  (Jawo)  and  the  Asylum Procedures Directive (Ibrahim). The Jawo judgment also defines the scopeand meaning  of  the  term  “absconding”  in  the  Dublin  Regulation;  thatinterpretation may have wider repercussions, as a risk of absconding serves asgrounds  for  detaining  third-country  nationals  under  both  the  ReceptionConditions Directive and Returns Directive.

 

Post

Alessandra Algostino, Lo stato di emergenza sanitaria e la chiusura dei porti: sommersi e salvati, in Questione giustizia, 21 aprile 2020

Il 7 aprile 2020 un decreto interministeriale, adottato dal Ministro delle infrastrutture e dei trasporti, di concerto con il Ministro degli affari esteri e della cooperazione internazionale, il Ministro dell’interno e il Ministro della salute[1], dispone che «per l’intero periodo di durata dell’emergenza sanitaria nazionale derivante dalla diffusione del virus COVID-19, i porti italiani non assicurano i necessari requisiti per la classificazione e definizione di Place of Safety (“luogo sicuro”), in virtù di quanto previsto dalla Convenzione di Amburgo, sulla ricerca e salvataggio marittimo, per i casi di soccorso effettuati da parte di unità navali battenti bandiera straniera al di fuori dell’area SAR italiana» (art. 1).

 

Raluca Bejan, COVID-19 and Disposable Migrant Workers, in Verfassungsblog, 16 aprile 2020

Picture this: The world is battling a pandemic, with many countries in lockdown and borders closed. You arrive at a regional airport in northern Romania and wait for hours in the parking lot to board a charter flight. You might end up in Baden-Baden, Berlin or Düsseldorf—it’s hard to know, since no one is telling you what the final destination is. Physical distancing seems not to apply. You are jammed together with 2000 other people waiting to be placed as seasonal workers in the fields of Germany. Asparagus needs to be picked and the new crop need to be planted so the Germans can enjoy uninterrupted production of the spring vegetable through 2020 and 2021. This was the image at Romania’s Cluj-Napoca airport on April 9, 2020. One year earlier, in 2019, 300,000 seasonal workers, mainly from Eastern Europe, arrived in Germany to work the fields. In 2020, despite the stringent social distancing measures imposed internationally to stop the spread of COVID-19, Germany’s ministry of agriculture seemed determined to continue the seasonal-work program, at least partially: 40,000 workers are expected in the country in April and another 40,000 in May.

 

Tito Boeri, Sergio Briguglio e Edoardo Di Porto, Chi e come regolarizzare nell’emergenza coronavirus?, in lavoce.info, 24 aprile 2020

La regolarizzazione degli immigrati irregolari è oggi necessaria per ragioni di salute e di ordine pubblico. E va attuata rapidamente per riprendere il controllo del territorio. La bozza di decreto legge governativo è insufficiente su entrambi i fronti.

 

Jonas Bornemann, Coming to terms with relocation: the infringement case against Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, eumigrationlawblog.eu, 17 aprile 2020

After the CJEU rendered judgment on the matter, headlines were quick to announce that Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic broke Union law by disavowing the refugee relocation mechanism; one of the major policy responses to the so-called refugee crisis. The judgment of 2nd April 2020 (Joined Cases C‑715/17, C‑718/17 and C‑719/17) adds another chapter to a dispute that simmered for years, even after the relocation mechanism’s two year lifespan had expired. Against that background, Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen reportedly noted that the ruling ‘is referring to the past but it will give us guidance for the future.’ How did the Court solve the dispute? And which ramifications may the judgment yield for EU migration law?

 

Giuseppe Campesi, L’ennesimo ritorno dei confini statali?, in rivistailmulino.it, 31 marzo 2020

I confini sono stati tradizionalmente concepiti come strumenti di protezione dalle ingerenze esterne: sono la soglia oltre la quale allignano le minacce, la barriera che ci immunizza dalla contaminazione con l’estraneo. I riferimenti alla teoria politica e sociale potrebbero qui moltiplicarsi, così come gli esempi tratti dalla storia di provvedimenti di esclusione adottati per proteggere le comunità dalla diffusione di malattie, molto spesso associate alla presenza straniera. Mi interessa però mantenere lo sguardo fermo sul presente. Molte delle misure che sono state assunte in queste ultime settimane per arginare la diffusione del contagio richiamano questa funzione primordiale dei confini. In molti ne hanno criticato l’efficacia, sottolineandone la natura prevalentemente simbolica ed evidenziando il rischio che esse rappresentino un cedimento alle pulsioni sovraniste in una fase in cui si dovrebbe forse rafforzare la cooperazione internazionale nella lotta contro il Covid-19. Un chiaro esempio di tali pericoli si è avuto qualche giorno addietro, quando i ministri delle Finanze del G20 non sono riusciti a definire il testo di un documento congiunto sulle misure economiche da adottare per scongiurare una crisi globale a causa della pretesa degli Stati Uniti di denominare il Covid-19 come il «virus cinese».

 

Eugénie Delval, From the U.N. Human Rights Committee to European Courts: Which protection for climate-induced displaced persons under European Law?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 8 aprile 2020

In a recent landmark ruling, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that climate-induced displaced persons can’t be sent back to their home countries where their right to life is threatened because of the effects of climate change. Climate conditions can thus trigger the non-refoulement obligations of sending states. The decision has been applauded by human rights and refugee rights advocates as a “ground-breaking” ruling that opens the doorway to future protection claims for individuals whose life is threatened due to the climate change.

 

Luc Leboeuf, Interdiction des expulsions collectives et mesures d’expulsions immédiates et systématiques : la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme entre équilibrisme et contorsions, in CeDIE, 1° aprile 2020

Par le très commenté arrêt N.D. et N.T. c. Espagne, la Grande chambre de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme juge que l’interdiction des expulsions collectives ne bénéficie pas aux étrangers qui tentent de pénétrer irrégulièrement sur le territoire d’un Etat, sans faire usage des voies légales d’accès réellement et effectivement disponibles. L’affaire concerne des migrants qui ont tenté d’escalader, en groupe, la clôture séparant l’enclave espagnole de Melilla du Maroc, en espérant profiter de l’effet de masse pour échapper aux contrôles. Par son raisonnement, la Cour semble essentiellement limiter les enseignements pratiques de l’arrêt N.D. et N.T. à cette hypothèse particulière. Il n’en demeure pas moins, toutefois, que l’arrêt N.D. et N.T. pourrait révéler un changement d’attitude jurisprudentielle dans le chef de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, face aux difficultés que peuvent rencontrer certains Etats européens pour contrôler les frontières extérieures de l’Union. La Cour parait à la recherche d’une nouvelle voie pour gérer l’interface entre l’espace juridique de la Convention et le reste du monde, entre validation de certaines mesures d’expulsions immédiates et systématiques, respect du principe de non-refoulement et invitation à prévoir des voies légales d’accès.

 

Vera Magali Keller, Florian Schöler, Marco Goldoni, Not a Safe Place? Italy’s Decision to Declare Its Ports Unsafe under International Maritime Law, in Verfassungsblog, 14 aprile 2020

In an unprecedented move, the Italian government has declared Italy’s ports “unsafe” due to the COVID-19-pandemic. It did so by issuing an executive decree late Tuesday last week, seemingly in response to the rescue of 150 shipwrecked by the Sea-Eye’s Alan Kurdi. This is not the first time that the Italian government has used decrees to close its borders for sea-rescue ships. However, given the extraordinary circumstances of this case in the midst of the on-going Corona-crisis and the novel argument made by the Italian government, the decision warrants closer examination.

 

Antonio Marchesi, La detenzione di migranti al tempo del covid-19: conseguente a nulla e destinata a nulla, in SIDIBlog, 5 aprile 2020

L’affermazione, ripetuta spesso da quando è iniziata la pandemia del COVID-19, secondo la quale il virus sarebbe “democratico” è vera soltanto se la s’interpreta nel senso che chiunque può contrarre la malattia. Non lo è, invece, se la s’intende nel senso che gli effetti che produce sono uguali per tutti (essendo più gravi, com’è noto, oltre che per le persone anziane, per coloro che abbiano determinate patologie pregresse) e non lo è neppure se si fa riferimento alla possibilità di essere contagiati (che non è la stessa per tutti, variando, e di molto, a seconda delle condizioni di vita). Le persone private della libertà personale sono più vulnerabili di fronte al COVID-19 da entrambi questi punti di vista: da una parte, le loro condizioni di salute sono peggiori, in media, rispetto a quelle della popolazione in generale;  dall’altra, vivono, inevitabilmente, in condizioni di prossimità con numerose altre persone (la doppia vulnerabilità dei detenuti di fronte al Coronavirus è stata sottolineata, tra gli altri, dall’OMS e da Penal Reform International). Se poi prendiamo in considerazione le persone straniere in detenzione amministrativa, queste affrontano una criticità ulteriore, costituita dall’irrealizzabilità – in molti casi, forse in tutti … dipenderà dagli sviluppi della crisi – del fine per il quale la loro privazione della libertà è disposta, ovvero il rimpatrio forzato (essendo sospesi i voli verso gli Stati di origine).

 

Nora Markard, A Hole of Unclear Dimensions: Reading ND and NT v. Spain, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 1° aprile 2020

On 13 February 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights rejected in N.D. & N.T. the complaint of two migrants who had been pushed back by Spanish border police to Morocco – overturning the 2017 Chamber judgment that found a breach of the prohibition of collective expulsion. An NGO observer commented that the Grand Chamber judgment “will be perceived as a carte blanche for violent push-backs everywhere in Europe . . . Push-backs at the border to Morocco are a longstanding Spanish practice, which has become a model for other states along the European Union’s external land borders”

 

Marie McAuliffe, Céline Bauloz, The coronavirus pandemic could be devastating for the world’s migrants, in World Economic Forum, 6 aprile 2020

The pandemic could exacerbate the existing vulnerabilities of the world’s refugees and internally displaced persons. Travel bans, closed borders and living conditions in camps all amplify the risks to migrants. This crisis is an opportunity for the world to display empathy and solidarity with these groups.

 

Francesco Munari, Il decreto interministeriale per gestire l’emergenza covid-19 nell’ambito degli obblighi dell’Italia ai sensi della convenzione SAR: l’insostenibile “intermittenza” del luogo sicuro per i migranti diretti verso l’Italia, in SIDIBlog, 16 aprile 2020

Sull’onda dei copiosi provvedimenti adottati nell’era del coronavirus, il 7 aprile 2020 è stato adottato anche un decreto interministeriale col quale si sancisce che, per l’intero periodo di durata dell’emergenza sanitaria nazionale derivante dal COVID-19, i porti italiani non assicurano i «necessari requisiti per la classificazione e definizione di Place of Safety (luogo sicuro)» ai sensi della convenzione SAR, limitatamente tuttavia ai casi di soccorso effettuati da parte di navi straniere al di fuori dell’area SAR italiana.

 

Andrea Maria Pelliconi, Covid-19: Italy is not a “place of safety” anymore. Is the decision to close Italian ports compliant with human rights obligations?, in EJIL:Talk!, 23 aprile 2020

The Inter-ministerial Decree n. 150 of 7 April 2020 of the Italian Minister of Infrastructure and Transport, in agreement with the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Interior and Health, has established that: For the entire period of health emergency resulting from the spread of the COVID-19 virus, Italian ports will lack the necessary requirements to be classified “Place of Safety” under the definition of the Hamburg Convention on search and maritime rescue, for cases of rescue carried out by naval units flying a foreign flag outside the Italian SAR [Search and Rescue] area. In short, the Decree intends to prevent all the “castaways” (in particular, migrants and asylum seekers) rescued by NGOs flying non-Italian flags from landing in Italian ports.

 

Nazarena ZorzellaDiario di un’avvocata del diritto dell’immigrazione al tempo del COVID-19, in Questione giustizia, 27 aprile 2020

Mai come ora l’umanità si è scoperta unita dal rischio di morte derivante da quel minuscolo, ma potentissimo virus e questo dovrebbe insegnare che la comunità umana non ha distinzioni, se non quelle imposte da politiche ed ideologie, cioè dall’agire strumentale delle persone e non dalla natura

Diritto Pubblico, 2020, n. 1,

L’Europa allo specchio: le politiche di immigrazione e asilo

 

Mario Savino, La chimera di Tampere

Marco Borraccetti, L’integrazione dei migranti tra politiche europee, azioni e tutela dei diritti

Francesco Luigi Gatta, Vie legali economiche e migrazione ai fini lavorativi: il ritardo della «politica comune» dell’Ue

Simone Marinai, L’Unione europea e i canali di accesso legale per i soggetti bisognosi di protezione internazionale

Maura Marchegiani, La riforma del sistema comune europeo di asilo: verso una procedura comune e uno status uniforme?

Giuseppe Morgese, La riforma del sistema Dublino: il problema della condivisione delle responsabilità

Emanuela Pistoia, Rafforzamento della politica dei rimpatri e uso più esteso della detenzione

Massimo Starita, Il principio del non-refoulement tra controllo dell’accesso al territorio dell’Unione europea e protezione dei diritti umani

 

Accedi all’intero fascicolo

 

Libri

Adam Goodman, The Deportation Machine: America’s Long History of Expelling Immigrants, Princeton, 2020

The unknown history of deportation and of the fear that shapes immigrants’ lives. Constant headlines about deportations, detention camps, and border walls drive urgent debates about immigration and what it means to be an American in the twenty-first century. The Deportation Machine traces the long and troubling history of the US government’s systematic efforts to terrorize and expel immigrants over the past 140 years. This provocative, eye-opening book provides needed historical perspective on one of the most pressing social and political issues of our time. In a sweeping and engaging narrative, Adam Goodman examines how federal, state, and local officials have targeted various groups for expulsion, from Chinese and Europeans at the turn of the twentieth century to Central Americans and Muslims today. He reveals how authorities have singled out Mexicans, nine out of ten of all deportees, and removed most of them not by orders of immigration judges but through coercive administrative procedures and calculated fear campaigns. Goodman uncovers the machine’s three primary mechanisms—formal deportations, “voluntary” departures, and self-deportations—and examines how public officials have used them to purge immigrants from the country and exert control over those who remain. Exposing the pervasive roots of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States, The Deportation Machine introduces the politicians, bureaucrats, businesspeople, and ordinary citizens who have pushed for and profited from expulsion. This revelatory book chronicles the devastating human costs of deportation and the innovative strategies people have adopted to fight against the machine and redefine belonging in ways that transcend citizenship.

