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.

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.

 

Mathilde Crépin, Persecution, International Refugee Law and Refugees. A Feminist Approach, Routledge, 2020

This book explores the ambit of the notion of persecution in international law and its relevance in the current geopolitical context, more specifically for refugee women. The work analyses different models for interpreting the notion of persecution in international refugee law through a comparative lens. In particular, a feminist approach to refugee law is adopted to determine to what extent the notion of persecution can apply to gender related forms of violence and what are the challenges in doing so. It proposes an interpretive model that would encourage decision makers to interpret the notion of persecution in a manner that is sufficiently protective and relevant to the profiles of refugees in the 21st century, most particularly to refugee women. The book will be of interest to academics and students in the field of public international law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, immigration law, European law, and refugee law as well as those working in the areas of international relations.

 

Fanny Tittel-Mosser, Implementing EU Mobility Partnerships. Putting Soft Law into Practice, Routledge, 2020

This book provides a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of Mobility Partnerships and their consequences for third countries. Mobility partnerships between the EU and third countries are usually viewed as reflecting asymmetric power relations where development aid, trade relations and visa policies are made conditional upon the cooperation by third countries with an EU agenda of migration control. This book argues that three main factors condition the relevance of Mobility Partnerships: the state of relations between EU Member States and a third country, and in particular, the role of postcolonial ties; the power of negotiation of a third country, which is linked to its geopolitical importance for the EU; and its administrative capacity, which is understood as the capacity of a state to define and implement policies and to legislate and enforce the law. The work combines a comparative legal analysis of the development of the legal and policy frameworks in the cases of Morocco and Cape Verde with an empirical study of the implementation of Mobility Partnerships’ projects. The analysis demonstrates that Mobility Partnerships, despite their non-binding nature, have legal and policy relevance for these third countries with regard to the regulation of migration, asylum, human trafficking and even labour law. As such, this book makes a contribution to the understanding of the interplay between the interests of EU, Member State and third country actors in the implementation of the Mobility Partnerships. The book will be a key resource for academics and students focusing on Migration Law, EU Studies, Geopolitics and African Studies. The empirical approach will also appeal to policy-makers, international organisation representatives and NGOs.

 

Articoli

 

Zia Akhtar, Detention Before Deportation: Merits Based Review, and the Need for More Oversight of Vulnerable Detainees, in European Public Law, 2020, Volume 26, Issue 2

The decision to issue a deportation order in the UK is for the Home Secretary, whohas to take into account the circumstances in the offender’s country of origin,humanitarian aspects of the case and the considerations of public policy. This invitesa wider frame of reference in interpreting Article 5 of the European Convention ofHuman Rights (ECHR)1and for a merits based approach to judicial review. TheImmigration Rules are a unique hybrid of policy and law and are not strictly definedas legislation but the Secretary of State has to comply with them but can be changedby Parliament. The courts have developed the principles that underpin the avail-ability of judicial review as a reason for upholding the proportionality of measures ininterpreting the immigration legislation as a basis of determining the policy of theSecretary of State.

 

Giovanni Cellamare, Dignità umana e trattamento degli stranieri irregolari in attesa di rimpatrio nel diritto dell’unione europea, in rivistaoidu.net, giugno 2020

Come è noto, con l’adozione del Trattato di Amsterdam, l’Unione (all’epoca la Comunità) europea ha attribuito grande rilievo alla disciplina dei rimpatri degli stranieri in condizione irregolare; detta disciplina ha assunto un ruolo centrale nella politica comune in materia di immigrazione, influenzandone gli sviluppi. Nel senso indicato, è sufficiente richiamare gli svolgimenti della Commissione nella proposta di revisione della direttiva 2008/115/CE – del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 16 dicembre 2008, recante norme e procedure comuni applicabili negli Stati membri al rimpatrio di cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare –, anche con riferimento all’operare degli accordi di riammissione per dare effettività ai rimpatri. La qual cosa è coerente con le disposizioni pertinenti contenute nell’art. 79 (paragrafi 1, 2 lett. c) e 3) TFUE.

 

Riccardo Luca Conti, Joana Dabaj, Elisa Pascucci, Living Through and Living On? Participatory Humanitarian Architecture in the Jarahieh Refugee Settlement, Lebanon, in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

In this article, we examine the school project implemented by the architecture charity CatalyticAction in the informal refugee settlement of Jarahieh, in the Bekaa, Lebanon. In doing so, we propose an approach to participatory humanitarian architecture that extends beyond the mere act of designing “together” an “object building.” We see participatory architecture as a process that develops incrementally through the socioeconomic life of precarious communities—through what we call the “living through” and “living on” of participation. While remaining attentive to the infrastructural and political limitations to architectural durability in refugee settlements, we foreground the social life of architectural forms, and consider the built environment as not simply “used,” but produced and (re)productive through time, beyond, and often in spite of, humanitarian interventions.

 

Tommaso F. Giupponi, Immigrazione e diritti: le Regioni fra emergenza e sperimentazione, in Le Regioni, 5-6/2019

The article investigates the problems posed by the exercise of regional legislative competences with regard to immigration, focusing in particular on inclusion policies and on the implementation of social rights (education, employment, social security, healthcare, housing). Three main trends emerge from the analysis of the different regional practices: the tension between center and periphery (often in contradiction with the principle of loyal cooperation, lastly reinstated also with regard to migration by Article 118(3) of the Constitution); the divergence between regional legislation and practices (with an often «symbolic» deployment of regional legislation); the plurality of acts, procedures and actors involved in different regions (e.g. statutes, legislation, regional executive deliberations).

 

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

The judgments in Jawo and Ibrahim and Others affirm that the prohibition of refoulement may also interrupt the Union system of intra-Member State transfers of asylum seekers in the event the asylum seeker is granted asylum in the other Member State. A transfer is prohibited if a person being granted asylum 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. The judgements flesh out the legal and practical consequences in terms of interpreting and applying the Dublin Regulation (Jawo) and the Asylum Porcedures Directive (Ibrahim). The Jawo judgment also defines the scope and meaning of the term “absconding” in the Dublin Regulation; that interpretation may have wider repercussions, as a risk of absconding serves as grounds for detaining third-country nationals under both the Reception Conditions Directive and Returns Directive.

 

Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Francesco Carella, The Position of “the South” and “South-South Migration” in Policy and Programmatic Responses to Different Forms of Migration. An Interview with Francesco Carella, in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

In this interview with Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Francesco Carella—Labour Migration and Mobility Specialist at the International Labour Organization (ILO) currently covering Central America, Mexico, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, and previously covering North Africa—reflects on the position of “the South” and “South-South migration” in policy and programmatic responses to different forms of migration. He discusses how and to what effect terms such as “South” and “South-South migration” are used by different stakeholders in his professional field, and outlines contemporary challenges and opportunities to better understand the needs and rights of migrants, and to promote the rights of migrants and their families around the world.

 

Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Juliano Fiori, Migration, Humanitarianism, and the Politics of Knowledge. An Interview with Juliano Fiori, in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

In this interview with Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh, Juliano Fiori—Head of Studies (Humanitarian Affairs) at Save the Children—reflects on Eurocentrism and coloniality in studies of and responses to migration. In the context of ongoing debates about the politics of knowledge and the urgency of anticolonial action, Fiori discusses the ideological and epistemological bases of responses to migration, the Western character of humanitarianism, the “localization of aid” agenda, and the political implications of new populisms of the Right.

 

Katarina Hyltén-Cavallius, Who cares? Caregivers’ derived residence rights from children in EU free movement law, inCommon Market Law Review, 2020, Volume 57, Issue 2

Under EU free movement law, caregivers may derive a right to reside from a child who is enjoying rights granted under Union law. This article puts three different legal routes to such derived residence rights next to one another, as interpreted and applied in judgments from Baumbast and R. to K.A., to determine their commonalities, divergences, and potential conflicts. The article exposes how recent legal developments have put into question the relevance of the legal basis for derived residence rights of children and their primary caregivers in Article 10 of the Workers Regulation 492/2011, while expanding the scope of application of Article 20 TFEU; prompting a need for further clarification in this area of Union law.

 

Liliana L. Jubilut, The Role of Universities in the Protection of Refugees and Other Migrants. A View from Brazil and Latin America, in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

This article reflects on the roles that universities from Brazil and Latin America can play in the protection of refugees and other migrants in the context of a debate of “recentering” the Global South in Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. To that end, it draws on teaching, research, and outreach initiatives as well as general reflections on the topic, and presents examples from Brazil and Latin America.

 

Thabo Fiona Khumalo, The Development of Citizenship Laws in Zimbabwe, in federalismi.it, 2020, n. 18

This paper analyses the evolution of citizenship laws in Zimbabwe from colonial times to date. To this end, it discusses various pieces of legislation relating to citizenship. Since colonial times, the evolution of citizenship laws has been consistently motivated by political considerations.  The result was a body of laws that were reactionary to the politics and not made with a focus of adopting a compelling and well thought out position. The paper argues that Zimbabwe should adopt a more intentional position to reverse current and past injustices in the citizenship laws. The 2013 Constitution has presented an opportunity to change this history and this transformation can be practically realized now because a new citizenship bill was published. The paper will recommend essential features of the bill to make citizenship laws more inclusive.

 

Stelio Mangiameli, Immigrazione e competenze, in Le Regioni, 5-6/2019

The introduction to the debate about «Immigration and competences» should begin with a general consideration about the problems of the constitutional distribution of powers between State and Regions and considers that the logic of the enumeration of the subjects seems to collide, in concrete terms, with the development of public policies. These policies request that the rules of distribution (interpretation of subjects, regulation, fundamental principles, systematic position of competences, etc.) move to the cooperation between the different levels of government. From this point of view, the immigration policy has an immediate significance. Indeed, although the matter belongs to the exclusive competence of the State, it is evident that the migratory phenomenon affects on a plurality of areas, of state and regional law competence; in addition, the instruction of «forms of coordination» between the State and the Regions (art. 118, third paragraph, Cost.) has led to the construction of a complex system in which, in the continuity between state and regional legislation, the immigration policy has now reached its stability in the organization and articulation of relations between levels of government.

 

Alessandro Morelli, Immigrazione e Regioni, in Le Regioni, 5-6/2019

Drawing inspiration from the Conference, the work focuses on the role that the Italian Regions can play in managing the migration phenomenon and on the contribution they can give to the process of immigrants’ social inclusion. The Author hopes that the perspective of perpetual emergency in which so far migration has been addressed will be overcome and supports the adoption of a more careful approach to current data and parameters of the constitutional, international and supranational law.

 

Sébastien Moretti, Transit Migration in Niger. Stemming the Flows of Migrants, but at What Cost? , in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

Since 2015, the European Union has stepped up its efforts to curb irregular migration from sub-Saharan Africa through increasingly restrictive measures targeting transit countries along migratory routes, including Niger. While the EU has heralded the success of its policies to limit migration through Niger, EU migration policies have disrupted the economic system in Agadez, where transit migration has been one of the main sources of income and a factor of stability since the end of the Tuareg rebellions in 2009. This article discusses the impact that EU migration policies may have at the local level in countries of transit, and highlights the potential for these policies to fuel tensions between local and national authorities. The Agadez case study illustrates the importance of a multilevel approach to migration governance that takes into full consideration the role of local authorities and local communities in countries of transit.

 

Nof Nasser-Eddin, Nour Abu-Assab, Decolonial Approaches to Refugee Migration. Nof Nasser-Eddin and Nour Abu-Assab in Conversation, in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

In this conversation, Nof Nasser Eddin and Nour Abu-Assab—the founders and directors of the Centre for Transnational Development and Collaboration (CTDC)—discuss the importance of decolonial approaches to studying refugee migration. In so doing, they draw on their research, consultancy, and advocacy work at CTDC, a London-based intersectional multidisciplinary Feminist Consultancy that focuses in particular on dynamics in Arabic-speaking countries and that has a goal to build communities and movements, through an approach that is both academic and grassroots-centred. CTDC attempts to bridge the gap between theory and practice through its innovative-ly transformative programmes, which include mentorship, educational programmes, trainings, and research.Nof and Nour’s conversation took place in November 2019 and was structured by questions sent to them in advance by Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh. What follows is a transcript of the conversation edited by Elena Fiddian-Qasmiyeh and Mette L. Berg.

 

Melissa Phillips, Managing a Multiplicity of Interests. The Case of Irregular Migration from Libya, in Migration and Society, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 1

Since 2015, the European Union has stepped up its efforts to curb irregular migration from sub-Saharan Africa through increasingly restrictive measures targeting transit countries along migratory routes, including Niger. While the EU has heralded the success of its policies to limit migration through Niger, EU migration policies have disrupted the economic system in Agadez, where transit migration has been one of the main sources of income and a factor of stability since the end of the Tuareg rebellions in 2009. This article discusses the impact that EU migration policies may have at the local level in countries of transit, and highlights the potential for these policies to fuel tensions between local and national authorities. The Agadez case study illustrates the importance of a multilevel approach to migration governance that takes into full consideration the role of local authorities and local communities in countries of transit.

 

Venera Protopapa, From Legal Mobilization to Effective Migrants’ Rights: The Italian Case, in European Public Law, 2020, Volume 26, Issue 2

The article analyses the process of legal mobilization for migrants’ rights and investigates how and with what effects, measured in terms of obtaining general policy response and ensuring implementation, legal actors and in particular civil society organizations have mobilized EU, international and domestic legislation on discrimination to promote migrants’ rights in Italy. It focuses in particular on two issues: access to employment in the public sector and access to welfare. Both issues have generated significant levels of litigation in domestic courts, with increasing involvement of civil society organizations. In relation to both, national legislation has been amended, in accordance with EU law, allowing access to employment in the public sector and extending the area of those that have the right to access to social welfare under equal conditions to categories of migrants protected under EU law. The article outlines the EU, International and domestic legislation on non-discrimination and equality for migrants, provides an overview of how litigation has been used to challenge in court the exclusion of migrants from employment in the public sector and welfare, tracks the process that brought to the reform and litigation in the aftermath highlighting the effects of litigation as a means for policy response and implementation.

 

Emanuele Rossi, Politiche per gli stranieri, sussidiarietà e terzo settore: un’introduzione, in Le regioni, 5-6/2019

The introduction to the debate in the working group on immigration and subsidiarity highlight the aspects of the theme that deserve special mention. After defining the scope of horizontal subsidiarity, the paper clarifies that in the concrete experience of migrant integration, subsidiarity encompasses the contribution of individuals as well as of social organisations, both profit and non-profit, and in particular, when it comes to non-profit contributions, some institutions of the third sector. The institutions of the third sector carry out their activities, defined as «of general interest» in Article 118(4) of the Italian constitution and in the «Code of the Third Sector», in a number of fields in which the Italian legal system protects the foreigners’ status. The increasingly favourable attitude of legislation towards the cooperation between public administration and third sector institutions is clearly reflected in legislative provisions regulating co-programming («co-programmazione ») and co-planning («co-progettazione») of measures: this topic has come to the spotlight thanks to the 2018 reform and is also one of the hardest tasks to be put into practice.

 

Giovanni Tarli Barbieri, Immigrazione e competenze, in Le regioni, 5-6/2019

The work reconstructs, taking into account the various contributions made in the «Immigration and competences» section, the main problems relating to the complex division of competences between State and Regions in this matter, in a historical perspective. The work further traces the varied choices of the Regions also in view of their regulatory production.

 

Simona Vezzoli, Social Transformation, Resistance and Migration in the Italian Peninsula over the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, in IMI Working paper, 2020, vol. 164.

This paper studies the evolution of internal and international migration in Italy over the mid-nineteenth to the late-twentieth centuries. Notwithstanding Italy’s large international emigration flows, most Italian migration has been inter-regional, with rural-rural, rural-urban and urban-urban migration systems expanding in geographical scope and complexity over time. This paper analyses the interplay between internal and international migration, revealing four distinct patterns of (i) regions where internal migration always dominated and that turned into the destinations of internal migrants in the early-nineteenth century; (ii) regions that were initially characterised by strong international emigration before evolving into important destinations for internal migrants, (iii) regions that transitioned gradually from sources of to destinations for international and internal migrants and (iv) regions that largely remained sources of international and internal migration. Overall, these patterns reflect Italy’s social transformation from a feudal system in agricultural production to a modern welfare state with an industrial economy, a transformation which affected regions in strikingly different ways. More specifically, these ways are linked to state (re)formation, urbanisation, the rise of agricultural and industrial capitalism and the peripherisation of the South. These profound transformative processes altered the social structure and people’s livelihoods, engendering new opportunities in some regions and greater uncertainty in others. Rather than poverty, it was the combination of these transformative processes that encouraged many Italians to pursue migration. Because the social transformation unfolded unevenly across the Italian peninsula, it engendered inequalities and the (re)framing of central and more peripheral areas, which explains the different internal and international migration patterns.