 

James Clackson, Patrick James, Katherine McDonald, Livia Tagliapietra, Nicholas Zair, Mobility and Language Contact in and around the Ancient Mediterranean, Cambridge, 2020

Migration, Mobility and Language Contact in and around the Ancient Mediterranean is the first volume to show the different ways in which surviving linguistic evidence can be used to track movements of people in the ancient world. Eleven chapters cover a number of case studies, which span the period from the seventh century BC to the fourth century AD, ranging from Spain to Egypt, from Sicily to Pannonia. The book includes detailed study of epigraphic and literary evidence written in Latin and Greek, as well as work on languages which are not so well documented, such as Etruscan and Oscan. There is a subject index and an index of works and inscriptions cited.

 

Jia Lynn Yang, One Mighty and Irresistible Tide. The Epic Struggle Over American Immigration, 1924-1965, Norton, 2020

A sweeping history of the twentieth-century battle to reform American immigration laws that set the stage for today’s roiling debates. The idea of the United States as a nation of immigrants is at the core of the American narrative. But in 1924, Congress instituted a system of ethnic quotas so stringent that it choked off large-scale immigration for decades, sharply curtailing arrivals from southern and eastern Europe and outright banning those from nearly all of Asia. In a riveting narrative filled with a fascinating cast of characters, from the indefatigable congressman Emanuel Celler and senator Herbert Lehman to the bull-headed Nevada senator Pat McCarran, Jia Lynn Yang recounts how lawmakers, activists, and presidents from Truman through LBJ worked relentlessly to abolish the 1924 law. Through a world war, a refugee crisis after the Holocaust, and a McCarthyist fever, a coalition of lawmakers and activists descended from Jewish, Irish, and Japanese immigrants fought to establish a new principle of equality in the American immigration system. Their crowning achievement, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, proved to be one of the most transformative laws in the country’s history, opening the door to nonwhite migration at levels never seen before—and changing America in ways that those who debated it could hardly have imagined. Framed movingly by her own family’s story of immigration to America, Yang’s One Mighty and Irresistible Tide is a deeply researched and illuminating work of history, one that shows how Americans have strived and struggled to live up to the ideal of a home for the “huddled masses,” as promised in Emma Lazarus’s famous poem.

 

Valsamis Mitsilegas, Violeta Moreno-Lax and Niovi Vavoula (ed.), Securitising Asylum Flows. Deflection, Criminalisation and Challenges for Human Rights, Brill, 2020

Since the past few years, the considerable influx of refugees to the EU has led to a profound reconceptualisation of its immigration control strategy, with emphasis on the co-option of new partners, such as the private sector or third countries, and the prevention of movement through extraterritorial controls. The externalisation of immigration control has also been increasingly linked with the securitisation and criminalisation of asylum, particularly in the form of tackling human smuggling to which those in need usually resort to. This edited volume that comprises of contributions by both legal scholars and practitioners, provides a multi-faceted overview of these legal responses and examines their implications from a human rights and rule of law perspective.

 

Articoli

Tom de Boer, Marjoleine Zieck, The Legal Abyss of Discretion in the Resettlement of Refugees: Cherry-Picking and the Lack of Due Process in the EU, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2020, Volume 32, n. 1

The world is experiencing its largest refugee crisis since the Second World War, and more than ever before, the lack of an equitable burden-sharing mechanism is making itself felt: the world’s poorest States are hosting most of the refugees. The durable solution of resettlement of refugees is, in theory, the principal means of securing responsibility sharing within the framework of international refugee law. In practice, this cannot be realized since fewer than 1 per cent of the world’s refugees can be resettled annually due to the small number of available resettlement places. However, initiatives are being developed to increase the number of States that offer resettlement places to refugees and hence the number of available resettlement places. Europe, too, traditionally lagging well behind in terms of the number of resettlement places it offers, is endeavouring to contribute more places. It must nonetheless be noted that Europe’s increasing support for resettlement is paired with a policy of extraterritorialization of asylum claims and minimization of ‘spontaneous’ refugee arrivals. If Europe indeed aims to replace the regular asylum system with controlled refugee resettlement, this will raise issues of access to asylum. While the current Common European Asylum System contains a plethora of procedural and substantive rights for asylum seekers, resettlement – due to its essentially discretionary nature – appears to take place in a legal void, that is, it appears to suffer from arbitrariness in the selection of refugees and a lack of procedural rights and legal remedies for the refugees involved in the resettlement process. The question is whether this is also the case with the European Union (EU) resettlement proposals and, if so, whether this can be sustained from a legal point of view. This article reviews these proposals, along with the current practice of refugee selection by EU Member States, and analyses them from a refugee rights perspective. It examines whether EU initiatives affect the discretionary nature of resettlement, and specifically analyses whether the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union apply to the resettlement procedures of EU Member States and, if so, what rights could be invoked by the refugees involved under those instruments.

 

Silvia Borrelli, Pushing Back Against Push-backs: A Right of Entry for Asylum Seekers Unlawfully Prevented from Reaching Italian Territory, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 1

A decision of a civil court in Rome has reaffirmed the illegality of ‘push-back’ operations under both Italian and international law. In a noteworthy and innovative development, the court further held that, in light of the fact that the claimants had been wrongfully prevented from reaching Italian territory, they had a subjective right as a matter of Italian constitutional law to be admitted to Italy so as to be able to make an application for international protection. The decision has potentially far-reaching implications for future cases before the Italian courts in the field of migration, and may also pave the way for similar findings at the international level.

 

Gabriella Carella, Inapplicabilità del regolamento Dublino III a talune fattispecie di migrazioni irregolari nel Mediterraneo, in Studi sull’integrazione europea, 2020, n. 1

 

Mathias Czaika, Constantin Reinprecht, Drivers of migration: A synthesis of knowledge, in IMI Working Paper, 2020, vol. 163

Migration drivers are structural elements that have the potential to facilitate, enable, constrain, and trigger migration processes. Migration drivers might increase or decrease the salience of migration, the likelihood of certain migration routes, and the desirability of different destinations. Migration drivers affect migration directly but also, sometimes even more importantly, indirectly as part of a configured migration driver environment. In our assessment of the migration literature we broadly distinguish between nine migration driver dimensions (demographic, economic, environmental, human development, individual, politicoinstitutional, security, socio-cultural, and supranational) and 24 migration driving factors. The circumstances, ways and modes, but also the extent to which a set of driving factors may influence migration (decision-making) processes are dependent on the functionality of migration drivers, which is a central aspect in understanding the specific role single or combinations of migration drivers may play in migration. We propose to distinguish between predisposing, mediating, proximate, and triggering migration drivers, and beyond the degree of immediacy, drivers of migration can also be characterised by their temporality, elasticity, selectivity, and geography.

 

Azadeh Dastyari, Daniel Ghezelbash, Asylum at Sea: The Legality of Shipboard Refugee Status Determination Procedures, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2020, Volume 32, n. 1

Austria and Italy have recently proposed that processing the protection claims of asylum seekers attempting to cross the Mediterranean should take place aboard government vessels at sea. Shipboard processing of asylum claims is not a novel idea. The policy has been used for many years by the governments of the United States and Australia. This article examines the relevant international law, as well as State practice and domestic jurisprudence in the United States and Australia, to explore whether shipboard processing complies with international refugee and human rights law. It concludes that, while it may be theoretically possible for shipboard processing to comply with international law, there are significant practical impediments to carrying out shipboard processing in a manner that is compliant with the international obligations of States. Current practices in the United States and Australia fall short of what is required. Nor is there any indication that the Austrian/Italian proposal would contain the required safeguards. It is argued that this is by design. The appeal of shipboard processing for governments is that it allows them to dispense with the safeguards that asylum seekers would be entitled to if processed on land. Best practice is for all persons interdicted or rescued at sea to be transferred to a location on land where they have access to effective status determination procedures and are protected from refoulement and unlawful detention.

 

Magnus Skytterholm Egan, Statements on race and class: the fairness of skills-based immigration criteria, in Ethics & Global Politics, 2020

It is often argued that states do not have any special obligations towards economic migrants, and that skills-based selection of migrants is morally unproblematic. In this paper, I argue that even if one does not endorse special obligations towards economic migrants, there are good reasons to be critical of skills-based selection due to its effect on the citizens in the country they are migrating to. I introduce the issue of the impact of migrant selection on domestic populations by considering Blake’s arguments against racial selection in immigration. He argues that racial selection is wrong because ‘[…] making a statement of racial preference in immigration necessarily makes a statement of racial preference domestically as well’. In this paper, I consider whether a similar case can be made against selecting migrants based on their marketable skills. I begin with a short overview of skills-based selection and some of the normative arguments put forward in favour of it, before considering Blake’s argument. Thereafter, I show how Blake’s example of race differs significantly from selection based on skills, in part due to the nature of identification with race and skills. However, I argue that the effects of skills-based selection on domestic population also need to be considered in any normative argument proposing such migration regulations. These effects include changes in our evaluations of equality and citizenship, negative impact on the social bases of self-respect, as well as specific disadvantages for segments of society and a negative effect on social mobility.

 

Giada Grattarola, Diritto al ricongiungimento familiare e nozione di situazione puramente interna nella recente giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 1

The scope of application of EU law is far from being completely defined through the analysis of conferred competences. In fact, according to settled case-law of the European Court of Justice, EU law cannot be applied to purely internal situations, i.e. to cases which are confined in all the relevant elements within a single Member State, and/or which are ruled by a national norm that does not hamper the exercise of freedom of movement in the European space. Therefore, although the concept of ‘wholly internal situation’ is quite vague and built on a case-by-case approach, it contributes to define the external boundaries of the scope of application of EU law. More specifically, in the field of the right to family reunification, the European Court of Justice has recently clarified the notion at hand by means of the rulings Lounes v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Chavez-Vilchez et al. v. Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank et al., and K.A. et al. v. Belgian State. This paper examines the conceptual evolution applied to the notion of ‘wholly internal situation’ by the aforementioned judgments. In particular, it analyses whether the application of EU provisions relating to the right to family reunification is still linked to the exercise of freedom of movement granted to all European citizens.

 

Anna Liguori, Violazioni conseguenti all’attuazione della Dichiarazione UE-Turchia e giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti umani sugli hotspots greci: la sentenza Kaak, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 1

The case Kaak e al. v. Greece concerns the detention and reception conditions of 51 asylum seekers in a Greek hotspot, following the implementation of the EU- Turkey Statement of 18 March 2016. In its judgment of 3 October 2019, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there was a violation of article 5, para. 4, ECHR because of insufficient procedural guarantees; nevertheless, it found that there was no violation of article 5, para. 1, ECHR and no violations of article 3 ECHR, although several concurring reports from International governmental and nongovernmental organizations supported the allegations of the claimants regarding harsh conditions of reception and arbitrary detention. The judgment gives rise to criticism also because the Court comes to the same conclusions even vis-à-vis the unaccompanied minors present in the center.

 

Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh (et al.), Recentering the South in Studies of Migration, in Migration and Society, 2020, Vol. 3, n. 1

It has become increasingly mainstream to argue that redressing the Eurocentrism of migration studies requires a commitment to decentering global North knowledge. However, it is less clear whether this necessarily means “recentering the South.” Against this backdrop, this introduction starts by highlighting diverse ways that scholars, including the contributors to this special issue, have sought to redress Eurocentrism in migration studies: (1) examining the applicability of classical concepts and frameworks in the South; (2) fi lling blind spots by studying migration in the South and South-South migration; and (3) engaging critically with the geopolitics of knowledge production. Th e remainder of the introduction examines questions on decentering and recentering, diff erent ways of conceptualizing the South, and—as a pressing concern with regard to knowledge production —the politics of citation. In so doing, the introduction critically delineates the contours of these debates, provides a frame for this volume, and sets out a number of key thematic and editorial priorities for Migration and Society moving forward.

 

Savitri Taylor, Klaus Neumann, Australia and the Abortive Convention on Territorial Asylum: A Case Study of a Cul de Sac in International Refugee and Human Rights Law, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2020, Volume 32, n. 1

Focusing on the period from the adoption of the 1967 Declaration on Territorial Asylum to the 1977 Conference of Plenipotentiaries on Territorial Asylum in Geneva, this article examines attempts to arrive at an international treaty on territorial asylum. Charting the trajectory of the drafting process, it shows how the ambition of international lawyers and UNHCR to go beyond article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1967 Declaration was eventually thwarted. Australia played a significant role at the 1977 conference and particular attention is paid to the development of its position. The article argues that the discussions over the proposed convention on territorial asylum were symptomatic of States’ unwillingness to countenance a right to asylum, and their concomitant willingness to extend the principle of non-refoulement.

 

Pia Zambelli, Knowing Persecution When We See It: Non-State Actors and the Measure of State Protection, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2020, Volume 32, n. 1

Whether to grant asylum to claimants who are victimized by non-State actors is one of the thorniest questions in refugee law, particularly in Canada. Numerous questions have arisen around how to measure State protection in such circumstances. The result is a convoluted array of legal determinants – a situation that may be placing some claimants at risk. This article attempts to forge a more accessible framework of analysis for non-State actor claims. The suggested framework restores the absence of ‘State protection’ to its traditional role within the refugee definition of the 1951 Refugee Convention – as one prong of a test for persecution, not a stand-alone criterion for refugeehood. Accordingly, it is suggested that decision makers approach non-State actor claims as simply an assessment of whether the situation is one of ‘persecution’, a term that has been defined by leading scholars. By applying these definitions of persecution to typical refugee claim scenarios, it is demonstrated that a persecution-centred heuristic in non-State actor claims provides a clearer and more principled framework of analysis – one that gravitates towards stable and measurable criteria for assessing State protection.

 

 

Post

Moritz Baumgärtel, Reaching the dead-end: M.N. and others and the question of humanitarian visas, in Strasbourg Observers, 7 maggio 2020

M.N. and others v. Belgium confronted the ECtHR with the question whether Article 3 of the ECHR places an obligation on State Parties to provide short-term humanitarian visas in their foreign embassies and consulates to potential asylum seekers. The Court, assembled in its Grand Chamber, found the case to be outside the jurisdiction of the Convention and thus inadmissible. While many will look at this outcome with disappointment, it is above all expected. This post provides an initial evaluation focusing on the strategic merits of the case, the issue of extra-territorial jurisdiction, and the broader question of legal pathways to asylum. The argument, in short, will be that this decision may offer a chance to come to the overdue realization that the creation of such pathways is a political question, the answer to which cannot currently be found in European human rights law.

 

Andreina De Leo, Juan Ruiz Ramos, Comparing the Inter-American Court opinion on diplomatic asylum applications with M.N. and Others v. Belgium before the ECtHR, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 13 maggio 2020

In 2012, more than 355 thousand individuals applied for asylum in Europe. Yet no other asylum application resonated in the media as much as the one filed by Julian Assange at the embassy of the Republic of Ecuador in London. Faced with a criminal investigation in the United States and an arrest warrant in Sweden, the famous Wikileaks founder was soon granted diplomatic asylum by the Government of Ecuador, who shared Assange’s perception that the United States was “orchestrating” a political persecution against him. Although the risk of his extradition to the United States is more tangible now that he is detained by the British authorities, the debate around whether Assange could be considered a political refugee was served at the time. Be it as it may, after several years hiding in the embassy, the UK Government refused to grant Assange safe passage to go to the hospital for a check-up. The UK asserted that, if he left the diplomatic premises, he would be immediately arrested, thus “forcing him to choose between the human right to asylum and the human right to health”, according to Assange’s lawyers.