 

Lorenza Violini, Immigrazione e sussidiarietà, in Le regioni, 5-6/2019

There should be a moment of reflection on the relationship between immigration and subsidiarity, a principle that is both horizontal and vertical: horizontal because it calls into question the set of those entities that make up the company, from the family, to associations, to social cooperatives, to the whole non-profit world; vertical because it affects all levels of government, from those closest to citizens such as Municipalities, Provinces, to those furthest away (the central apparatus of the State, the European Union, the international context). But in reality the role that the subsidiarity principle can play in addressing the migration phenomenon, not is in the form of a rational proceduralization, as Europe seems to suggest, but more than anything else as a set of examples and good practices that accompany institutional interventions. And that’s why it was it is of great interest to collect examples of practiced subsidiarity in the various Italian regions to be treasured, also in order to set up truly effective institutional interventions, as the protagonists of these examples have already been experimented when the relative problems emerged.

 

John Witte, Andrea Pin, Il rifiuto della poligamia in Occidente: gli argomenti, in Diritto pubblico, comparato ed europeo, 2020, n. 1

This article peruses the 1,850year tradition of Western laws against polygamy and the recent developments in the field. It shows how the traditional Western cases against polygamy and same-sex unions used strikingly different arguments drawn from the Bible, nature, rights, harm, and symbolism. Because these arguments are so different, Western nations can responsibly hold the line against polygamy, even if they choose to accept same-sex marriage and its accompanying norms of sexual liberty, domestic autonomy, equality, and nondiscrimination.

 

Heather Wurtz, Olivia Wilkinson, Local Faith Actors and the Global Compact on Refugees, in Migration and Society,

Power dynamics of global decision-making have meant that local faith actors have not been frequently heard in the context of refugee response. The development of new global refugee and humanitarian frameworks gives hope that there will be greater inclusion of Southern-led, faith-based responses. A closer look, however, demonstrates discrepancies between the frameworks used in global policy processes and the realities of local faith actors in providing refugee assistance. We present primary research from distinct case studies in Mexico and Honduras, which counters much of what is assumed about local faith actors in refugee services and aid. Interventions that are considered to be examples of good practice in the global South are not always congruent with those conceptualized as good practices by the international community. Failure to recognize and integrate approaches and practices from the global South, including those led by actors inspired by faith, will ultimately continue to replicate dominant global power structures.

 

 

Post

 

Majd Achour, Thomas Spijkerboer, The Libyan litigation about the 2017 Memorandum of Understanding between Italy and Libya, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 2 giugno 2020

The bilateral agreements between Italy and Libya which entered into force on 4 February 2009 were fatally undermined by the Strasbourg court’s ruling in Hirsi Jamaa and others against Italy. On 2 January 2017, a new Memorandum of Understanding  (Italian version here and English version here, analysed in this blog) was signed between Libya and Italy which aims at developing cooperation in different fields including the fighting against irregular migration. In this new agreement, Italy has changed its strategy from push-backs to pull-back operations to Libya. These operations are coordinated, equipped and funded by Italy while carried out by the Libyan coast guard which would also make sure that intercepted asylum seekers will be detained thereafter in Libya pending the voluntary or forced return to their countries of origin. In March 2017, a case was brought before the Tripoli Court of Appeal challenging the MoU. The Tripoli Court of Appeal suspended the MoU by way of interim injunction. In the appeal against that injunction, the Libyan Supreme Court declared the appeal admissible and ruled that the contested ruling, issued by the Tripoli Court of Appeal, was to be annulled due to the lack of functional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court thereby ended the entire lawsuit.

 

Barbara Eisold, At Work in Matamoros with the ACLU. A glimpse inside the human rights tragedy at the US-Mexico border, in publicseminar.org, 9 giugno 2020

On March 3, 2020, I had the opportunity to see firsthand the terrifying situation in which asylum seekers are being held in Matamoros, Mexico. There, those with few resources must live in a camp which is regularly patrolled by gangs and drug cartels seeking to steal human capital for profit. As a member of the clinical team at Physicians for Human Rights, I was flown from New York City to Brownsville, Texas, by the American Civil Liberties Union to help collect data. In this case, I recorded the trauma-related testimony of two Central American women, both living in the camp, both applicants for political asylum with solid cases. Their testimony is being used in a class action suit brought by the ACLU against the Trump administration for endangering asylum seekers by forcing them to remain in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico while their asylum claims are adjudicated. The ACLU contends that gangs and drug cartels could rob, rape, kidnap, or traffic asylum seekers in Mexico, whereas they would be safe from these threats in the United States.

 

Vera Magali Keller, Nassim Madjidian, Florian Schöler, Hypocritical and Illegitimate, in verfassungsblog.de, 9 giugno 2020

In March, the German Ministry for Transport and Infrastructure (‘Ministry’) amended a number of ship safety laws. While appearing standard at first glance, they are the latest attempt to obstruct the operations of civil sea-rescue NGOs, which is why this week the affected NGOs went public with their outrage at this development. This blogpost will first illustrate that the relevant legal amendments were made with one single purpose in mind: to impede civil sea-rescue operations. As a second step, this most recent change of law is put into relation with similar legal measures in the realm of Maritime Safety Law. Previous attempts to obstruct civil sea-rescue were centred around the pursuit to conjure up criminal responsibility of those involved (see also here, here and here), or the closure of national ports through executive decrees (see here, here and here). Since these attempts did not have the desired effect of thwarting civil sea-rescue – as they were consistently struck down by the judiciary – we will demonstrate that European States have now moved on to outlawing private search and rescue efforts though the means of Maritime Safety Laws.

 

Niels Kirst, Protecting the Formal Rule of Law in the EU’s Asylum Policy: The CJEU’s Judgment on the Asylum Relocation Mechanism, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 20 giugno 2020

In a recent judgment, the CJEU confirmed that Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic breached European Union law (EU law) by not implementing two Council Decisions (here and here; discussed in detail here) for the relocation of asylum seekers after the European refugee crisis in the Mediterranean. In this seminal judgment, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rejected the arguments of the parties who alleged that the European Union’s relocation mechanism could not be implemented due to a general threat to law and order and public security (Poland and Hungary), as well as the argument that the malfunctioning and the ineffectiveness of the mechanism prevented its implementation (Czech Republic).

 

Giulia MentastiMigranti e detenzione amministrativa in tempo di Covid-19: i bollettini del garante dei detenuti pubblicati durante l’epidemia, in Sistema penale, 23 giugno 2020

Dall’11 marzo 2020 il Garante nazionale dei diritti delle persone detenute o private della libertà personale ha monitorato con cadenza quasi giornaliera le condizioni di chi, in Italia, si accingeva a trascorrere l’emergenza sanitaria in condizioni di privazione della libertà. Benché il monitorato speciale sembrasse essere il sistema penitenziario, teatro di scontri, proteste e dibattiti, l’attenzione del Garante non si è mai distolta dagli altri luoghi di privazione della libertà dove il rischio di diffusione del virus era alto tanto quello di compromissione dei diritti: residenze sanitarie per anziani (RSA), residenze per l’esecuzione delle misure di sicurezza (REMS), centri per il rimpatrio degli stranieri (CPR) e hotspots.

 

Boldizsár Nagy, A – pyrrhic? – victory concerning detention in transit zones and procedural rights: FMS & FMZ and the legislation adopted by Hungary in its wake, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 15 giugno 2020

On 14 May 2020 the Grand Chamber of the CJEU delivered its judgment in the urgent preliminary ruling procedures concerning an Afghan couple (FMS and FNZ) and an Iranian father and son (SA and SA junior) all being held in the transit zone of Röszke in Hungary. The judgment (of which no English text exists yet) is of major importance for several reasons: it confirms that holding of asylum applicants at the external border in the transit zone is detention, clarifies that such detention must be necessary and proportionate, be ordered  in a formal decision and entail judicial review and must not go beyond the limits of the border procedure as defined by the Asylum Procedures Directive. It also rejects the extension of the inadmissibility grounds of the Procedures Directive, by adding the new ground of “safe transit country”. Interestingly, it makes evident that the judgment of the Grand Chamber in the Ilias and Ahmed case of the ECtHR adopted in November 2019 was wrong in evaluating the facts and finding that the “waiting” in the transit zone was not detention and makes clear that the ECtHR judgment now is largely irrelevant as it would only apply to border-procedure cases which are absent from Hungary’s practice since 2017. This blog post reviews the judgment (I) as well as the Hungarian Government’s reaction to it (II) with the adoption of a procedure which presumes that asylum seekers get legal access to Hungary after applying for a travel document at Hungary’s embassies outside of the Schengen area.