 

Melanie Fink, Frontex: Human Rights Responsibility and Access to Justice, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 30 aprile 2020

Ever since Frontex’s establishment, the question of its human rights responsibility has been a source of contention and uncertainty. This has a number of drawbacks. On the one hand, if no clear consequences follow from unlawful conduct, this undermines the law’s preventive effect. If Frontex and the Member States participating in its operations can shift the blame among each other, they may be less ‘motivated’ to ensure their own compliance with human rights law. On the other hand, uncertainty also weakens the position of the victim of a breach because bringing legal action requires knowledge of the role each actor played with respect to a particular violation and the extent to which that is relevant for responsibility. Drawing on some of the findings published in my book, this post discusses whether Frontex is responsible for human rights violations that occur in the context of its activities and how individuals’ access to mechanisms to invoke that responsibility can be improved.

 

Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Adjudicating old questions in refugee law: MN and Others v Belgium and the limits of extraterritorial refoulement, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 26 maggio 2020

On 5 May 2020, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its long-awaited decision in MN and Others v. Belgium, a case testing whether a Syrian family’s humanitarian visa application at the Belgian embassy in Beirut triggered the state’s human rights law obligations. In a majority decision, the Court held that the process of applying for a visa in person did not bring the applicants within European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) jurisdiction, declaring the case inadmissible. The decision has already been the subject of a number of scholarly reactions, ranging from reflections on refugees’ exclusion from the international legal order (here), the strategic value of the case and implications for legal pathways to protection, the exercise of public powers and conduct of diplomatic agents and a comparison of the approaches of the Inter-American and European human rights courts’ on diplomatic asylum.

 

Salvo Nicolosi, Non-refoulement During a Health Emergency, 14 maggio 2020, in EJIL: Talk!, 14 maggio 2020

The rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus worldwide has sparked continuous scientific debates about the impact of the health emergency and its legal implications. In an attempt to expand this growing debate, this short post aims to shed some light on the impact this emergency is having on asylum seekers and, therefore, to examine the possible tensions vis-à-vis the application of the principle of non-refoulement. These tensions are in particular raised by the emergency measures adopted by a number of States, in Europe and beyond, resulting in the closure of their borders. The pressing question that will be addressed here is whether health emergencies, such as the one caused by COVID-19, can affect the scope of States’ obligations stemming from the principle of non-refoulement, namely access to an effective asylum procedure and to other fundamental rights, including access to primary to healthcare.

 

Adel-Naim Reyhani, Expelled from Humanity. Reflections on M.N. and Others v. Belgium, in verfassungsblog.de, 6 maggio 2020

The decision of the European Court of Human Rights in M.N. and Others v. Belgium will undoubtedly further propel the debate on the scope of extraterritorial state jurisdiction. More importantly, however, it reveals the necessity of addressing the systemic exclusion of refugees from the international legal order. In August 2016, a couple and their two minor children, refugees from Aleppo (Syria), attempted to obtain short-term visas via the Belgian embassy in Beirut, citing urgent humanitarian reasons. After Belgium rejected their applications, the family appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. They claimed that refusing their visa applications would amount to a violation of the prohibition against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, amongst others. On 5 May 2020, the Court found that the European Convention on Human Rights does not apply to visa procedures.

  

Achilles Skordas, The Twenty-Day Greek-Turkish Border Crisis and Beyond: Geopolitics of Migration and Asylum Law (Part I) (Part II), in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 5 maggio 2020

This note was written after the events surrounding the opening of the Turkish borders on 28. February 2020 to migrants who wanted to enter Greece and the EU had come into a close. We can now take a more detached view of the crisis and its implications. On 13. March, it was reported that Turkey was scaling back its actions and on 18. March it announced that it was closing its borders to Greece and Bulgaria because of COVID-19. Nonetheless, so far, the tensions between Greece and Turkey endure.

 

Maximilian Steinbeis, Watching the Peacock Dance, in verfassungsblog.de, 22 maggio 2020

Well, if that isn’t a pleasant surprise: Last year, on my way back from Bosnia, I crossed the Serbian-Hungarian border at Röszke and was able to catch a glimpse of the notorious “transit zone” from the bus window – a refugee prison in which the Hungarian government had imprisoned some 280 people, half of them children, who had committed no worse a crime than to seek asylum at this particular section of the EU’s external border. This type of accommodation for asylum seekers, the ECJ ruled last week, qualifies as detention and is thereby incompatible with EU law. Why a surprise? Because the Hungarian government has actually implemented the ECJ ruling and dissolved the Röszke camp and distributed the unjustly imprisoned to reception facilities in the country. Which is by no means as self-evident as one might think.

 

Stefano Zirulia, Riflessioni a margine di CGUE, Grande Camera, 14 maggio 2020, cause riunite C 924/19 e C 925/19 PPU (FMS e FNZ) e C. eur. dir. uomo, Grande Camera, 21 novembre 2019, Ilias e Ahmed c. Ungheria, in Sistema Penale, 25 maggio 2020

Nell’arco di pochi mesi le Grandi Camere delle corti europee di Strasburgo (caso Ilias e Ahmed c. Ungheria, 21 novembre 2019) e Lussemburgo (caso FMS e FNZ, 14 maggio 2020) hanno adottato posizioni diametralmente opposte rispetto alla soluzione del medesimo – e inedito – problema: ossia se il trattenimento di richiedenti asilo presso la zona di transito terrestre istituita da uno Stato membro per controllare gli ingressi da Paesi terzi – segnatamente la zona di transito istituita dall’Ungheria al confine con la Serbia – costituisca una vera e propria ‘privazione della libertà personale’, ovvero una mera limitazione della libertà di circolazione. Come vedremo, i profili di omogeneità dei casi trattati (ancorché relativi a persone fisiche diverse), e soprattutto la coincidenza della quaestio iuris che i collegi si sono trovati ad affrontare nel quadro delle rispettive procedure (il ricorso a Strasburgo; il rinvio pregiudiziale ex art. 267 TFUE), rendono il confronto tra le due pronunce particolarmente interessante e ricco di spunti nella prospettiva del dibattito sulle misure coercitive di contenimento dei flussi migratori.

RASSEGNA RAPPORTI E STATISTICHE ADiM

Consulta la rassegna dati e rapporti mensile dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazione - ADiM

RASSEGNA NORMATIVA ADiM

Consulta la rassegna normativa dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazione - ADiM

Nazionale

 

 

Internazionale

 

Europea

 

Nazionale

Europea

 

Nazionale

Europea

 

Nazionale

RASSEGNE DELLA GIURISPRUDENZA - ADiM

Consulta la rassegna scientifica mensile dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazione - ADiM

The case concerns the expulsion to Iraq of an Iraqui national, residing in Romania. In 2007 several criminal investigations were launched against the applicant, including charges of facilitating the entry of Iraqi nationals who had allegedly supported or committed terrorist acts. He was sentenced in relation to these charges and was also given a five year ban on the right to remain in Romania. On appeal, the High Court rejected the applicant’s argument that he would be exposed to a risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and would violate his right to family life guaranteed by Article 8 ECHR. In 2017, after the applicant’s release from prison, he was placed in administrative detention pending expulsion. In the meantime, his application for asylum was rejected. The applicant complained, inter alia, that his return to Iraq would expose him to a risk of death or ill treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR respectively. The Court observed that evidence presented to show a risk of death or ill treatment was general and, as such, did not show evidence of a personal risk to the applicant. Moreover, it held that applicant had a normal relationship with Iraqi authorities. The Court therefore concluded that there were no serious or substantiated grounds for believing that he would be subject to a real risk of death or ill treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. However, the applicant also complained that he did not have access to an effective remedy to challenge the findings of the national courts, contrary to Article 13 ECHR in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3. The Court noted that Article 13 ECHR requires the existence of domestic law or remedy capable of providing appropriate redress. This obligation must be such that the remedy available is effective. Indeed, the applicant’s complaint that his expulsion will have consequences contrary to Articles 2 and 3 must be made subject to careful scrutiny and access to an appeal with suspensive effect. It observed that while the applicant was able to challenge the enforcement of the sentence imposed and make an application for asylum, the available appeals did not have a suspensive effect. As such, the Court found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 and 3 ECHR.

 

L’affaire concernait la contestation par M. Sami Jeddi, est un ressortissant tunisien, de son placement dans le Centre d’Identification et d’Expulsion de Milan en vue de son éloignement. En avril 2011, M. Jeddi fut appréhendé par la police italienne sur l’île de Lampedusa où il avait débarqué illégalement et sans papiers d’identité. Le 21 avril 2011, les autorités de police lui signifièrent une mesure d’expulsion et, dans l’attente, il fut placé dans le Centre d’Identification et d’Expulsion (C.I.E.) de Santa Maria Capua Vetere ; il y présenta une demande de protection internationale. Le 31 mai 2011, la Commission territoriale pour a reconnaissance de la protection internationale rejeta sa demande. M. Jeddi attaqua cette décision devant le tribunal de Naples. Par un jugement du 16 novembre 2011, le tribunal considéra que les motifs allégués pour demander l’asile ou une protection subsidiaire n’étaient pas suffisants. Toutefois, le tribunal considéra – sur la base d’un décret du Président du Conseil des Ministres du 6 octobre 2011 – que le requérant pouvait bénéficier d’un permis de séjour humanitaire jusqu’à la date du 31 décembre 2012. Le 24 décembre 2011, M. Jeddi arriva en Suisse où il introduisit une demande d’asile. Le 19 octobre 2012, les autorités suisses le renvoyèrent en Italie en application du « règlement Dublin ». A son arrivé à l’aéroport de Milan, il fut emmené dans les locaux de la police des frontières et le même jour le préfet de Varese lui notifia un décret d’expulsion. En application de ce décret, il fut conduit au C.I.E. de Milan aux fins de son éloignement. Le 22 octobre 2012, le juge de paix de Milan, après avoir entendu le requérant, assisté par un interprète et par un avocat commis d’office, valida la mesure de rétention. Le 2 novembre 2012, après que son avocat eut transmis le jugement du tribunal de Naples du 21 novembre 2011 aux autorités de police de Milan, le requérant fut libéré. Saisi par le requérant, le juge de paix de Varese annula l’arrêté d’expulsion et considéra que M. Jeddi était autorisé à rester en Italie jusqu’au 31 décembre 2012, date d’échéance du permis de séjour humanitaire. Le requérant introduisit alors un pourvoi en cassation contre le décret du juge de paix de Milan qui avait validé son placement au sein du C.I.E. de Milan. La Cour de cassation rejeta le pourvoi. Invoquant en particulier l’article 5 § 1 (droit à la liberté et à la sûreté) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, le requérant soutenait que son placement au C.I.E. de Milan pendant 14 jours, malgré le titre de séjour humanitaire, n’avait pas répondu aux exigences de la Convention. La Cour considère que la privation de liberté subie par le requérant a eu lieu dans le respect des voies légales et dans le cadre d’une procédure ne relevant aucune trace d’arbitraire. Pour ces raisons, la Cour conclut qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 5 § 1 de la Convention.

 

Sono infondate le questioni di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 14, co. 1-bis, lett. c) TUI, con riferimento agli artt. 13 e 24, co. 2 Cost., sollevate dalla Cassazione relativamente alla mancata previsione che il giudizio di convalida delle misure alternative al trattenimento in un centro di permanenza per i rimpatri (consegna del passaporto, con obbligo di firma due giorni alla settimana presso un ufficio di polizia) si svolga in udienza con partecipazione necessaria del difensore dello straniero. Questo anzitutto perché l’obbligo di presentazione presso il competente ufficio della forza pubblica in giorni e orari stabiliti, pur essendo finalizzato all’espulsione dello straniero, incide sulla libertà personale di quest’ultimo in misura limitata; inoltre perché l’oggetto del giudizio di convalida da parte del giudice di pace è limitato alla sussistenza dei presupposti di adozione della misura e all’esistenza di un provvedimento di espulsione dotato di efficacia esecutiva. Si deve inoltre considerare come il legislatore non abbia trascurato di considerare le difficoltà linguistiche, sociali e culturali che possano ostacolare le capacità di difesa del cittadino straniero, prescrivendo in particolare che il provvedimento di applicazione della misura dell’obbligo di presentazione sia notificato all’interessato unitamente alla traduzione di una sintesi del suo contenuto in una lingua a lui nota; che lo straniero sia informato del diritto di essere assistito da un difensore di fiducia o, in mancanza, d’ufficio, con informazioni relative all’accesso al patrocinio a spese dello Stato. Di conseguenza, la previsione di un contraddittorio meramente eventuale e cartolare dovrà ritenersi sufficiente.

 

In materia di protezione internazionale, l’articolo 3, comma 5, del d.lgs. n. 251 del 2007 , obbliga il giudice a sottoporre le dichiarazioni del richiedente sulla concreta vicenda narrata a fondamento della domanda, ove non suffragate da prove, a una verifica di credibilità razionale. Detta verifica include, oltre ad un duplice controllo di coerenza (la coerenza intrinseca del racconto e quella estrinseca basata sulle informazioni generali e specifiche di cui si dispone), anche un pari-ordinato controllo di plausibilità. Il giudizio di plausibilità, direttamente riferito alle dichiarazioni, si risolve nel complessivo scrutinio di attendibilità del richiedente, da compiersi a mezzo di “riscontri” esterni, ove disponibili, ma anche nella verifica di logicità del racconto. Questo controllo di logicità appare essere ormai la principale, se non la sola difesa dell’ordinamento avverso narrazioni sovente stereotipate e tessute intorno a canovacci standardizzati, quali quelli che ricorrono nella gran parte dei ricorsi in tema di protezione internazionale che arrivano in Cassazione. Ad ogni modo, tale verifica è sottratta al controllo di legittimità al di fuori dei limiti di cui all’art. 360, comma 1, n. 5, c.p.c.

 

Le disposizioni in materia di ricorso avverso il provvedimento di allontanamento adottato contro cittadini dell’Unione europea o i loro familiari (art. 22 d.lgs. n. 30/2007 e art. 17 d.lgs. n. 150/2011) non prevedono una speciale legittimazione passiva del Prefetto, né questa può essere ricavata per analogia dalla previsione, di natura eccezionale, contenuta nell’art. 18 d.lgs. n. 150/2011 in relazione al procedimento di opposizione all’espulsione dei cittadini extra-UE. Conseguentemente, tale ricorso va proposto contro il Ministero dell’Interno in persona del Ministro, unico legittimato passivo, cui l’atto introduttivo deve essere notificato presso l’Avvocatura dello Stato nel cui distretto ha sede il tribunale innanzi al quale è portata la causa.

 

L’ipotesi che legittima l’espulsione dello straniero ai sensi dell’art. 13, co. 2, lett. b), TUI, consiste nell’essersi lo stesso trattenuto nel territorio dello Stato senza aver chiesto il permesso di soggiorno nel termine prescritto: comportamento, questo, che presuppone un atto volontario del soggetto interessato, il quale, pur conscio dei suoi doveri, rimane sul territorio nazionale senza formulare tempestiva richiesta di permesso di soggiorno. L’esistenza di un tale atto volontario di trattenimento in Italia è tuttavia da escludere se lo straniero vi si sia forzosamente trattenuto a seguito di provvedimenti restrittivi emessi nei suoi confronti. È pertanto illegittima l’espulsione disposta nello stesso giorno dell’avvenuta scarcerazione dello straniero che si trovai sul territorio dello Stato.

 

In materia di espulsione amministrativa, è illegittima – e va pertanto cassata – la decisione con cui il giudice di merito confermi la bontà del provvedimento espulsivo tradotto in lingua veicolare (art. 13, co. 7, TUI) senza motivare sull’impossibilità, ove dedotta dall’amministrazione, di predisporre un testo nella lingua conosciuta dallo straniero per la sua rarità, ovvero sull’inidoneità di tale testo alla comunicazione della decisione in concreto assunta; nonché senza accertare se, in concreto, la lingua italiana o quella veicolare sono conosciute dallo straniero.

 

Il fatto che l’omosessualità sia considerata reato nell’ordinamento giuridico del Paese di provenienza del richiedente asilo costituisce, di per sé , una grave ingerenza nella vita privata dei cittadini omosessuali, ponendoli in una situazione oggettiva di pericolo, tale da giustificare la concessione della protezione internazionale. Ne consegue che il giudice di merito deve fare oggetto di approfondimento istruttorio, cui si correla l’obbligo di motivazione, le circostanze relative alla dichiarata omosessualità del richiedente, la condizione dei cittadini omosessuali nella società del Paese di provenienza e lo stato di relativa legislazione, nel rispetto del criterio direttivo della normativa comunitaria ed italiana in materia di istruzione ed esame delle domande di protezione internazionale.

 

L’elemento soggettivo del reato di cui all’art. 14, co. 5-quater, TUI è costituito dal dolo generico e si sostanzia nella consapevolezza dell’interessato di essere destinatario dell’ordine di allontanamento (a lui consegnato in copia) e di trattenersi sul territorio dello Stato dopo la scadenza del termine per la partenza volontaria, senza giustificati motivi. Detti motivi si riferiscono a situazioni ostative che incidono – escludendola o rendendola difficoltosa – sulla possibilità oggettiva o soggettiva di ottemperare all’ordine di allontanamento e non possono riferirsi ad esigenze che riflettono la condizione tipica dei migranti irregolari, come la mancanza di un lavoro regolare ovvero la provenienza di mezzi economici da attività non regolari o non stabili.

 

Il Tribunale di Trieste non ha convalidato la richiesta di proroga del trattenimento di un richiedente asilo trattenuto al Centro per Rimpatri di Gradisca d’Isonzo, rilevando che i termini per l’esame della domanda di protezione internazionale (procedura accelerata visto il trattenimento) non fossero stati rispettati. Inoltre il Tribunale ha osservato che, in pendenza della fase amministrativa, la proroga debba essere “disposta” dal Questore e “convalidata” dal Tribunale mentre nel caso di specie la questura aveva meramente richiesto al Tribunale di disporre la proroga del trattenimento.

 

L’art. 26, co. 7 bis, TUI riguarda esclusivamente il permesso per lavoro autonomo. Ne segue che la condanna irrevocabile per i delitti ivi previsti non osta direttamente e automaticamente al rilascio del permesso UE per lungo soggiornanti ma soltanto in quanto abbia già determinato la revoca del titolo pregresso e, quindi, il venir meno del requisito di cui all’art. 9, co. 1, TUI. Inoltre, detta condanna può rilevare nell’ambito della valutazione sulla pericolosità sociale dell’interessato ex art. 9, co. 4, TUI, purché il diniego sia adeguatamente motivato in considerazione della natura del reato.

 

In materia di permesso di soggiorno per motivi di studio, la PA gode di un potere tecnico-discrezionale circa la valutazione delle ipotesi eccezionali che consentono di derogare al requisito del superamento del numero minimo di verifiche di profitto richieste ai fini del rinnovo del titolo (dall’art. 46, co. 4, secondo periodo, del d.P.R. 349/99). Nella fattispecie è pertanto annullata la sentenza di prime cure che respinge il ricorso avverso il rigetto dell’istanza di rinnovo del permesso per motivi di studio perché siano adeguatamente valutate le circostanze di forza maggiore allegate dal ricorrente, che gli avrebbe impedito il sostenimento e il superamento degli esami minimi previsti.

 

Ai fini del diniego della cittadinanza italiana, le condotte penalmente rilevanti dei familiari di primo grado dell’interessato possono venire in considerazione sia per quanto concerne la valutazione in ordine all’integrazione dello straniero nel tessuto sociale italiano sia per le possibili implicazioni in materia di ricongiungimento familiare. È pertanto legittima la decisione che rigetta l’istanza di concessione della cittadinanza italiana (ex art. 9, co. 1, lett. f), l. 91/92) motivando – inter alia – in relazione ai precedenti penali dei figli dello straniero. Con riferimento alla dedotta riabilitazione del diretto interessato in relazione a un precedente penale per abuso dei mezzi di correzione o di disciplina con lesioni, deve osservarsi, altresì, che l’Amministrazione procedente a fronte della pronuncia del giudice penale conserva integre le sue facoltà discrezionali di valutazione in ambito amministrativo, ai fini della concessione della cittadinanza, della condotta e dell’inserimento sociale dell’interessato. Le valutazioni volte all’accertamento di una responsabilità penale si pongono infatti su di un piano assolutamente differente e autonomo rispetto alla valutazione del medesimo fatto ai fini dell’adozione di un provvedimento amministrativo, con la possibilità che le risultanze fattuali oggetto della vicenda penale possano valutarsi negativamente, sul piano amministrativo, anche a prescindere dagli esiti processuali penali.

Espulsione – ECtHR,Judgment 18 February 2020, Makdoudi c. Belgium,Application no. 12848/15

The applicant, a Tunisian national who arrived in Belgium in 2008, was arrested in 2009 for various offences and sentenced to 42 months imprisonment. In 2011, he informed Belgian authorities that he was the father of a child with Belgian nationality. A deportation order was issued in 2011 and the applicant returned to Tunisia in July 2016 with a prohibition on re-entry. He complained that the available domestic remedies to challenge the lawfulness of his detention had prevented domestic courts from issuing a final decision on his detention contrary to Article 5(4). He also complained that his removal and ban on re-entry without consideration of his paternity status violated his right to family life under Article 8 ECHR. The Court noted, inter alia, that no final decision on the lawfulness of his detention was taken into account before his release in September 2014. The applicant’s inability to obtain a prompt decision on the lawfulness of his detention therefore amounted to a violation of Article 5(4). On the applicant’s complaint under Article 8, the Court noted, inter alia, that the existence of family life must be assessed in light of the situation at the time the removal order was issued. As such, the removal order did amount to an interference with the applicant’s right to family life. It added that the authorities had failed to provide relevant and sufficient reasons for its decisions. In this case, the authorities had failed to show that the removal of the applicant corresponded with a pressing social need or was proportionate to the aims pursued.

 

Espulsione ECtHR,Judgment 20 February 2020, M.A. and others v. Bulgaria, Application no. 5115/18

The applicants, who are Uighur Muslims, fled to Turkey from China due to various threats of violence. They arrived in Bulgaria in 2017 after discovering that Turkish authorities had started proceedings to deport Uighurs residing in Turkey to China. Their applications for asylum and subsequent appeals were rejected and the Head of State for National Security ordered their expulsion, although it is noted that no destination country was explicitly stated. In particular, the second, third and fourth applicants were seen to pose a threat to national security due to links with the East Turkistan Islamic Movement. The first and fifth applicants had since left Bulgaria and abandoned proceedings before the Court. The applicants complained that their removal to China would violate their rights under Articles 2 and 3 ECHR respectively.The Court noted, inter alia, the clear evidence of arbitrary detention, torture and executions for Uighurs returning to China, as well as the use of ‘re-education’ camps, where long term detention without due process was common. The Court was therefore satisfied that there were substantial grounds for believing that the applicants would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Articles 2 and 3 ECHR. It highlighted that the Bulgarian authorities had not provided effective guarantees that, in the process of the implementation of the repatriation or the expulsion decisions, the applicants would not be removed to China. The Court therefore concluded that, if implemented, the removal of the applicants would amount to a violation of Articles 2 and 3 ECHR.

 

Divieto di espulsioni collettive ECtHR,Judgment 13 February 2020, N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, Applications nos. 8675/15 and 8697/15

The case concerned the immediate return to Morocco of two nationals of Mali and Côte d’Ivoire who on 13 August 2014 attempted to enter Spanish territory in an unauthorised manner by climbing the fences surrounding the Spanish enclave of Melilla on the North African coast. The Court considered that the applicants had in fact placed themselves in an unlawful situation when they had deliberately attempted to enter Spain on 13 August 2014 by crossing the Melilla border protection structures as part of a large group and at an unauthorised location, taking advantage of the group’s large numbers and using force. They had thus chosen not to use the legal procedures which existed in order to enter Spanish territory lawfully. Consequently, the Court considered that the lack of individual removal decisions could be attributed to the fact that the applicants – assuming that they had wished to assert rights under the Convention – had not made use of the official entry procedures existing for that purpose, and that it had thus been a consequence of their own conduct. In so far as it had found that the lack of an individualised procedure for their removal had been the consequence of the applicants’ own conduct, the Court could not hold the respondent State responsible for the lack of a legal remedy in Melilla enabling them to challenge that removal. Accordingly, the Court stated that had been no violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, neither of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, nor of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.

 

Soggiorno permanente CGUE, sentenza del 22 gennaio 2020, AT c. Pensionsversicherungsanstalt, C‑32/19

L’articolo 17, par. 1, lett. a), della Direttiva 2004/38 deve essere interpretato nel senso che, ai fini dell’ottenimento di un diritto di soggiorno permanente nello Stato membro ospitante prima del decorso di un periodo ininterrotto di cinque anni di soggiorno, le condizioni relative al fatto di avervi svolto la propria attività almeno negli ultimi dodici mesi e di avervi soggiornato in via continuativa per oltre tre anni si applicano a un lavoratore che, al momento in cui cessa la sua attività, ha raggiunto l’età prevista dalla legislazione di tale Stato membro per far valere i suoi diritti a una pensione di vecchiaia.

 

Frontiere dello spazio Schengen CGUE, sentenza del 5 febbraio 2020,Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheidc. J. e A., C‑341/18

Il codice frontiere Schengen (CFS) si fonda sulla premessa per cui il controllo di cittadini di Paesi terzi a un valico di frontiera sia seguito a breve termine dall’effettivo attraversamento della frontiera esterna dello spazio Schengen, anche qualora il soggetto rimanga momentaneamente sul territorio dello Stato membro interessato. Nel caso di un marittimo, cittadino di un Paese terzo che s’imbarca per lavoro su una nave ormeggiata da lungo tempo in un porto di uno Stato membro per poi abbandonare il porto su detta nave, l’art. 11, par. 1, CFS deve essere interpretato nel senso che, prima di abbandonare tale porto, un timbro di uscita dev’essere apposto sui documenti di viaggio di questo marittimo, quando la sua apposizione è prevista dal citato codice, non al momento dell’imbarco del medesimo, bensì quando il capitano della nave in questione informa le competenti autorità nazionali della partenza imminente di detta nave.

 

Espulsione dello stranieroCass. pen., sez. I, sentenza del 16 gennaio 2020, n. 1630

La situazione in cui si trova lo straniero che, avendo richiesto alla scadenza il rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno se lo sia visto rifiutare, non rientra tra le ipotesi di espulsione amministrativa di cui all’art. 13, co. 2, TUI. Ne consegue che non debba ritenersi integrata la fattispecie incriminatrice di cui all’art. 14, comma 5-ter, TUI, né possa essere disposta l’espulsione quale sanzione alternativa alla detenzione (che dell’espulsione amministrativa condivide i presupposti).

 

Status di rifugiato Cass. civ., sez. VI, ordinanza del 4 febbraio 2020, n. 2458

Per l’integrazione dei motivi di persecuzione rilevanti ai fini del riconoscimento della protezione internazionale ai sensi dell’art. 7 del d.lgs. n. 251/2007, risulta decisivo non già l’orientamento sessuale proprio del richiedente in sé e per sé considerato, ma il “riflesso sociale” che identifica il singolo nell’ambito di un gruppo connotato da un determinato orientamento sessuale. Ciò è confermato dallo stesso d.lgs. 251/2007, dove, all’art. 8, co. 2, si specifica che è «irrilevante che il richiedente possegga effettivamente le caratteristiche razziali, religiose, nazionali, sociali o politiche che provocano gli atti di persecuzione, purché una siffatta caratteristica gli venga attribuita dall’autore delle persecuzioni». Di conseguenza, deve essere cassata con rinvio la decisione che nega la protezione qualificando come “vicenda privata” la situazione del singolo che allega “frequentazioni” o “amicizie” con individui omosessuali.

 

Protezione sussidiariaCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 22 gennaio 2020, n. 1343

Ai fini del riconoscimento della protezione sussidiaria, gli atti di vendetta e ritorsione minacciati o posti in essere da membri di un gruppo familiare che si ritiene leso nel proprio onore a causa di una relazione esistente o esistita con un componente della famiglia rientrano nell’alveo dei trattamenti inumani e degradanti di cui all’art. 14, lett. b), d.lgs. n. 251/2007, in quanto lesivi dei diritti fondamentali garantiti dagli artt. 2, 3 e 29 Cost. e 8 CEDU. È pertanto onere del giudice verificare se, in presenza di minaccia di danno grave ad opera di un “soggetto non statuale”, lo Stato di origine sia in grado di offrire alla persona minacciata adeguata protezione.