 

Lara Nettelfield, Rebecca Kobryn, We Need Racial and Legal Equality in the US Asylum System Too, in publicseminar.org, 20 giugno 2020

Saturday, June 20 is World Refugee Day, honored by the United Nations to raise awareness and educate the public about refugees, their basic rights, their situation around the world, and the responsibilities of states to grant them asylum. The spontaneous protest movement that has engulfed the United States, after millions of people watched in horror as officers of the state murdered a defenseless man, speaks to the violence and disenfranchisement familiar to most refugees. They, too, have often personally faced state violence in their former homes and they understand what it means to fear police who kill for no reason and to be forced to run for their lives.

 

Peter van Elsuwege, Lifting Travel Restrictions in the Era of COVID-19: In Search of a European Approach, in verfassungsblog.de, 5 giugno 2020

On 13 May, the European Commission presented a package of guidelines and recommendations to help Member States gradually lift travel restrictions and allow tourism businesses to reopen. With this initiative, the Commission aimed to play a pro-active role in ensuring an orderly and coordinated exit strategy after months of lockdown in virtually all EU Member States. However, few weeks later, it seems that every Member State applies its own rules and timetable for lifting the travel restrictions, leading to a non-transparent patchwork of rules and regulations.

Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza, 2020, n. 2

Alessia Di Pascale, Respingimento dello straniero e controlli delle frontiere interne ed esterne nel diritto dell’UE

Filippo Scuto, Accesso al diritto di asilo e altri limiti costituzionali al respingimento. Sovranità statale e pericoli di allontanamento dalla Costituzione

Anna Fazzini, Il caso S.S. and Others v. Italy nel quadro dell’esternalizzazione delle frontiere in Libia: osservazioni sui possibili scenari al vaglio della Corte di Strasburgo

Elisa Olivito, The Constitutional Fallouts of Border Management through Informal and Deformalised External Action: the Case of Italy and the EU

Anna Maria Bonomo, Stranieri, procedimento amministrativo e garanzie partecipative

Fabio Quassoli e Cristina Uboldi, La credibilità del richiedente protezione internazionale tra cultura del sospetto, intuizioni e dilemmi etici. Alcune riflessioni a partire da un’indagine sulle prassi operative delle Commissioni territoriali

 

Accedi all’intero fascicolo

 

 

Libri

 

Francesca Biondi Dal Monte, Emanuele Rossi (a cura di), Diritti oltre frontiera. Migrazioni, politiche di accoglienza e integrazione, Pisa University Press, 2020

Qual è la condizione giuridica degli stranieri in Italia? Quali sono le politiche e le azioni che, sul territorio nazionale, vengono realizzate per dare attuazione alla Costituzione e alle norme internazionali? Quanto risulta chiara la distinzione tra migrazioni economiche e migrazioni forzate? Questi i principali interrogativi cui il presente Volume cerca di offrire risposta, analizzando il contesto giuridico di riferimento e le attività delle istituzioni pubbliche e delle diverse espressioni della società civile organizzata. Ne emerge un quadro ricco e composito, attento anche alle esperienze finanziate con il Fondo Asilo Migrazione e Integrazione, che si propone come strumento di conoscenza fondamentale per chi intende comprendere l’impegno degli attori pubblici e del privato sociale, nonché le sfide che attendono gli Stati nazionali nel garantire i diritti oltre “frontiera”.

 

Laurie Collier Hillstrom, Family Separation and the U.S.-Mexico Border Crisis, Barnes&Noble, 2020

This volume provides an authoritative, evenhanded overview of the Trump administration’s family separation and child detention policies at the U.S.-Mexico border—and the impact of those policies and actions on children, their parents, border security, and American politics.

 

Irudaya Rajan, South Asia Migration Report 2020. Exploitation, Entrepreneurship and Engagement, Routledge, 2020

South Asia Migration Report 2020 documents key themes of exploitation and entrepreneurship of migrants from the region. This volume: Includes dedicated fieldwork from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal; Analyses the impact of South-Asia-migrant-established businesses; Examines legal and legislative recourse against exploitation in destination countries; Factors in how migration as a phenomenon negotiates with gender, environment and even healthcare. This book will be indispensable for scholars and researchers of economics, development studies, migration and diaspora studies, gender studies, labour studies and sociology. It will also be useful to policymakers, think tanks and government institutions working in the area.

 

Hülya Kaya, The EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees Assessing Its Impact on Fundamental Rights, Elgar, 2020

 

This thought-provoking book critically analyses how the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement on Refugees affects the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. Bringing together an in-depth examination of both EU and Turkish law and fieldwork data within a theoretical human rights framework, Hülya Kaya discusses the operational realities and failures of the agreement between Turkey and the EU from a socio-legal perspective. This timely book provides important evidence that refugee protection in the region of origin is not an effective solution to the refugee protection crisis, and casts doubt on the capacity of the agreement to contribute to fair burden sharing between states. Kaya illuminates the practical and legal difficulties that refugees experience, and draws upon the political theory of Hannah Arendt to argue that the situation constitutes a further form of violence against refugees by hindering their ability to claim and exercise their fundamental human rights.  Scholars and doctoral students specialising in refugee law and migration studies, as well as human rights lawyers, will find this book to be crucial reading. It will also be of interest to human rights advocates and those working in international organisations and NGOs in this area, alongside policy makers in the EU and Turkey.

 

Tahseen Shams, Here, There, and Elsewhere. The Making of Immigrant Identities in a Globalized World, in Stanford University Press, 2020

Challenging the commonly held perception that immigrants’ lives are shaped exclusively by their sending and receiving countries, Here, There, and Elsewhere breaks new ground by showing how immigrants are vectors of globalization who both produce and experience the interconnectedness of societies—not only the societies of origin and destination, but also, the societies in places beyond. Tahseen Shams posits a new concept for thinking about these places that are neither the immigrants’ homeland nor hostland—the “elsewhere.” Drawing on rich ethnographic data, interviews, and analysis of the social media activities of South Asian Muslim Americans, Shams uncovers how different dimensions of the immigrants’ ethnic and religious identities connect them to different elsewheres in places as far-ranging as the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. Yet not all places in the world are elsewheres. How a faraway foreign land becomes salient to the immigrant’s sense of self depends on an interplay of global hierarchies, homeland politics, and hostland dynamics. Referencing today’s 24-hour news cycle and the ways that social media connects diverse places and peoples at the touch of a screen, Shams traces how the homeland, hostland, and elsewhere combine to affect the ways in which immigrants and their descendants understand themselves and are understood by others.

 

Davide Strazzari, Federalismo e immigrazione, Editoriale Scientifica, 2020

La disarticolazione del tradizionale rapporto tra sovranità statale e cittadinanza è tra gli aspetti che si è soliti ricondurre alle conseguenze che il fenomeno immigratorio determina sugli ordinamenti giuridici nazionali. Tale profilo viene spesso analizzato considerando soprattutto la dimensione territoriale dello Stato e le conseguenti interrelazioni di esso con il piano internazionale e sovranazionale. Il volume, invece, affronta il tema prestando attenzione al c.d. immigration federalism. Attraverso un’indagine comparata che considera esempi diversi di stato territorialmente composto, viene sviluppata la tesi secondo la quale la devoluzione di funzioni legate alla politica dell’immigrazione è più ampia e strutturale in contesti di federalismo di tipo identitario-etnico, articolandosi anche con soluzioni di natura asimmetrica. L’analisi è condotta secondo una tripartizione che ruota attorno a tre possibili declinazioni del concetto di “cittadinanza regionale” – rispettivamente la cittadinanza territoriale, sociale e culturale – in grado di offrire una panoramica della complessità del ruolo subnazionale in materia.