 

Protezione umanitaria Cass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 20 gennaio 2020, n. 1104

La condizione emotiva, ancor prima che fisica, di una giovane donna ripetutamente sottoposta a violenze sessuali ed avviato al meretricio, indipendentemente dal luogo in cui tale drammatica vicenda si sia consumata, integra gli estremi di una vulnerabilità che si sostanzia e viene vissuta nella più elevata e dolorosa di tutte le sue possibili forme. Ai fini della concessione della protezione umanitaria, è compito del giudice, una volta accertata la credibilità del narrato e del vissuto con apprezzamento di fatto, interrogarsi – oltre che sul profilo topico-comparativo delle possibili situazioni di vita futura – sulla residua capacità di una donna assoggettata a tali esperienze di essere sottoposta, e di poter ancora accettare, sopportare e subire una qualsiasi ulteriore forma di violenza – benché di tipo e di intensità sicuramente diversa – quale, indubitabilmente, quella che la costringa, ancora una volta contro la sua volontà, ad abbandonare il paese di accoglienza ed essere obbligata a far ritorno a quello di origine. Una particolare situazione di vulnerabilità impone infatti una valutazione di comparazione “attenuata”, concettualmente caratterizzata da una relazione di proporzionalità inversa tra fatti giuridicamente rilevanti, che impone un peculiare bilanciamento tra condizione soggettiva del richiedente asilo e situazione oggettiva del Paese di eventuale rimpatrio.

 

Estradizione Cass. pen., sez. II, sentenza del 13 febbraio 2020, n. 5757

In tema di estradizione per l’estero, non può procedersi alla consegna qualora il fatto del quale l’estradando è chiamato a rispondere è sanzionato nella legislazione dello Stato richiedente con la pena dei lavori forzati, considerato che tale previsione contrasta con la Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e con la Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea – in base alle quali nessuno può essere costretto a compiere un lavoro forzato od obbligatorio – nonché con il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali. Inoltre l’autorità giudiziaria italiana, anche qualora la Convenzione applicabile non preveda la valutazione da parte dello Stato richiesto dei gravi indizi di colpevolezza, non può limitarsi a un controllo meramente formale della documentazione allegata, ma deve compiere una sommaria delibazione diretta a verificare, sulla base degli atti prodotti, l’esistenza di elementi a carico dell’estradando, nella prospettiva del sistema processuale dello Stato richiedente.

 

Obbligo di soccorso in mareCass. pen., sez. III, sentenza del 20 febbraio 2020, n. 112

La Corte di Cassazione ha rigettato il ricorso presentato dalla Procura di Agrigento avverso il provvedimento di non convalida dell’arresto in flagranza – per i reati di cui agli artt. 1100 cod. nav. e 337 c.p. – eseguito dalla Guardia di Finanza nei confronti di Carola Rackete a seguito del tumultuoso sbarco nel Porto di Lampedusa della nave “SeaWatch3”, da lei capitanata, carica di migranti salvati in mare. I giudici di legittimità hanno infatti valutato che bene avesse fatto il Giudice delle indagini preliminari a rilevare una violazione dell’art. 385 c.p.p., il quale vieta l’arresto quando, tenuto conto delle circostanze del caso, “appaia” che il fatto sia stato compiuto nella ricorrenza di una causa di giustificazione, dove il concetto di “apparenza” va riportato a una situazione di “ragionevole esistenza” della causa di giustificazione – e non di “immediata evidenza” – sulla base di circostanze di fatto conosciute o conoscibili con l’ordinaria diligenza. Le forze dell’ordine incaricate dell’arresto avrebbero dovuto riconoscere che Carola Rackete, in qualità di capitano della nave SeaWatch3, aveva agito nell’adempimento del dovere di soccorso in mare posto in via pattizia e, prima ancora, consuetudinaria nel diritto internazionale. Questo dovere – come chiariscono la Convenzione internazionale SAR di Amburgo e le linee guida sul trattamento delle persone soccorse in mare allegate alla medesima Convenzione – non si esaurisce con il recupero a bordo della nave dei naufraghi ma comporta anche l’obbligo accessorio e conseguente di sbarcarli in un luogo sicuro (c.d. place of safety); ciò che non potrà considerarsi una nave in mare, essendo questo un luogo che, oltre a essere in balia degli eventi metereologici avversi, non consente il rispetto dei diritti fondamentali delle persone soccorse, impedendo peraltro di fatto alle medesime di esercitare il loro diritto di presentare domanda di protezione internazionale secondo la Convenzione di Ginevra del 1951.

 

Iscrizione anagrafica Trib. Bologna, ordinanza del 17 febbraio 2020, n. 387

Ai fini dell’iscrizione anagrafica si conferma la piena equiparazione tra i titolari del permesso di soggiorno per richiesta di asilo e tutti gli altri cittadini stranieri (e i cittadini italiani), essendo soltanto venuta meno la procedura semplificata o accelerata (cioè l’automatica iscrizione del richiedente asilo, per effetto della sua condizione di ospite nei centri di cui agli artt. 9,11 e 14, in base alla sola comunicazione del responsabile della convivenza e anche a prescindere dal decorso del termine di 3 mesi previsto dal TU Immigrazione).

 

Permeso di soggiornoC. App. Milano, sentenza 11 febbraio 2020, n. 2171

La cittadina straniera che – in presenza di un modulo comunale prestampato per la domanda di indennità di maternità di base ex art. 74 dlgs 151/01 che non contempli l’ipotesi del permesso unico lavoro – abbia “crocettato” la condizione di lungo soggiornante allegando nel contempo il suo effettivo permesso di soggiorno, non incorre nella decadenza dalla prestazione prevista che è prevista dall’art. 75 DPR 445/00 per i soli casi di autocertificazione falsa e ha diritto predetta indennità ai sensi dell’art.12 Direttiva 2011/98.

 

Rifugiato sur place Cass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 7 febbraio 2020, n. 2954

Il pericolo di danno grave nel caso di rimpatrio deve essere considerato in linea meramente oggettiva, a prescindere dalle ragioni che hanno indotto il richiedente asilo ad emigrare e comunque con riferimento all’attualità; è infatti irrilevante che la situazione pericolosa di danno grave possa essere sorta in un momento successivo alla partenza del richiedente dal paese di origine; del pari ininfluente è il motivo che aveva originato la partenza, avendo il legislatore accolto il concetto di rifugiato sur place, divenuto tale cioè a causa di situazioni sopravvenute nel Paese di origine durante la sua assenza.

 

Permesso di soggiorno C.G.A.R.S., sentenza del 3 febbraio 2020, n. 94

In materia di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, vale a provare nell’an e nel quantum il soddisfacimento della condizione reddituale anche il verbale della Commissione medica che riconosce lo status di invalido in capo allo straniero, in quanto detto verbale costituisce l’ultimo atto del procedimento volto al riconoscimento dell’invalidità civile e precede l’erogazione dell’emolumento – il cui importo è fissato dalla legge – una volta rilasciato il titolo di soggiorno.

 

Cittadinanza italiana TAR Lazio, sentenza del 29 gennaio 2020, n. 1246

Ai fini del diniego della concessione della cittadinanza italiana, possono essere prese in considerazione dall’Amministrazione anche condotte criminose oggetto di un proscioglimento in sede penale per intervenuta prescrizione, in quanto indicative del mancato inserimento stabile dello straniero nella comunità nazionale.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Veneto, sez. III, sentenza 6 febbraio 2020, n. 136

In materia di istanza di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro subordinato tardivamente proposta, non costituisce una ragione idonea a giustificare il ritardo la detenzione dell’istante all’estero, trattandosi di impedimento riconducibile alla sua condotta criminosa e in mancanza della prova dell’impossibilità di inoltrare l’istanza tramite la direzione del carcere. Inoltre, l’omissione dell’invito alla partenza volontaria ex art. 12, co. 1, dPR 394/99 non determina l’illegittimità del provvedimento questorile che dichiara inammissibile la richiesta di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, non incidendo sulla correttezza del potere esercitato dalla Questura e sul contenuto dispositivo del provvedimento di inammissibilità, ed essendo comunque previsto dall’art. 12, comma 2, del predetto d.P.R. un termine massimo di quindici giorni lavorativi per l’allontanamento volontario.

Espulsioni collettiveECtHR, Judgment 24 March 2020, Asady and Others v. Slovakia, Application no. 24917/15

In November 2014 the applicants were found hidden in a truck by the Slovak Border and Foreigners. Police near the border with Ukraine. The applicants were part of a group of 32 people who were subsequently taken to the border police station in Petrovce to establish their identities. The police subsequently issued individual decisions on the administrative expulsion of each applicant with a three-year ban on re-entry. They were removed to Ukraine late in the evening of the same day they had been apprehended and were placed in temporary detention in the town of Chop. Twelve of the people apprehended at the same time as the applicants asked for asylum and were transferred to an asylum-seekers’ reception centre. The first four applicants appealed against the Slovakian administrative expulsion decisions, alleging violations of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights, taken in conjunction with Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment) and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the Convention. the European Court of Human Rights held, by four votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 (prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens) to the European Convention on Human Rights, since despite short interviews at the police station, they had been given a genuine possibility to draw the authorities’ attention to any issue which could have affected their status and entitled them to remain in Slovakia. Their removal had not been carried out without any examination of their individual circumstances.

 

Ricongiungimento familiareCGUE, sentenza del 27 febbraio 2020, Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real c. RH, C-836/18
L’art. 20 TFUE va interpretato nel senso che uno Stato membro non può respingere la domanda di ricongiungimento familiare di un cittadino di un Paese terzo, coniuge di un cittadino dell’Unione che è anche cittadino di detto Stato membro e che non ha mai esercitato la propria libertà di circolazione, per l’unico motivo che tale ultimo cittadino non possiede risorse economiche sufficienti ai sensi dell’art. 7, par. 1, lett. b) e par. 2 dir. 2004/38 e senza esaminare se sussiste tra i coniugi un rapporto di dipendenza tale per cui, in caso di diniego del diritto di soggiorno al cittadino dello stato terzo, lo stesso cittadino dell’Unione sarebbe costretto a lasciare il territorio dell’Unione europea complessivamente considerato, così da essere privato del godimento effettivo del contenuto essenziale dei diritti conferiti dal suo status.

 

Accesso all’abitazione Corte cost., sentenza 9 marzo 2020, n. 44

L’art. 22, co. 1, lett. b), della l. reg. Lombardia n. 16/2016, nella parte in cui fissa il requisito della residenza (o dell’occupazione) ultraquinquennale in regione come condizione di accesso al beneficio dell’alloggio di edilizia residenziale pubblica, contrasta sia con i principi di eguaglianza e ragionevolezza di cui all’art. 3, co. 1, Cost., perché produce un’irragionevole disparità di trattamento a danno di chi, cittadino o straniero, non ne sia in possesso, sia con il principio di eguaglianza sostanziale di cui all’art. 3, co. 2, Cost., perché tale requisito contraddice la funzione sociale dell’edilizia residenziale pubblica.

 

Espulsione amministrativa Cass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 3 marzo 2020, n. 5881

È illegittimo e va, pertanto, annullato il decreto di espulsione dello straniero dal territorio dello Stato emesso dal vice prefetto in sostituzione del Prefetto (con dicitura “P. il Prefetto”) in assenza della necessaria delega del Prefetto.

 

Decreto di espulsioneCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 27 febbraio 2020, n. 5437

La richiesta di protezione internazionale, formulata dallo straniero nei cui confronti sia stato adottato un decreto di espulsione, non ne determina l’invalidità ma soltanto la sospensione dell’efficacia. Ne consegue che il giudice di pace adito ex art. 13, co. 8, TUI non può disporre l’annullamento del decreto espulsivo in ragione del fatto che lo straniero ha successivamente richiesto la protezione.

 

Minore età dello stranieroCass. civ., sez. I, sentenza del 3 marzo 2020, n. 5936

Qualora sussistano fondati dubbi sull’età dello straniero e questa non sia accertabile attraverso documenti identificativi (passaporto o altro documento di riconoscimento munito di fotografia) anche in copia, le Forze di Polizia possono richiedere al Tribunale per i minorenni – giudice competente per la tutela – l’autorizzazione all’avvio della procedura multidisciplinare per l’accertamento dell’età (art. 5, l. n. 47/2017) che deve essere condotta nel rispetto del superiore interesse del minore. In caso di dubbi, si presume la minore età. Ne segue che l’accertamento dell’età non può essere ritenuto valido ove: a) faccia prevalere i risultati degli accertamenti sanitari rispetto ai dati anagrafici certificati dal passaporto o da altro documento di identità; b) determini la maggiore età dell’interessato sulla base di un unico esame, ad es. la radiografia del polso-mano, anziché su una procedura multidisciplinare consistente nello svolgimento di un colloquio sociale, di una visita pediatrica auxologica e di una valutazione psicologica o neuropsichiatrica, alla presenza di un mediatore culturale, tenendo conto delle specificità relative all’origine etnica e culturale dell’interessato; c) non specifichi il margine di errore insito nella variabilità biologica e nelle metodiche utilizzate ed i conseguenti valori minimo e massimo attribuibile: la mancata indicazione del margine di errore, infatti, impedisce di applicare il principio della presunzione di minore età in caso di dubbio.

 

ApolidiaCass. pen., sez. I, 25 febbraio 2020, n. 7458

Lo status di “apolide”, ostativo all’espulsione in base all’art. 31 della Convenzione di New York del 1954, segue all’accertamento dell’impossibilità, per l’interessato, di conseguire la cittadinanza del Paese con cui sussiste un collegamento giuridicamente rilevante in base alla legislazione nazionale di riferimento. Ne consegue che non riveste detto status – e può dunque essere espulso – colui il quale, pur potendola ottenere, non si sia mai attivato per conseguire detta cittadinanza.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, 3 marzo 2020, n. 1543

L’alto numero di dipendenti e l’accertamento dell’incapienza del datore di lavoro non consentono di dimostrare univocamente il carattere fittizio del rapporto lavorativo che giustifica il titolo di soggiorno. In tali circostanze, l’Amministrazione dunque non può, su tali basi, negare la conversione del permesso per lavoro subordinato in permesso per lavoro autonomo senza svolgere ulteriori accertamenti.

 

Conversione del permesso di soggiorno TAR Campania, sez. VI, 9 marzo 2020, n. 1077

È dichiarato inammissibile per difetto di giurisdizione il ricorso avverso il silenzio-inadempimento dell’Amministrazione sull’istanza di conversione del permesso di soggiorno da “assistenza minori” a “motivi familiari” atteso che la giurisdizione sul rapporto sostanziale, trattandosi di provvedimenti dell’autorità amministrativa in materia di diritto all’unità familiare, appartiene al giudice ordinario (art. 30, co. 6, TUI).

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lazio, sez. I ter, 4 marzo 2020, n. 2852

L’iniziativa del procedimento di emersione è rimessa dall’art. 1-ter della l. n. 102/2009 al datore di lavoro. Ne segue che, ove il datore di lavoro dimostri il suo disinteresse per il buon esito del procedimento, l’Amministrazione non può concluderlo con un provvedimento finale favorevole all’emersione del lavoratore straniero. È pertanto legittima, trattandosi di atto vincolato, l’archiviazione del procedimento per il rilascio del permesso di soggiorno disposta dal Questore conseguentemente al rigetto dell’istanza di emersione da parte dello Sportello unico a causa della mancapresentazione del datore di lavoro a stipulare il contratto di soggiorno.