 

Frances Nicholson, Patrick Twomey, Current Issues of UK Asylum Law and Policy, Routledge, 2020

Published in 1998. This title brings together 18 essays by a selection of experts in the area of refugee and asylum law and policy. Each essay examines an issue of contemporary interest to those working in the refugee field in the UK. They have been selected from papers presented at a highly successful conference on Refugee Rights and Realities which was held at the University of Nottingham in November 1996, organized by the Human Rights Law Centre at the University and funded by the Airey Neave Trust. The essays are organised into two sections. The first covers issues of legal process and policy ranging from the development of asylum law and policy in the UK to the country’s obligations under international law. Special emphasis is placed on the most recent developments surrounding the 1996 Asylum and Immigration Act. The second section provides the context for a more detailed examination of the social, health and welfare issues relevant to refugees and asylum seekers. These range from access to health care, housing rights and the education of refugees in London to questions of language and of race relations.

 

Articoli

 

Mirko Abbamonte, L’audizione dello straniero nel procedimento di riconoscimento della protezione internazionale, in federalismi.it, 2020, n. 20

Il contributo esamina l’istituto della audizione del richiedente protezione internazionale nel nuovo procedimento camerale a contraddittorio cartolare e ad udienza meramente eventuale di cui all’art. 35 bis del d.lgs. 25/2008, attraverso una analisi critica della giurisprudenza di merito, di legittimità ed europea in materia.

 

John R. Campbell, The role of lawyers, judges, country experts and officials in British asylum and immigration law, in International Journal of Law in Context, 2020, vol. 16, n. 1

This paper examines the work of lawyers, judges and country experts involved in asylum and migration litigation. I begin by analysing their work in the wider semi-autonomous asylum field within which a number of powerful institutions operate to shape policy, define the roles of key actors and determine access to legal redress/justice by asylum applicants and migrants. To understand the work of these three legal actors, I analyse four very different types of legal cases involving asylum, foreign adoption and migration law. An analysis of these cases helps to identify the constraints on effective litigation on behalf of refugees and migrants against the British Home Office and it illustrates the fact that it is Home Office policy, and the decisions taken by Home Office officials, that created the injustice for the individuals concerned by blurring the ‘bright line’ differentiating between the rights of nationals and those of ‘foreigners’.

 

Hilde Caroli Casavola, L’integrazione nella società pluralista e i migranti, in Rivista Trimestrale di Diritto Pubblico, 2020, n. 2

Il contributo trae spunto dalla questione dell’immigrazione in Italia e in Europa per indagare il tema del rapporto fra l’ordinamento giuridico pluralista, i fattori di contesto e l’integrazione dei gruppi non organizzati in società poco coese, come quella italiana. Rilevano le novità legislative e il caso di alcuni comuni dell’area interna molisana, esempio di contesto positivo d’integrazione diffusa regionale.

 

Dogachan Dagi, The EU–Turkey Migration Deal: Performance and Prospects, in European Foreign Affairs Review, 2020, vol. 25, n. 2

This article discusses whether the EU–Turkey migration deal of 2016 is sustainable in the midst of divergent priorities and expectations of the parties, adverse results procured from the deal, and growing mutual distrust between the EU and Turkey. In so doing, first, it provides an overview on the background of Europe’s migration crisis of 2015–2016 and outlines the rationale behind and expectations from the deal. Secondly, the article critically reviews the performance of the deal to evaluate the extent to which it has met the expectations. It is explained that while Turkey has gained strategic leverage in its relations with the EU its government has to bear political costs at the home-front and shelve off its accession perspective. The EU, on the other hand, has managed to reduce the number of migrants using the Eastern Mediterranean route but has to endure constant threats of the Turkish government to withdraw from the deal and put up with its withering reputation as a normative power. Finally, by highlighting the expectation-outcome gap and the political cost the deal has induced to bear for both parties, this article demonstrates that the agreement has been circumstantial without a solid foundation, and any of the parties may opt-out once it regards the cost-benefit balance works unfavourably for them.

 

Gareth Davies, How Citizenship Divides: A Response to Loic Azoulai, in European Papers, 2020, vol. 5, n. 1

This note is a brief response to Professor Azoulai’s reaction (On Dubious Parallels: The Transnational Europeans and the Jews. A Note on Gareth Davies’ Article, in European Papers, Vol. 5, 2020, No 1, forthcoming, www.europeanpapers.eu) to my Article, How Citizenship Divides (How Citizenship Divides: The New Legal Class of Transnational Europeans, in European Papers, Vol. 4, 2019, No 3, www.europeanpapers.eu, p. 675 et seq.). He takes exception to my suggestion that Jews in early 20th century Europe, like mobile Union Citizens, were in a sense outsiders within the states that were their homes, and as members of a pan-European persecuted minority, also in a sense transnational. He seems to think that to suggest a minority may have a different sense of place and belonging in their state is to insult them. I think that to deny it is to deny them a voice and identity, as well as to reinforce the nationalist idea that the only good citizen is an uncomplicated one.

 

Marie De Somer, Schengen: Quo Vadis?, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 2

The EU’s Schengen zone has been in crisis for over four years. This article critically reviews three scenarios on the way forward for the Schengen area that are currently circulating in the EU policy sphere. These include, first, proposals to improve the current rules on internal border checks within the Schengen Borders Code, either through reform or through better implementation practices. A second scenario relates to ideas on increasing the use of police checks in border regions as alternatives for internal border controls. A third scenario links to proposals on making access to the Schengen zone conditional on cooperation and good governance in the CEAS. It is submitted that the proposals in this third scenario are unfeasible for both political as well as legal reasons. More merit can be found in the discussions around the first two scenarios, albeit bearing in mind a number of important caveats.

 

Jean-Baptiste Farcy, Labour Immigration Policy in the European Union: How to Overcome the Tension between Further Europeanisation and the Protection of National Interests?, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 2

This article critically assesses EU harmonisation in the field of labour immigration. It argues that EU directives are limited both in scope and intensity which explains their relatively low effectiveness and added value. Given the current political and institutional context, the article claims that a truly common labour immigration policy is unrealistic. Labour immigration remains a predominantly national prerogative and EU rules have done little to overcome normative competition between EU Member States. Looking forward, the EU should adopt complementary measures to Member States’ policies. The role of the EU in this sensitive policy area should be better defined and justified, in particular in relation to the principle of subsidiarity.

 

Marta Guarch-Rubio, Antonio L. Manzanero, Credibility and Testimony in Asylum Procedures with Unaccompanied Refugee Minors, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 2

The present article reviews the credibility analysis procedure proposed by the UNHCR through which asylum applications are resolved, especially for unaccompanied minors. The particularities of these refugee minors and the general character of the credibility analysis procedure are described. Credibility indicators are analyzed together with the psychological barriers related to them. This manuscript provides evidence of the presence of trauma and resilience in the studied minors and how both influence their memories during the asylum interviews. As credibility assessment has a special focus on the evaluation of narratives through memory, memory is considered as a criterion responsible for the accuracy and credibility of underage applicants’ testimony. Finally, this paper contributes with scientific psychological evidence towards the existence of multiple testimonies in asylum seekers.

 

Charles O’Sullivan, Delia Ferri, The Recast Reception Conditions Directive and the Rights of Asylum Seekers with Disabilities: Opportunities, Challenges and the Quest for Reform, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 2

In recent years, the European Union (EU) has, like much of the developed world, experienced a sustained period of inward migration from refugee-producing States in Africa and the Middle-East. This ‘refugee crisis’ has placed a strain not only on the political will of the EU institutions and Member States to find a satisfactory resolution to deal with the flow of migrants, but also on their ability to put in place fair processes for any resulting claims for asylum and to adequately support the needs of asylum seekers while those claims are being processed. This article discusses the latter issue from a discreet angle, focusing on how the EU has addressed the needs of asylum seekers with disabilities. As a party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which enjoys sub-constitutional status within the EU legal order, the EU is obligated to interpret all legislation in light of the Convention. Thus, this article seeks to assess the degree to which Directive 2013/33/EU on the material reception conditions for asylum seekers can protect and promote the rights of asylum seekers with disabilities and fulfill the ‘human rights model of disability’ embedded within the CRPD. It also assesses the most recent proposal to replace the Directive, and examines whether the potential shortcomings within it have been addressed thus far. Ultimately, it finds that the ambiguities and lack of procedural certainty within the current Directive provide too much room to derogate from the standards arguably mandated by the Convention, and these have yet to be addressed within the new Proposal.

 

Sara Poli, The Integration of Migration Concerns into EU External Policies: Instruments, Techniques and Legal Problems, in European Papers, 2020, vol. 5, n. 1

This Article examines the recent EU practice of concluding practical arrangements designed, on the one hand, to return irregular migrants to countries of origin or transit and, on the other, to provide trade incentives to States hosting refugees, such as Jordan, in exchange for offering Syrian refugees employment opportunities. After examining the legal nature of the mentioned sui generis instruments, it is argued that preference for informal agreements with third countries is capable of affecting the external powers enjoyed by the European Parliament and the EU’s accountability in its external action. The Article stresses that the Compact with Jordan has, to some extent, improved the situation of Syrians in that country. Finally, it is contended that the exceptional importance attached to the readmission of third country nationals in EU relations with developing countries has made the EU lose sight of the primary aim of development cooperation policy, which is to fight poverty.

 

S.E. Rap, The Right to Information of (Un)Accompanied Refugee Children, The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 2020, vol. 28, n. 2

Refugee children often find themselves in a vulnerable position; they have experienced trauma and mental health problems and in the host country they are involved in a complex and adult-oriented asylum application procedure. International and European legal standards urge states to adapt migration procedures to the age and maturity of children and to make these more child-friendly. In this article, the core concept of analysis is the child’s right to information. It will be shown that this right is closely connected to other children’s rights and concepts, such as access to justice, child-friendly justice and the right to participation. The implementation in practice of the right to information in the asylum procedure in the Netherlands will serve as a case study, to show the precarious information position of both unaccompanied as well as accompanied refugee children. The results of this study show that the information position of these children can be improved, which will benefit their legal position, emotional well-being and possibilities to exercise their rights.

 

Marcelle (A.M.) Reneman, Evidentiary Value of Forensic Medical Evidence in Asylum Procedures: Where Can the CJEU Bring Light into the Darkness?, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 2

The evidentiary value of forensic medical reports in asylum procedures is highly contested, mainly for two reasons. First, a physician usually cannot establish when, where, why and by whom the applicant has been ill-treated. Moreover, a physician can almost never establish with complete certainty which treatment caused a scar or physical or psychological problem. Nevertheless, both the ECtHR and the Committee against Torture (CAT) have recognised the importance of forensic medical reports as evidence in asylum cases in their judgments and decisions. However, they rarely explicitly address fundamental questions relating to the duty to arrange for a medical examination and the evidentiary value of forensic medical reports. This article examines where the Court of Justice of the European Union may step in to provide more guidance regarding these issues to the Member States of the European Union, by interpreting Article 18 of the recast Procedures Directive.

 

Samuel D. Schmid, The architecture of national boundary regimes: mapping immigration and citizenship policies in 23 democracies 1980–2010, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 25, n. 8

In this article, I introduce a typology that maps the regulation of two fundamental boundaries of modern nation-states regarding immigration: territorial boundaries and membership boundaries. Based on a theory of the structural logics underlying Immigration Regime Openness (IRO) and Citizenship Regime Inclusiveness (CRI), I make four observations on the two-dimensional policy space determined by the relative porousness of these two boundaries. First, a Categorical Principal Component Analysis (CATPCA) using a combination of original and existing panel data across 23 liberal democracies from 1980 to 2010 confirms that IRO and CRI are internally consistent and statistically distinct dimensions. Immigration policies therefore appear more coherent than often assumed. Second, the distribution of cases over the four ideal-typical policy configurations from 1980 to 2010 shows that more and more cases combine relatively liberal immigration policies with relatively liberal citizenship policies. Behind this finding are, third, overall liberalizing trajectories in both policies as well as a pattern of convergence in immigration policies. The liberalisation of immigration policies is most notable until 1996 and the level of openness fluctuates thereafter. Regarding citizenship, I provide evidence for a much-cited restrictive turn during the 2000s. In addition, I show that there has already been a restrictive turn in citizenship during the 1990s. Fourth, instead of the trade-off anticipated by much of the literature, I find an increasingly positive correlation between IRO and CRI. The new typology, its underlying theory, and the subsequent findings significantly advance our understanding of the most fundamental boundaries of modern nation-states.

 

Sarah Tas, Frontex Actions: Out of Control? The Complexity of Composite Decision-Making Procedures, TARN Working Paper Series, 2020, n. 3

Frontex operations can have important consequences on an individual’s life, and they should consequently be subject to an efficient control in order to offer adequate legal protection to the victims. These operations include the participation of the agency, but also various other actors. They offer thus an interesting case-study on the relationship between an EU agency and other participating actors. The paper seeks to shed the light on the actions coordinated by Frontex, thereby illustrating the composite nature of Frontex decision-making procedures and operations. The objective of this article is to analyse the legal and administrative implications of Frontex operations as they manifest before the European, international and domestic courts. In the end, the paper will offer a case study, in which the legal and administrative implications explored above will be mapped onto the new phenomenon of ‘hotspots’. The aim is to elucidate the impact of these considerations in an ever more complex and fragmented multi-actor situation that ‘hotspots’ represent.

 

Niovi Vavoula, Consultation of EU Immigration Databases for Law Enforcement Purposes: a Privacy and Data Protection Assessment, in European Journal of Migration and Law, 2020, vol. 22, n. 2

Since the past three decades, an elaborate framework of EU-wide information systems processing the personal data of third-country nationals has emerged. The vast majority of these systems (VIS, Eurodac, EES, ETIAS) are conceptualised as multi-purpose tools, whereby their consultation for crime-related objectives is listed among their ancillary objectives. As a result, immigration records may be accessed by national law enforcement authorities and Europol for the purposes of fighting terrorism and other serious crimes under specified and limited conditions. Drawing from the relevant jurisprudence of the European Court, this article evaluates whether the EU rules on law enforcement access to EU immigration databases comply with the rights to respect for private life and protection of personal data, as enshrined in Article 7 and 8 of the EU Charter respectively. In addition, challenges posed by the forthcoming interoperability between databases are also examined.

 

Post

 

Irini Papanicolopulu, Prime osservazioni sull’accordo di delimitazione tra Grecia e Italia del 9 giugno 2020, in SIDIBlog, 18 giugno 2020

Il 9 giugno 2020 il Ministro degli esteri dell’Italia, Luigi Di Maio, in visita ufficiale ad Atene, ha firmato un accordo   con la Grecia per la delimitazione della zona economica esclusiva tra i due Stati nel mare Ionio. L’accordo, definito storico dai media greci (si veda qui – in greco – e qui – in inglese) ma non particolarmente considerato da quelli italiani (si vedano tuttavia i commenti di Caffio e Orioles), consiste in realtà di 3 separati documenti: il trattato di delimitazione vero e proprio (l’unico disponibile pubblicamente), l’accordo sulla pesca, e una comunicazione congiunta alla Commissione Europea sempre in materia di pesca. Qui di seguito saranno avanzati dei commenti preliminari sugli aspetti giuridici di tali accordi.

 

Alberto Pasquero, Martina Micheletti, Erica Riffaldi, Anche la Cedu chiude ai visti umanitari, in questionegiustizia.it, 9 luglio 2020

Il 5 maggio 2020 la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo si è pronunciata in merito al caso M. N. e altri c. Belgio, ponendo quella che pare essere la pietra tombale sulla questione del diritto di cittadini di Paesi terzi di ottenere un visto umanitario per fare ingresso in Europa al fine di presentare domanda di protezione internazionale. Il caso avrebbe potuto segnare una svolta epocale nelle politiche di esternalizzazione del diritto d’asilo messe in atto dall’Unione europea e dai suoi Stati membri negli ultimi decenni, aprendo un canale di mobilità legale e sicura verso il territorio dell’Unione. Il quesito posto alla Corte Edu concerneva infatti l’eventuale sussistenza di un obbligo positivo in capo agli Stati membri dell’Unione europea di rilasciare un visto con validità territoriale limitata in presenza di fondati motivi umanitari. La Corte, tuttavia, seguendo le orme segnate dalla Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea nell’analogo caso X e X c. Belgio deciso il 7 marzo 2017, ha optato per un’interpretazione restrittiva degli obblighi incombenti sugli Stati contraenti nei confronti di persone in fuga da guerre o persecuzioni. I giudici di Strasburgo hanno infatti escluso che presentare una richiesta di visto umanitario presso la rappresentanza diplomatica di un Paese terzo possa comportare un’applicazione “extraterritoriale” della Convenzione e far quindi sorgere una responsabilità in capo allo Stato per la possibile violazione dell’art. 3 della Cedu.