 

Spese di lite TAR Friuli Venezia Giulia, sez. I, 2 marzo 2020, n. 94

Sono interamente compensate per “ragioni di solidarietà sociale” le spese di lite relative al ricorso avverso il diniego di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoro subordinato giudicato del tutto destituito di fondamento, per essere il ricorrente ictu oculi sprovvisto dei requisiti minimi necessari.

 

Conversione permesso di soggiorno – TAR Lazio, sez. I ter, 2 marzo 2020, n. 2704

L’Amministrazione non può rifiutare l’accesso agli atti relativi al procedimento per il rilascio del permesso di soggiorno per motivi di giustizia al beneficiario del predetto titolo che voglia avvalersene nell’ambito del procedimento per la conversione in permesso per motivi di lavoro subordinato, essendo del tutto estranee a tale contesto valutazioni in ordine all’idoneità della documentazione a sostenere la pretesa dedotta in giudizio o vertenti sulla fondatezza della stessa.

 

Discriminazione – Corte App. Milano, Sez. Persone, Minori Famiglia, 6 febbraio 2020, n. 418

Il fatto di qualificare come “clandestini” i richiedenti protezione internazionale integra un comportamento molesto e discriminatorio, provocando sempre l’effetto di violare la dignità di cittadini stranieri che stanno esercitando un diritto fondamentale (e non, come la parola suggerisce, ponendosi in contrasto con i dettami dell’ordinamento) e inoltre di creare nel contesto territoriale in cui sono inseriti un clima ostile, umiliante ed offensivo, per motivi di razza, origine etnica e nazionalità; questo ancor più quando l’impiego del termine si trovi accompagnato da allusioni a possibili danni (usurpazione di diritti, invasione, incremento delle tasse, riduzione delle pensioni) per i cittadini italiani, volte a diffondere malevolenza e a provocare l’esclusione degli cittadini stranieri dalla compagine sociale.

 

Discriminazione Trib. Milano, sez. I civ., 20 marzo 2020

Costituisce discriminazione la previsione inserita in un bando comunale di accesso agli alloggi ERP in base alla quale tutti i cittadini stranieri, comunitari ed extracomunitari, ai fini della dimostrazione dell’assenza di proprietà immobiliari non possono produrre autocertificazione, come è consentito ai cittadini italiani, ma devono produrre documenti ufficiali (dichiarazione dell’ufficio catasto, o equivalente) del proprio Paese di origine che attesti l’assenza di proprietà per ognuno dei componenti del nucleo familiare richiedente, compresi i minori.

Detenzione di minore ECtHR,Jugement 26 March 2020, Bilalova e a. c. Polonia, Arrêt no.23685/14

L’affaire concernait le placement et le maintien de Mme Bailalova et de ses cinq enfants dans un centre fermé pour étrangers, en attendant l’issue de leur demande d’attribution du statut de réfugié. La Cour rappelle que, pour qu’une détention se concilie avec l’article 5 § 1 f) de la Convention, ce dernier renvoie pour l’essentiel à la législation nationale, mais elle commande de surcroît la conformité de toute privation de liberté au but de l’article 5 : protéger l’individu contre l’arbitraire.  La Cour note aussi qu’il ressort de sa jurisprudence désormais bien établie en la matière que, par principe, l’enfermement de jeunes enfants dans un lieu semblable aux établissements pénitentiaires doit être évité et que seul un placement pour une brève durée dans des conditions adaptées pourrait être compatible avec la Convention, sous réserve toutefois que les autorités établissent qu’elles ont recouru à cette mesure ultime seulement après avoir concrètement vérifié qu’aucune autre mesure moins attentatoire à la liberté ne pouvait être mise en place. La Cour note que, au moment de l’adoption de la décision portant prolongation de la détention des requérants, la procédure afférente à la demande d’attribution du statut de réfugié était pendante depuis plus de six mois, puis qu’elle a été prolongée de deux mois consécutifs. Eu égard à la durée de ces délais, la Cour n’est pas convaincue que les autorités nationales ayant instruit cette procédure ont mis en œuvre les diligences nécessaires pour limiter au strict minimum la durée de l’enfermement des enfants requérants. La Cour estime qu’il y a eu violation de l’article 5 § 1 de la Convention dans le chef des enfants requérants.

 

Estradizione CGUE, Grande Sezione, sentenza del 2 aprile 2020, Ruska Federacija, C-897/19

L’art. 36 dell’accordo sullo Spazio economico europeo (SEE) implica che quando a uno Stato membro sia domandata da un Paese terzo l’estradizione di un cittadino di uno Stato non membro dell’Unione ma parte dell’Associazione europea di libero scambio (AELS) e del SEE, lo Stato UE è tenuto a verificare che detto cittadino non sarà sottoposto a trattamenti contrari all’art. 19, par. 2 della Carta. In tale contesto, la circostanza che il Paese AELS abbia, in passato (prima che questi ne diventasse cittadino), riconosciuto l’asilo all’estradando proprio per il procedimento cui è sottoposto nello Stato che ha emesso la domanda di estradizione costituisce un elemento particolarmente serio. Prima di contemplare la possibilità di dare esecuzione alla domanda di estradizione, lo Stato membro richiesto è, in ogni caso, tenuto a informare lo Stato dell’AELS e, se del caso, su sua domanda, a consegnargli il cittadino in questione, conformemente alle disposizioni dell’accordo di consegna, purché detto Stato dell’AELS sia competente, in forza del suo diritto nazionale, a perseguire il cittadino in questione per fatti commessi fuori dal suo territorio nazionale.

 

Ricollocamenti CGUE, Grande Sezione, sentenza del 2 aprile 2020, Commissione c. Polonia, Ungheria e Repubblica Ceca, C-715/17, C-718/17 e C-719/17

La Repubblica di Polonia, l’Ungheria e la Repubblica Ceca, non avendo indicato a intervalli regolari, e almeno ogni tre mesi, un numero adeguato di richiedenti protezione internazionale che erano in grado di ricollocare rapidamente nel loro territorio, sono venuta meno agli obblighi loro imposti in forza dell’art. 5, par. 2, della decisione (UE) 2015/1523 e dell’art. 5, par. 2, della decisione (UE) 2015/1601 del Consiglio (decisioni entrambe riguardanti misure temporanee nel settore della protezione internazionale a beneficio dell’Italia e della Grecia), nonché, di conseguenza, agli ulteriori obblighi di ricollocamento su di esse incombenti in forza dell’art. 5, parr. da 4 a 11, di ciascuna di queste due decisioni.

 

Assegno familiare CGUE, sentenza del 2 aprile 2020, Caisse pour lavenir des enfants, C-802/18

Un assegno familiare connesso all’esercizio di un’attività da lavoro dipendente in uno Stato membro da parte di un lavoratore frontaliero costituisce un vantaggio sociale ai sensi degli artt. 45 TFUE e 7, par. 2, del regolamento (UE) n. 492/2011 relativo alla libera circolazione dei lavoratori all’interno dell’Unione e deve pertanto rispettare il principio della parità di trattamento. Gli artt. 1, lett. i) e 67 del regolamento (CE) 883/2004 in combinato disposto con gli art. 7, par. 2, del regolamento (UE) 492/2011 e 2, punto 2, della direttiva 2004/38 ostano alla legislazione di uno Stato membro che preveda che un lavoratore frontaliero possa percepire un assegno familiare connesso all’esercizio di lavoro dipendente per solo per i propri figli, e non per i figli del coniuge con i quali non hanno un legame di filiazione pur occupandosi del loro mantenimento.

 

Buoni spesaTrib. Roma, decreto del 22 aprile 2020, n. 12835

Sussiste il diritto, per i cittadini extra UE irregolarmente soggiornanti, a percepire i buoni spesa erogati dal Comune di Roma in applicazione dell’Ordinanza del Capo della Protezione Civile n. 658/2020 (distribuzione ai Comuni di contributo economico a favore di persone e/o famiglie in condizione di disagio economico e sociale causato dalla situazione emergenziale dovuta all’epidemia Covid 19), in quanto il diritto all’alimentazione rientra nel “nucleo irriducibile” di diritti fondamentali della persona umana, sicché deve essere riconosciuto anche agli stranieri, qualunque sia la loro posizione rispetto alle norme che regolano l’ingresso ed il soggiorno nello Stato.

 

Buoni spesaTrib. Roma, decreto del 20 aprile 2020 (proc. N. R.G. 18777/2020)

In materia di assegnazione dei bonus spesa ai soggetti residenti presso il Comune di Roma erogati in applicazione dell’ordinanza del Capo della Protezione Civile n. 658/2020 sussiste il fumus boni iuris poiché la ricorrente, titolare dello status di rifugiata, era impossibilitata, a causa dell’emergenza derivante dall’epidemia di Covid 19 e dunque per causa a lei non imputabile, a ritirare il permesso di soggiorno e iscriversi all’anagrafe della popolazione residente del comune di Roma; sussiste inoltre il grave e irreparabile pregiudizio in quanto il Comune valuta la sussistenza dei requisiti ai fini del rilascio dei buoni spesa sulla base delle domande presentate e l’omessa valutazione della domanda per la mancata indicazione della residenza non permette l’accesso al beneficio.

 

Espulsione Cass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 31 marzo 2020, n. 7619

In materia di espulsione amministrativa, il giudice ordinario è tenuto ad accertare soltanto l’assenza del permesso di soggiorno al momento dell’espulsione. Qualsiasi considerazione in ordine alla legittimità del provvedimento del Questore appartiene esclusivamente al giudice amministrativo. Tra i due procedimenti non vi è infatti alcun nesso di pregiudizialità necessaria cosicché la circostanza della pendenza dei termini per impugnare il diniego di rinnovo in sede amministrativa è irrilevante per il giudizio ordinario.

 

EspulsioneCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 31 marzo 2020, n. 7610

Lo straniero, coniuge di un cittadino di uno Stato membro dell’Unione europea e legalmente soggiornante in detto Paese, non può opporsi alla propria espulsione ex art. 13 TUI invocando la direttiva 2004/38 (e disciplina nazionale di attuazione) la quale si applica esclusivamente qualora egli accompagni o raggiunga il proprio coniuge in Italia. In una simile situazione, la circostanza che sia stata disposta l’espulsione ex art. 13 anziché l’intimazione di cui all’art. 5, co. 7-bis e ter, TUI, integra una doglianza sulle modalità dell’espulsione che non inficia la legittimità del decreto espulsivo.

 

Protezione internazionaleCass. civ., sez. I civile, ordinanza del 27 marzo 2020, n. 7546

Il procedimento giurisdizionale di protezione internazionale è caratterizzato, per sua natura, da una sostanziale assenza di contraddittorio (stante la sistematica assenza dell’organo ministeriale), con conseguente impredicabilità della diversa funzione – caratteristica del processo civile ordinario – di analitico e perspicuo bilanciamento tra posizioni e tesi contrapposte. Funzione del procedimento giurisdizionale di protezione internazionale deve infatti ritenersi quella di accertare, secondo criteri legislativamente predeterminati, la sussistenza o meno del diritto del richiedente al riconoscimento di una delle tre forme di asilo. Al fine di vagliarne l’attendibilità, la vicenda narrata dal ricorrente deve essere valutata nel suo complesso e, qualora permangano incongruenze di dettaglio, deve trovare legittima applicazione il principio del beneficio del dubbio, secondo le indicazioni contenute nel d.lgs. n. 251/2017, nel rapporto Beyond Proof Credibility Assessment in EU Asylum Systems dell’UNHCR e nella giurisprudenza della Corte Europea dei diritti dell’Uomo.

 

Sfruttamento lavorativoCass. pen., sez. IV, sentenza del 7 aprile 2020, n. 11546

La sussistenza del reato di sfruttamento lavorativo (art. 603-bis c.p.) non è desumibile dalla mera condizione di irregolarità dello straniero accompagnata da una situazione di disagio e bisogno di lavorare. La fattispecie è infatti caratterizzata dall’elemento dello sfruttamento del lavoratore, i cui indici di rilevazione attengono a una condizione di eclatante pregiudizio e di rilevante soggezione del lavoratore, resa manifesta da profili contrattuali retributivi o da profili normativi del rapporto di lavoro, o da violazione delle norme in materia di sicurezza e di igiene sul lavoro, o da sotto-posizione a umilianti o degradanti condizioni di lavoro e di alloggio.

 

EstradizioneCass. pen., sez. VI, sentenza del 6 aprile 2020, n. 11374

L’art. 7, d.lgs. 25/2008 non osta a che, in pendenza della richiesta di protezione internazionale, la Corte d’Appello dichiari la sussistenza dei presupposti per l’estradizione dello straniero, ma solo che vi si dia corso. Le due procedure di estradizione e di riconoscimento della protezione internazionale non si trovano infatti in rapporto di pregiudizialità, atteso che la sospensione della consegna o l’eventuale successivo riconoscimento della protezione saranno valutati dal Ministro della giustizia ex art. 708 c.p.p.

 

Tenuità del fatto Cass. pen., sez. I, sentenza del 23 marzo 2020, n. 10509

Nel procedimento penale davanti al giudice di pace, la causa di esclusione della punibilità di cui al d.lgs. n. 274 del 2000, art. 34, trova applicazione anche in riferimento ai reati di pericolo astratto o presunto e va apprezzata per mezzo di un giudizio che deve avere ad oggetto la fattispecie concretamente realizzata. Attraverso tale giudizio, il giudice è chiamato a verificare se il fatto concreto sia particolarmente tenue alla luce di tutti gli elementi indicati dal legislatore, ossia l’esiguità del danno o del pericolo, l’occasionalità della condotta, il basso grado di colpevolezza e l’eventuale pregiudizio sociale per l’imputato. Detti indici normativi devono essere congiuntamente considerati. A tale criterio di giudizio non si è attenuto il giudice di pace che, individuato il bene giuridico tutelato dalla norma incriminatrice di cui all’art. 14, co. 5-ter del d.lgs. n. 286/1988 nella sicurezza pubblica, ha valorizzato come indice di pericolosità ostativa al riconoscimento della particolare tenuità un elemento costitutivo della fattispecie di reato contestata, ossia il soggiorno illegale nel territorio nazionale dello straniero; questo senza verificare se detto elemento, nella vicenda concreta posta alla sua attenzione, abbia assunto una specifica connotazione comunque idonea a giustificare la scelta di non applicare la causa estintiva. Si nota come infine lo stato di disoccupazione dell’imputato, se non collegato a scelte devianti o ad altre circostanze sintomatiche, non di per sé indicativo di una maggiore capacità a delinquere.