 

Sharifah Sekalala, Belinda Rawson, Navigating the Paradoxes of Selective COVID-19 Border Closures, in law.ox.ac.uk, 8 luglio 2020

The mobility of people across borders has been impacted around the world as countries close their borders to curb the spread of COVID-19. The Pew Research Centre reported that 91 percent of countries had border closures at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even regions that were predicated on open borders, such as the Schengen region, suddenly closed their borders despite advice from the World Health Organization (WHO) that this was in violation of the International Health Regulations 2005 (IHR). However, although COVID-19 border closures felt universal, just like the artificial construct of the ‘border’, many of these borders remained open to individuals deemed ‘desirable’ in the pandemic context, and for the movement of goods. Examining some paradoxes around COVID-19 border closures illustrates how the politicisation of migration has been amplified by the pandemic.

 

Boris Wijkström, Ousman Noor, Italy May Face an Inquiry under Article 20 UN Convention against Torture for its role in the Systematic Torture of Migrants “Pulled Back” to Libya, in blog.omct.org, 21 luglio 2020

There is extensive evidence of widespread and systematic violations of the human rights of migrants in Libya. These violations include torture, summary executions, arbitrary and indefinite detention, rape and forced labour, all of which have been documented by relevant United Nations bodies and international NGOs. Many migrants have attempted, and continue to attempt, to escape Libya by crossing the Mediterranean in unsafe boats and at the risk of drowning. Their objective is to reach safety in Europe where they can assert their basic rights, including to a refugee status determination procedure. The majority have endured unspeakable brutalities before embarking on the desperate journey. A German diplomat based in Niamey, Niger, described the conditions in migrant detention centres in Libya as “concentration camp-like” in an internal diplomatic cable to Chancellor Angela Merkel: “[e]xecutions of migrants who cannot pay, torture, rapes, blackmail and abandonment in the desert are the order of the day there.

 

Luca Masera, I migranti che si oppongono al rimpatrio in Libia non possono invocare la legittima difesa: una decisione che mette in discussione il diritto al non refoulement, in Sistema penale, 21 luglio 2020

La sentenza in commento segna l’esito del giudizio di secondo grado in una vicenda giudiziaria ben nota alle cronache in materia di immigrazione. È l’episodio conosciuto sui media come “il caso della Vos Thalassa”, di cui conviene ora fare una rapidissima sintesi.

 

Rahel Süß, Book Review: Reactionary Democracy: How Racism and the Populist Far Right Became Mainstream by Aurelien Mondon and Aaron Winter, in LSE, 21 luglio 2020

In Reactionary Democracy: How Racism and the Populist Far Right Became Mainstream, Aurelien Mondon and Aaron Winter challenge the assumption that democracy is necessarily progressive through introducing the notion of ‘reactionary democracy’, showing how narratives that claim that the resurgence of racism, populism and the far right are the result of popular demands obscure the manipulation of the idea of ‘the people’ for reactionary ends by those in power. This is an indispensable book, writes Rahel Süß, and is a must-read for those seeking to contest prevailing ideas about the relationship between racism and liberal democracy.

Libri

Mathilde Crépin, Persecution, International Refugee Law and Refugees. A Feminist Approach, Routledge, 2020

This book explores the ambit of the notion of persecution in international law and its relevance in the current geopolitical context, more specifically for refugee women. The work analyses different models for interpreting the notion of persecution in international refugee law through a comparative lens. In particular, a feminist approach to refugee law is adopted to determine to what extent the notion of persecution can apply to gender related forms of violence and what are the challenges in doing so. It proposes an interpretive model that would encourage decision makers to interpret the notion of persecution in a manner that is sufficiently protective and relevant to the profiles of refugees in the 21st century, most particularly to refugee women. The book will be of interest to academics and students in the field of public international law, international human rights law, international humanitarian law, immigration law, European law, and refugee law as well as those working in the areas of international relations.

 

Flora Di Donato, Elodie Garros, Anne Lavanchy, Pascal Mahon, Tania Zittoun, La fabrique de l’intégration, Antipodes, 2020

Le débat sur l’intégration des étrangères et des étrangers revient régulièrement au cœur de l’actualité suisse. La notion d'”intégration réussie” est notamment centrale dans le cadre de la naturalisation, une procédure longue et complexe, au déroulement parfois surprenant. Fruit d’une recherche scientifique menée sur la base de cas concrets par cinq spécialistes en sciences sociales et en droit, cet ouvrage explore la signification du concept d’intégration en tant que critère permettant d’accéder à la nationalité, du point de vue des autorités comme de celui des personnes candidates à la naturalisation. Et l’on y constate que l’expression “Les faiseurs de Suisses”, mise en avant par le film du cinéaste Rolf Lyssy, en 1978, que l’on croyait appartenir au passé, reste pertinente.

 

Monia Giovannetti, Nazzarena Zorzella, Ius migrandi. Trent’anni di politiche e legislazione sull’immigrazione in Italia, FrancoAngeli, 2020

Lo ius migrandi, da secoli riconosciuto come diritto naturale universale e contemplato tra i più importanti principi del diritto internazionale, rivela la sua parziale compiutezza nell’asimmetria esistente tra il riconoscimento di un diritto di emigrare e i limiti imposti all’immigrazione. Questa discrasia, da tempo al centro del dibattito filosofico, giuridico e politico, discende in primo luogo dalla discrezionalità con la quale i singoli Stati gestiscono i flussi migratori e definiscono le politiche sull’immigrazione e l’asilo. La pubblicazione, nata per celebrare i 20 anni di vita della rivista «Diritto, Immigrazione e Cittadinanza» per iniziativa di ASGI (Associazione per gli studi giuridici sull’immigrazione) e Magistratura democratica, ripercorre la legislazione e le politiche sull’immigrazione in Italia negli ultimi 30 anni. L’analisi diacronica svolta in questo volume al quale hanno contribuito una cinquantina di autori appartenenti a diverse discipline, giuridiche e non solo, ci permette, da un lato, di riconoscere le costanti insite negli strumenti tecnico-giuridici adottati per governare il fenomeno dell’immigrazione e dall’altra di soffermarsi a riflettere su come garantire oggi il «diritto di avere diritti». Attraverso il tema dello ius migrandi, sviluppato lungo le cinque dorsali tematiche in cui si articola l’intera pubblicazione, sono stati analizzati, da un lato, gli effetti sulla condizione dei migranti conseguenti all’esponenziale politicizzazione del fenomeno immigrazione che ha alimentato la retorica pubblica traducendosi in politiche di esclusione e “disprezzo per il diritto”, e dall’altro lato, la necessità di rivendicare la forza stessa dei diritti universali e indivisibili, in difesa non solo dei migranti ma dell’identità civile e democratica dei nostri ordinamenti.

 

Madalina Moraru, Galina Cornelisse, Philippe De Bruycker, Law and Judicial Dialogue on the Return of Irregular Migrants from the European Union, Hart Publishing, 2020

This volume examines the implementation of the Return Directive from the perspective of judicial dialogue. While the role of judges has been widely addressed in European asylum law and EU law more generally, their role in EU return policy has hitherto remained under explored. This volume addresses the interaction and dialogue between domestic judiciaries and European courts in the implementation of European return policy. The book brings together leading authors from various backgrounds, including legal scholars, judges and practitioners. This allows the collection to offer theoretical and practical perspectives on important questions regarding the regulation of irregular migration in Europe, such as: what constitutes inadequate implementation of the Directive and under which conditions can judicial dialogue solve it? How can judges ensure that the right balance is struck between effective return procedures and fundamental rights? Why do we see different patterns of judicial dialogue in the Member States when it comes to particular questions of return policy, for example regarding the use of detention? These questions are more timely than ever given the shifting public discourse on immigration and the growing political backlash against immigration courts. This book will be essential reading for all scholars and practitioners in the fields of immigration law and policy, EU law and public law.