 

Scriminante putativaCass. pen., sez. III, sentenza del 5 marzo 2020, n. 8986

Lo straniero imputato di un delitto contro la persona o contro la famiglia non può invocare, neppure in forma putativa, la scriminante dell’esercizio di un diritto (art. 51 c.p.) in relazione a facoltà che asserisce essergli riconosciute dall’ordinamento dello Stato di provenienza, qualora tale diritto sia oggettivamente incompatibile con le regole dell’ordinamento italiano, in cui l’agente ha scelto di vivere, dovendosi valorizzare, in linea con l’art. 3 Cost., la centralità della persona umana, quale principio in grado di armonizzare le culture individuali.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 19 marzo 2020, n. 1940

Ai fini della valutazione dei requisiti previsti per l’ottenimento del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro subordinato, la ritenuta falsità della documentazione inerente l’attività lavorativa dello straniero non fa venir meno l’obbligo dell’Amministrazione di tener conto anche degli elementi sopravvenuti (art. 5, co. 5, TUI), compresa la documentazione che attesta l’ulteriore attività lavorativa, diversa da quella ritenuta falsa e, soprattutto, la disponibilità di un reddito sufficiente da questa derivante.

 

Luogo sicuro – TAR Lazio, sez. III, decreto del 22 aprile 2020, n. 2855

Il TAR Lazio ha respinto l’istanza di misure cautelari monocratiche proposta avverso il Decreto Interministeriale del 7 aprile 2020, con il quale è stato stabilito che i porti italiani non rappresentano più “luoghi sicuri” (places of safety) ai fini dello sbarco di migranti in caso siano soccorsi in mare da unità navali battenti bandiera straniera al di fuori dell’area SAR italiana. Si è infatti ritenuto che, in considerazione del bilanciamento di interessi contrapposti tipico della fase cautelare che non sussistono i requisiti di estrema gravità ed urgenza previsti dall’art. 56 c.p., poiché l’atto impugnato è motivato mediante argomentazioni non implausibili circa l’attuale situazione di emergenza da COVID-19, e la conseguente impossibilità di fornire un “luogo sicuro”, senza compromettere la funzionalità delle strutture nazionali sanitarie, logistiche e di sicurezza dedicate al contenimento della diffusione del contagio e di assistenza e cura ai pazienti COVID-19. Si tiene presente, per quanto concerne la valutazione del periculum in mora, che resta comunque fermo l’obbligo di garantire assistenza alle persone eventualmente soccorse in mare, assicurando l’assenza di minaccia per le loro vite, il soddisfacimento delle necessità primarie e l’accesso a servizi fondamentali sotto il profilo sanitario, logistico e trasportistico.

 

Buoni spesa – Trib. Brescia, decreto del 28 aprile 2020, n. 1559

La condotta tenuta dal Comune di Bonate Sopra (BG), consistente nell’avere emanato la delibera del 6 aprile 2020, n. 33 (pubblicata in data 10 aprile 2020) con la quale sono stati adottati criteri e modalità di selezione delle domande per l’erogazione delle risorse da destinare a misure urgenti di solidarietà alimentare sotto forma di “buoni spesa”, ai sensi della Ordinanza della Protezione civile n. 658/2020, costituisce discriminazione nella parte in cui tali criteri contengono, per gli stranieri extra UE, il requisito del permesso di soggiorno CE per soggiornanti di lungo periodo ai sensi dell’art. 9 TU immigrazione anziché requisiti relativi alla condizione di disagio economico e alla domiciliazione nel territorio comunale.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lombardia, sez. staccata di Brescia, sentenza del 7 aprile 2020, n. 266

Il termine di 60 giorni previsto dall’art. 5 comma 9 del dlgs. n. 286/1998 per il rilascio o il rinnovo del titolo di soggiorno non è accompagnato da una sanzione per l’inerzia dell’amministrazione. Non si applica quindi il meccanismo del silenzio-assenso. Tuttavia, la posizione del cittadino extracomunitario in attesa di risposta è tutelata dal successivo comma 9-bis, che consente, «anche ove non venga rispettato il termine di sessanta giorni di cui al precedente comma», la prosecuzione del soggiorno in Italia e lo svolgimento temporaneo di attività lavorativa. La circostanza che fino alla decisione dell’amministrazione sia attribuita ex lege una protezione assimilabile a un titolo di soggiorno non priva il cittadino extracomunitario dell’interesse a ottenere una risposta nel rispetto del termine di 60 giorni. Una decisione favorevole in sede amministrativa assicura infatti la certezza del diritto per il richiedente e ne stabilizza la posizione giuridica. Per questo, il termine di 60 giorni non può essere considerato meramente sollecitatorio; superato tale termine dalla richiesta di rilascio/rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, il silenzio è illegittimo se la Questura non giustifica il ritardo.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lombardia, sez. I, sentenza del 30 marzo 2020, n. 570

La prova del carattere fittizio del rapporto lavorativo spetta all’Amministrazione che la adduca a fondamento del diniego del rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro subordinato, in ossequio al principio generale espresso dall’art. 64 c.p.a. Nel caso di specie, tale prova non appare raggiunta poiché, nonostante l’inadeguatezza reddituale del datore di lavoro suggerisca l’ineffettività del rapporto di collaborazione domestica, vi è ragione di ritenere che al pagamento della retribuzione mensile contribuisca anche il padre di questi, beneficiario delle prestazioni lavorative.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lombardia, sez. staccata di Brescia, sez. II, sentenza del 20 marzo 2020, n. 229

Al fine di valutare la sussistenza del “rilevante pregiudizio alla salute” di cui all’art. 19, co. 2, lett. d) bis TUI, è necessario esaminare la particolare situazione medica dello straniero, raffrontandola con l’efficacia e l’accessibilità del trattamento sanitario che questi potrebbe ricevere nel Paese d’origine. Qualora sia documentato che le cure somministrate in Italia costituiscono una terapia salvavita, la Questura può negare il titolo di soggiorno per cure mediche solo dimostrando che le stesse cure, o cure equivalenti in base ai protocolli medici, sono garantite anche nel Paese di origine a un costo sostenibile.

 

Cittadinanza italiana TAR Lazio, sez. I-ter, sentenza del 23 marzo 2020, n. 3609

Al fine di individuare la soglia di reddito necessaria per l’ottenimento della cittadinanza italiana ex art. 9, l. 91/1992, deve ritenersi compresa nel nucleo familiare del richiedente la prole naturale non convivente anche se l’altro genitore ha dichiarato di rinunciare al contributo economico dell’aspirante cittadino italiano, atteso che il dovere di mantenere i figli è irrinunciabile e incombe su entrambi i genitori ex art. 147 c.c.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lazio, sez. I-ter, sentenza del 20 marzo 2020, n. 3501

È illegittimo il provvedimento che nega la conversione del permesso di soggiorno per motivi religiosi in permesso per motivi di studio nella parte in cui omette la valutazione della sussistenza, nel caso concreto, dei presupposti per il rilascio del permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo (art. 9 TUI), prendendo in considerazione l’eventuale reddito prodotto dalla ricorrente dopo la rinuncia ai voti.

Apolidia ECtHR,Judgment of 12 May 2020, Sudita Keita v. Hungary, Application no. 42321/15

The case concerned a stateless individual’s protracted difficulty to regularise their status in Hungary. The applicant, who is of Somali and Nigerian origin, arrived in Hungary in 2002. After his asylum application was rejected, he continued to live in Hungary without a regular legal status. The applicant could not be returned to Somalia due to the ongoing civil war, and the Nigerian embassy had refused to recognise him as a citizen. The applicant applied for stateless status, which was initially refused due to Hungarian law requiring as a precondition the “lawful stay in the country”. This requirement was later declared unlawful by the Constitutional Court in 2015, and the applicant was recognised as a stateless person in October 2017. The applicant complained to the ECtHR that as a result of the challenges to regularise his status in the first fifteen years in Hungary, there were adverse repercussions on his enjoyment in respect of private and family life, including his ability to access health care and employment opportunities, and ability to marry. The Court highlighted that the applicant’s complaint was related not to the impossibility to obtain stateless status but rather the general impossibility of regularising his status in Hungary, which prevented him from living a normal private life for a fifteen-year-long period. As such, the applicant was deprived of basic entitlements to healthcare and employment. It added that, for the recognition of the stateless status, the applicant was asked to meet requirements which were essentially impossible due to the condition as stateless person itself, contrary to the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Statelessness of Persons. As a consequence, the Court was not satisfied that the State had complied with its positive obligation to provide an effective and accessible procedure, or combination of procedures, enabling the applicant to determine his status with due regard to his private-life interests, contrary to Article 8 ECHR.

 

Visto d’ingresso ECtHR,Grand Chamber, Decision of 5 May 2020, M.N. and Others v. Belgium, Application no. 3599/18 

The case concerned a couple of Syrian nationals and their two children, who were refused the short term visas that they had requested from the Belgian Embassy in Beirut with a view to applying for asylum in Belgium. The applicants claimed that there had been a breach of their rights under Articles 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court reiterated that Article 1 (obligation to respect human rights) of the European Convention limited its scope to persons within the jurisdiction of the States Parties to the Convention. In the present case, it noted that the applicants were not within Belgium’s jurisdiction in respect of the circumstances complained of under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention. The Court also considered that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was inapplicable in the present case. The entry to Belgian territory which would have resulted from the visas being issued did not engage a “civil” right within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. Lastly, the Court noted that this conclusion did not prejudice the endeavours being made by the States Parties to facilitate access to asylum procedures through their embassies and/or consular representations.

 

Detenzione in zone di transito CJUE, Grande Chambre, Arrêt du 14 Mai 2020, Országos Idegenrendészeti Főigazgatóság Dél-alföldi Regionális Igazgatóság, C-924/19 PPU et C-925/19 PPU

Des ressortissants afghans (affaire C-924/19 PPU) et iraniens (affaire C-925/19 PPU), arrivés en Hongrie par la Serbie, ont introduit des demandes d’asile depuis la zone de transit de Röszke, située à la frontière serbo-hongroise. En application du droit hongrois, ces demandes ont été rejetées comme irrecevables et des décisions de retour vers la Serbie ont été adoptées. Toutefois, la Serbie a refusé la réadmission des intéressés sur son territoire, au motif que les conditions prévues par l’accord de réadmission conclu avec l’Union 4 n’étaient pas réunies. À la suite de cette décision, les autorités hongroises n’ont pas procédé à l’examen au fond des demandes précitées mais ont modifié le pays de destination mentionné dans les décisions de retour initiales, en le remplaçant par le pays d’origine des intéressés. Ces derniers ont alors formé opposition contre les décisions modificatives; elle a été rejetée. Bien qu’un tel recours ne soit pas prévu en droit hongrois, les intéressés ont saisi une juridiction hongroise en vue de faire annuler les décisions rejetant leur opposition à l’encontre de ces décisions modificatives et d’enjoindre à l’autorité chargée de l’asile de mener une nouvelle procédure d’asile. Ils ont également introduit des recours en carence liés à leur placement et leur maintien dans la zone de transit de Röszke. En effet, ils ont d’abord été tenus de séjourner dans le secteur réservé aux demandeurs d’asile, avant qu’il ne leur soit imposé, quelques mois plus tard, de séjourner dans le secteur réservé aux ressortissants de pays tiers dont la demande d’asile a été rejetée, secteur où ils se trouvent actuellement. La Cour a examiné la situation des intéressés dans la zone de transit de Rözske, au regard des règles encadrant tant la rétention des demandeurs de protection internationale (directives « procédures » et « accueil ») que celle des ressortissants de pays tiers en situation. À cet égard, la Cour a d’abord jugé que le placement des intéressés dans cette zone de transit devait être considéré comme une mesure de rétention. Pour parvenir à cette conclusion, elle a précisé que la notion de «rétention», qui revêt la même signification dans le contexte des différentes directives précitées, vise une mesure coercitive qui suppose une privation, et non une simple restriction, de la liberté de mouvement de l’intéressé et l’isole du reste de la population, en lui imposant de demeurer en permanence dans un périmètre restreint et clos. Or, pour la Cour, les conditions prévalant dans la zone de transit de Rözske s’apparentent à une privation de liberté, notamment parce que les intéressés ne peuvent pas, légalement, quitter cette zone volontairement en quelque direction que ce soit. En particulier, ils ne peuvent pas la quitter vers la Serbie dans la mesure où une telle tentative, d’une part, serait considérée comme illégale par les autorités serbes et, de ce fait, les exposerait à des sanctions et, d’autre part, risquerait de leur faire perdre toute chance d’obtenir le statut de réfugié en Hongrie. La Cour a ensuite examiné la conformité de cette rétention aux exigences imposées par le droit de l’Union. En ce qui concerne les exigences liées au placement en rétention, la Cour a jugé que, en vertu, respectivement, de l’article 8 de la directive « accueil » et de l’article 15 de la directive « retour », ni un demandeur de protection internationale ni un ressortissant de pays tiers faisant l’objet d’une décision de retour ne peuvent être placés en rétention au seul motif qu’ils ne peuvent pas subvenir à ses besoins. Elle a ajouté que les articles 8 et 9 de la directive « accueil » et l’article 15 de la directive « retour » s’opposent, respectivement, à ce qu’un demandeur de protection internationale ou un ressortissant de pays tiers faisant l’objet d’une décision de retour soit placé en rétention sans l’adoption préalable d’une décision motivée ordonnant ce placement et sans qu’aient été examinées la nécessité et la proportionnalité d’une telle mesure. Enfin, la Cour a jugé que la légalité d’une mesure de rétention, telle que la rétention d’une personne dans une zone de transit, devait pouvoir faire l’objet d’un contrôle juridictionnel, en application, respectivement, de l’article 9 de la directive « accueil » et de l’article 15 de la directive « retour ». Dès lors, en l’absence de dispositions nationales prévoyant un tel contrôle, le principe de primauté du droit de l’Union et le droit à une protection juridictionnelle effective imposent à la juridiction nationale saisie de se déclarer compétente pour se prononcer à ce sujet. De plus, si, à l’issue de son contrôle, la juridiction nationale estime que la mesure de rétention en cause est contraire au droit de l’Union, elle doit pouvoir substituer sa décision à celle de l’autorité administrative l’ayant ordonnée et prononcer la libération immédiate des personnes concernées, ou éventuellement une mesure alternative à la rétention.

 

Domande di asilo nell’emergenza Conseil d’État, ordonnances du 30 avril 2020, nn. 440240 e 440253 

À la suite d’un recours de sept associations dont la Ligue des droits de l’Homme et le Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigrés (Gisti) et de sept particuliers, le tribunal administratif de Paris a ordonné à l’administration le rétablissement du dispositif d’enregistrement des demandes d’asile en Ile-de-France, supprimé en mars dernier. Le ministère de l’intérieur et de l’’Office français de l’immigration et de l’intégration (OFII) ont demandé l’annulation de cette décision au Conseil d’État. Le juge des référés a ordonné au ministre de l’intérieur et à l’OFII de rétablir dans un délai de cinq jours et dans les conditions sanitaires imposées par le covid-19, l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile, en priorité de celles émanant des personnes présentant une vulnérabilité particulière, et de rouvrir la plateforme téléphonique de prise de rendez-vous. Le juge des référés a rappelé qu’il s’était déjà prononcé le 9 avril dernier sur la question du droit d’asile durant le confinement. Il avait alors considéré qu’il ne lui était pas porté d’atteinte grave et manifestement illégale, car l’administration s’était engagée à poursuivre l’enregistrement des demandes des personnes vulnérables et à recenser les personnes qui avaient l’intention de déposer une demande. Toutefois le juge observe à présent, selon les différents éléments qui lui ont été présentés ou qu’il a demandés, que les permanences assurées dans les préfectures pour les demandes des personnes vulnérables sont insuffisantes et que le recensement annoncé n’a pas été mis en œuvre. Contrairement à ce qu’avançait l’administration, le juge note que la mobilisation d’un minimum d’agents est possible malgré le contexte pour rouvrir les guichets d’enregistrement en nombre suffisant. L’impossibilité d’appliquer les mesures de protection et de distanciation sociale ne peut pas non plus être invoquée selon le juge, qui observe que d’autres préfectures, notamment dans des départements particulièrement touchés par l’épidémie, peuvent les appliquer. Pour ces différentes raisons, la carence de l’État à mettre en œuvre l’enregistrement des demandes d’asile constitue une atteinte grave et manifestement illégale au droit d’asile et justifie l’intervention du juge des référés.

 

FOIA e rapporti di spesa dei progetti OIM finanziati dall’Italia Cons. Stato, sez. II, sentenza del 16 aprile 2020, n. 3012

Il Consiglio di Stato ha condannato il Ministero degli affari esteri e della cooperazione internazionale a rendere pubblici i rapporti di spesa dei progetti dell’Organizzazione Internazionale per le Migrazioni (OIM) in Libia finanziati dal governo italiano, più in generale affermando il principio di trasparenza sull’utilizzo dei fondi italiani quando questi sono affidati ad OIM o altre organizzazioni internazionali per lo svolgimento di programmi umanitari. È infatti ribadito che il FOIA prevede la possibilità per ciascun cittadino, senza motivare la sua richiesta, di chiedere conto alla pubblica amministrazione dell’utilizzo delle risorse pubbliche. Si afferma inoltre per la prima volta che gli atti delle agenzie delle Nazioni Unite, anche quando si tratta dei rapporti finanziari inviati al loro donatore, se questi è il governo italiano, sono sottoposti ai doveri di trasparenza e al controllo esercitabile da parte di tutti i cittadini. Tutti gli atti che non sono coperti da segreto di Stato sono dunque accessibili, a meno che la pubblica amministrazione non motivi puntualmente le ragioni del rigetto, specificando dettagliatamente gli interessi pubblici lesi dalla divulgazione. Il governo italiano potrà oscurare solo i nomi propri di singoli e aziende e i luoghi sensibili indicando la puntuale motivazione sottesa al rigetto, di modo da tutelare eventuali interessi di terzi confliggenti con la divulgazione.

 

Permesso di soggiorno di lungo periodoTAR Lazio, sez. I-ter, sentenza 11 febbraio 2020, n. 1909

Il TAR Lazio ha confermato la legittimità di un decreto questorile di diniego di aggiornamento di un permesso di soggiorno UE di lungo periodo, motivato a partire dall’incompatibilità tra l’iscrizione anagrafica presso un indirizzo “virtuale”, messo a disposizione dal comune per l’iscrizione dei senza fissa dimora, e il tipo di autorizzazione richiesta. La sentenza, nel confermare questa motivazione, ha inoltre evidenziato che lo straniero non era più titolare di alcuni requisiti (reddito sufficiente, alloggio idoneo) previsti per il rilascio di tale permesso di soggiorno.

 

Revoca misure di accoglienza TAR Toscana, sez. II, sentenza del 6 maggio 2020, n. 540

Il primato di cui gode il diritto dell’Unione sul diritto nazionale determina la disapplicazione dell’art. 23, lett. e), d.lgs. n. 142/2015 che sanziona con la revoca delle misure d’accoglienza lo straniero responsabile di gravi violazioni delle regole del centro d’accoglienza, pur così determinandosi un vuoto legislativo che sarà compito del legislatore colmare. Sono dunque annullati i provvedimenti di revoca delle misure d’accoglienza disposti nei confronti dei ricorrenti perseguiti per furto aggravato per aver asportato alcuni capi da un cassonetto adibito alla raccolta di indumenti usati.

 

Rimpatrio Cass. civ., sez. I, sentenza del 28 aprile 2020, n. 8230

Per accertare la sussistenza di ragioni ostative al rimpatrio in situazioni di settorialità del rischio di danni gravi nel Paese di provenienza (c.d. via di fuga interna), va considerata la zona dove il richiedente potrebbe effettivamente ritornare, per avere ivi la propria origine e/o i propri riferimenti familiari e sociali. Se questi ha vissuto in più aree del Paese d’origine, occorre effettuare un giudizio comparativo al fine di privilegiare l’indagine in relazione al territorio di maggiore radicamento al momento dell’eventuale rimpatrio.

 

Protezione internazionaleCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 27 aprile 2020, n. 8224

L’omessa trasmissione degli atti al giudice da parte della Commissione territoriale non può essere censurata in Cassazione, e il relativo motivo è inammissibile, qualora non abbia prodotto un pregiudizio sul piano probatorio. Ai fini della validità del procedimento e della sentenza nei giudizi in cui l’intervento del PM è obbligatorio – come in materia di protezione internazionale – non rilevano né la sua effettiva partecipazione alle udienze, né l’assunzione di conclusioni, essendo sufficiente che egli sia stato avvisato, così da consentirne la partecipazione. È inammissibile il motivo che miri a sostituire l’apprezzamento di fatto esaustivamente condotto dal giudice di merito che, attivando il proprio potere di cooperazione officiosa, abbia escluso – attraverso la consultazione di adeguati reports informativi – l’attuale sussistenza di una situazione di conflitto armato, violenza indiscriminata, insicurezza generalizzata o comunque di allarme sociale, tali da giustificare la richiesta protezione sussidiaria.

 

Espulsione Cass. pen., sez. I, sentenza del 6 maggio 2020, n. 13764

In materia di espulsione come misura alternativa alla detenzione, la necessità di rispettare i principi di rango costituzionale e sovranazionale e, in particolare, quelli attinenti al superiore interesse del minore (cfr. art. 5, co. 1, lett. a), c.d. “Direttiva rimpatri”), implica che, oltre ad escludere la sussistenza delle cause ostative di cui all’art. 19 TUI, il giudice di sorveglianza debba bilanciare la concreta ed attuale pericolosità sociale dello straniero con la natura e l’effettività dei suoi vincoli familiari, nonché con la durata del soggiorno in Italia e i suoi legami familiari, culturali e sociali con il paese di origine.

 

Sospensione condizionaleCass. pen., sez. V, sentenza del 6 maggio 2020, n. 13807

Non è possibile negare la sospensione condizionale della pena esclusivamente in base allo status di cittadino straniero e all’incerta identità dell’imputato, nonché all’assenza di radicamento sul territorio dello Stato, atteso che né la condizione di irregolarità né il fatto che l’imputato non abbia fissa dimora e stabile occupazione lavorativa costituiscono indici di pericolosità sociale idonei di per sé a determinare l’esclusione dal beneficio di cui all’art. 163 c.p..

 

Immigrazione clandestinaCass. pen., sez. I, sentenza del 6 maggio 2020, n. 13741

In tema di favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione clandestina, la giurisdizione nazionale è configurabile anche nel caso in cui il trasporto dei migranti, avvenuto in violazione del d.lgs. n. 286/1998, art. 12, a bordo di un’imbarcazione priva di bandiera e, quindi, non appartenente ad alcuno Stato, sia stato accertato in acque extraterritoriali ma successivamente nelle acque interne e sul territorio nazionale si siano verificati quale evento del reato l’ingresso e lo sbarco dei cittadini extracomunitari per l’intervento dei soccorritori. La condotta dei soccorritori, che consente ai migranti di giungere nel nostro territorio (peraltro doverosa tanto sulla scorta della Convenzione di Amburgo del 1979 quanto sulla scorta della Convenzione di Montego Bay del 1989, anche avuto contezza dell’illiceità del trasporto), è riconducibile alla figura dell’autore mediato di cui all’art. 48 c.p. e scriminata in ragione dello stato di necessità volutamente cagionato e strumentalizzato dai trafficanti. Devono ritenersi utilizzabili, in quanto hanno natura testimoniale, le dichiarazioni rese spontaneamente alla P.G. da parte di migranti nei confronti di membri dell’equipaggio che ha effettuato il trasporto illegale, non essendo configurabile nei confronti dei migranti il reato di cui al d.lgs. n. 286/1998, art. 10-bis – con conseguente necessità di riscontri alle dichiarazioni rese quali chiamanti in correità o reità – considerato che l’ingresso nel territorio dello Stato è avvenuto nell’ambito di un’attività di soccorso e che non è configurabile il tentativo di ingresso illegale, trattandosi di una. Nessun rilievo assume dunque la circostanza che i migranti siano stati sentiti in assenza di difensore, non rivestendo costoro la posizione di indagati di reato connesso.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 8 maggio 2020, n. 2912

L’art. 1, co. 8, del “decreto sicurezza” (d.l. n. 113/2018) non preclude allo straniero che richieda il rinnovo del permesso per motivi umanitari di richiederne anche, contestualmente o successivamente, la conversione in permesso per lavoro subordinato, ove ne sussistano i presupposti. Tanto è reso manifesto dal tenore letterale dell’art. 1, co. 8, il quale – nel consentire la possibilità di rilasciare, alla scadenza del permesso, un permesso di soggiorno ai sensi dell’art. 32, co. 3, del d.lgs. n. 25/2008 previa valutazione della competente Commissione – mantiene espressamente fermi «i casi di conversione». Anche se la Commissione territoriale ha dunque espresso parere negativo al rilascio del permesso ai sensi del citato art. 32, come è accaduto nel caso di specie, ciò non impedisce al Questore di valutare se sussistano i presupposti per la conversione del permesso. Il provvedimento questorile è dunque illegittimo laddove non ha valutato se lo straniero potesse ottenere il permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoro subordinato per via dell’attività lavorativa che ha intrapreso mentre il precedente soggiorno per motivi umanitari non era ancora scaduto.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 8maggio 2020, n. 2915

L’art. 5, co. 5, TUI consente di tener conto solo degli elementi sopravvenuti tra la proposizione dell’istanza e il momento in cui la PA provvede e non di quelli venuti in essere oltre tale limite temporale. Ne discende che non rileva che la circostanza sanante sopravvenuta al provvedimento di diniego di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno sia stata o meno dedotta in sede di ricorso avverso tale provvedimento, trattandosi di una preclusione di natura sostanziale.

 

Permesso di soggiornoCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 7maggio 2020, n. 2882

Il consolidato orientamento in materia di reati c.d. ostativi, e conseguente automatica espulsione dello straniero dal territorio dello Stato, incontra un limite nell’art. 9, co. 4, TUI. La condanna per un grave reato costituisce solo uno degli elementi della valutazione globale della situazione dello straniero richiesta dalla disposizione citata e dal diritto dell’Unione di cui costituisce attuazione (art. 6 dir. 109/2003/CE), e non può pertanto determinare di per sé e automaticamente la revoca del permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo.

 

Cittadinanza italiana Cons. Stato, sez. III, ordinanza del 7maggio 2020, n. 2879

In materia di concessione della cittadinanza italiana ex art. 9, l. n. 91/1992, la PA è chiamata a valutare, con ampia discrezionalità, il grado complessivo di integrazione nella società da parte del richiedente – che deve mostrare, perlomeno e indefettibilmente, una convinta adesione ai valori fondamentali dell’ordinamento – escludendo altresì che la sua presenza sul territorio nazionale rappresenti un pericolo per l’ordine pubblico, anche (ma non solo) in ragione dei suoi precedenti penali o giudiziari. Detta valutazione non può tuttavia ispirarsi a un criterio di assoluta irreprensibilità morale, nella forma dello status illesae dignitatis, o di impeccabilità sociale, del tutto antistorico prima che irrealistico e, perciò, umanamente inesigibile da chiunque, straniero o cittadino che sia.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 4 maggio 2020, n. 2826

L’Amministrazione non può desumere che lo straniero non dispone della stabile sistemazione alloggiativa necessaria per l’ottenimento del permesso di soggiorno automaticamente per il solo fatto che questi abbia ripetutamente cambiato dimora, specie se i cambiamenti si registrano in un lasso di tempo apprezzabile, essendo necessaria una completa istruttoria volta ad accertare la veridicità dei dati comunicati dall’interessato.

 

Accesso civico – TAR Lazio, sez. I ter, sentenza del 29 aprile 2020, n. 4381

Trattandosi di informazioni strumentali a consentire la conoscenza scientifica, l’informazione e il dibattito pubblico, sussiste il diritto all’accesso civico generalizzato ai dati relativi ai centri d’accoglienza, quali: denominazione, indirizzo, tipologia, capienza della struttura, denominazione dell’ente gestore; numero delle presenze in un dato periodo con specifica indicazione del numero delle donne, degli uomini, dei minori accompagnati e non accompagnati e dei nuclei familiari; disciplina seguita per l’affidamento della gestione del contratto in essere; costi maturati a carico dell’ente appaltante per la gestione di ogni singolo centro.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lombardia, sez. staccata di Brescia, sez. II, sentenza del 29 aprile 2020, n. 295

 La partecipazione dello straniero attivista a manifestazioni di dissenso o protesta sociale a tutela dei diritti degli immigrati che non risultano sfociate in atti di violenza non costituisce indice idoneo a dimostrarne la pericolosità sociale ex art. 9, co. 4, TUI – ancorché abbia condotto a precedenti o pendenze per la contravvenzione di cui all’art. 18 TULPS – e non vale dunque a fondare il diniego della conversione del permesso per lavoro subordinato in permesso per lungo soggiornanti.

 

Buoni spesaTAR Basilicata, decreto del 30 aprile 2020, n. 111

La delibera di Giunta del Comune di Matera n. 74/2020 è sospesa nella parte in cui limita l’accesso ai c.d. buoni spesa ai nuclei familiari titolari di permesso di soggiorno e residenti nel Comune di Matera, ai fini dell’ammissione con riserva allo scrutinio della domanda presentata dal ricorrente per l’accesso alla misura di sostegno, fermi restando gli ulteriori requisiti e criteri di valutazione.