 

W. Mark Ormrod, Joanna Story, and Elizabeth M. Tyler, Migrants in Medieval England, c. 500-c. 1500, Oxford, 2020

This is the only book on the market to provide an in-depth analysis and discussion of the theme of migration in medieval England. Its themes – the movement of people and the social and cultural effects of migration – chime strongly with current debates in the UK on immigration; the book demonstrates that movement was a constant influence on the development of the kingdom of England and the concept of Englishness.

 

Ranabir Samaddar, The Postcolonial Age of Migration, Routledge, 2020

This book critically examines the question of migration that appears at the intersection of global neo-liberal transformation, postcolonial politics, and economy. It analyses the specific ways in which colonial relations are produced and reproduced in global migratory flows and their consequences for labour, human rights, and social justice. The postcolonial age of migration not only indicates a geopolitical and geo-economic division of the globe between countries of the North and those of the South marked by massive and mixed population flows from the latter to the former, but also the production of these relations within and among the countries of the North. The book discusses issues such as transborder flows among countries of the South; migratory movements of the internally displaced; growing statelessness leading to forced migration; border violence; refugees of partitions; customary and local practices of care and protection; population policies and migration management (both emigration and immigration); the protracted nature of displacement; labour flows and immigrant labour; and the relationships between globalisation, nationalism, citizenship, and migration in postcolonial regions. It also traces colonial and postcolonial histories of migration and justice to bear on the present understanding of local experiences of migration as well as global social transformations while highlighting the limits of the fundamental tenets of humanitarianism (protection, assistance, security, responsibility), which impact the political and economic rights of vast sections of moving populations.Topical and an important intervention in contemporary global migration and refugee studies, the book offers new sources, interpretations, and analyses in understanding postcolonial migration. It will be useful to scholars and researchers of migration studies, refugee studies, border studies, political studies, political sociology, international relations, human rights and law, human geography, international politics, and political economy. It will also interest policymakers, legal practitioners, nongovernmental organisations, and activists.

 

Fanny Tittel-Mosser, Implementing EU Mobility Partnerships. Putting Soft Law into Practice, Routledge, 2020

This book provides a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of Mobility Partnerships and their consequences for third countries. Mobility partnerships between the EU and third countries are usually viewed as reflecting asymmetric power relations where development aid, trade relations and visa policies are made conditional upon the cooperation by third countries with an EU agenda of migration control. This book argues that three main factors condition the relevance of Mobility Partnerships: the state of relations between EU Member States and a third country, and in particular, the role of postcolonial ties; the power of negotiation of a third country, which is linked to its geopolitical importance for the EU; and its administrative capacity, which is understood as the capacity of a state to define and implement policies and to legislate and enforce the law. The work combines a comparative legal analysis of the development of the legal and policy frameworks in the cases of Morocco and Cape Verde with an empirical study of the implementation of Mobility Partnerships’ projects. The analysis demonstrates that Mobility Partnerships, despite their non-binding nature, have legal and policy relevance for these third countries with regard to the regulation of migration, asylum, human trafficking and even labour law. As such, this book makes a contribution to the understanding of the interplay between the interests of EU, Member State and third country actors in the implementation of the Mobility Partnerships. The book will be a key resource for academics and students focusing on Migration Law, EU Studies, Geopolitics and African Studies. The empirical approach will also appeal to policy-makers, international organisation representatives and NGOs.

 

Isabel Wilkerson, Caste. The Origins Of Our Discontents, Random House, 2020

Isabel Wilkerson gives us a masterful portrait of an unseen phenomenon in America as she explores, through an immersive, deeply researched narrative and stories about real people, how America today and throughout its history has been shaped by a hidden caste system, a rigid hierarchy of human rankings. Beyond race, class, or other factors, there is a powerful caste system that influences people’s lives and behavior and the nation’s fate. Linking the caste systems of America, India, and Nazi Germany, Wilkerson explores eight pillars that underlie caste systems across civilizations, including divine will, bloodlines, stigma, and more. Using riveting stories about people—including Martin Luther King, Jr., baseball’s Satchel Paige, a single father and his toddler son, Wilkerson herself, and many others—she shows the ways that the insidious undertow of caste is experienced every day. She documents how the Nazis studied the racial systems in America to plan their out-cast of the Jews; she discusses why the cruel logic of caste requires that there be a bottom rung for those in the middle to measure themselves against; she writes about the surprising health costs of caste, in depression and life expectancy, and the effects of this hierarchy on our culture and politics. Finally, she points forward to ways America can move beyond the artificial and destructive separations of human divisions, toward hope in our common humanity.

 

Jan Zglinski, Europe’s Passive Virtues. Deference to National Authorities in EU Free Movement Law, Oxford, 2020

The European Court of Justice has been celebrated as a central force in the creation and deepening of the EU internal market. Yet, it has also been criticized for engaging in judicial activism, restricting national regulatory autonomy, and taking away the powers of Member State institutions. In recent years, the Court appears to afford greater deference to domestic actors in free movement cases. Europe’s Passive Virtues explores the scope of and reasons for this phenomenon. It enquires into the decision-making latitude given to the Member States through two doctrines: the margin of appreciation and decentralized judicial review. At the heart of the book lies an original empirical study of the European Court’s free movement jurisprudence from 1974 to 2013. The analysis examines how frequently and under which circumstances the Court defers to national authorities. The results suggest that free movement law has substantially changed over the past four decades. The Court is leaving a growing range of decisions in the hands of national law-makers and judges, a trend that affects the level of scrutiny applied to Member State action, the division of powers between the European and national judiciary, and ultimately the nature of the internal market. The book argues that these new-found ‘passive virtues’ are linked to a series of broader political, constitutional, and institutional developments that have taken place in the EU.

 

Articoli

Leila Hadj Abdou, ‘Push or pull’? Framing immigration in times of crisis in the European Union and the United States, in Journal of European Integration, 2020, vol. 42, n. 5

Migration has become a highly divisive, polarizing issue. This article contributes to the understanding of this polarization by looking at interpretations of migration during critical junctures. It explores discursive framings during the recent migration crises in the European Union and the United States. Analysing interview data collected between 2014 and 2018 with over 100 governance actors, it finds that similar interpretations emerge among the same type of actors’ groups across both settings. This finding emphasizes the role of situated agency for framing processes. Frames in both cases establish a perspective of migration as a tragedy, and focus, depending on the type of governance actor, either on pull factors in countries of arrival or push factors in countries of origin as the main cause of immigration, leading to conflicting ideas as to how to respond to the crisis. These conflicting understandings, the article concludes, further fuel the existing socio-political divides.

 

Robert F Barsky, From the 1965 Bellagio Colloquium to the Adoption of the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2020, n. 2

Current challenges to the prevailing system of refugee adjudication, particularly in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), have compelled advocates, policymakers, and judges to step back and ask some fundamental questions about the reach, scope, and resilience of international refugee law. This commentary contributes a new approach to answering these questions through an examination of the negotiation of a new refugee treaty that was designed to supplement, or replace, the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.

 

Cecilia Corsi, Il diritto di asilo tra impasse, inasprimenti della disciplina e prossime riforme, in FederalismiFocus Human Rights, 2020, n. 23

Il saggio intende mettere a fuoco le questioni principali che concernono il diritto di asilo: sia a livello europeo che a livello nazionale tanti sono i nodi che devono essere affrontati. Le politiche dell’Unione necessiterebbero di scelte coraggiose, ispirate al principio di solidarietà tra gli Stati membri, nonché rispettose dei diritti fondamentali degli individui. Molte sono le aspettative rispetto alle proposte che la Commissione dovrebbe presentare nei prossimi mesi. Anche a livello nazionale, dopo una stagione di inasprimenti della disciplina sull’asilo con tanti profili di dubbia costituzionalità, sono attese le proposte di modifica alla normativa oggi in vigore.

 

Sophie Domaine, Cambiamenti climatici e diritti umani: il divieto di refoulement in Teitiota c. Nuova Zelanda, in Federalismi – Focus Human Rights, 2020, n. 23

Nel gennaio 2020, il Comitato per i diritti umani delle Nazioni Unite ha pubblicato le sue considerazioni in merito alla denuncia individuale che il Sig. Ioane Teitiota aveva presentato contro la Nuova Zelanda, in un caso che da subito è stato considerato storico in quanto il cambiamento climatico è stato ritenuto un possibile motivo di obblighi di non-refoulement. Dopo una panoramica sugli strumenti giuridici internazionali relativi a cambiamenti climatici e migrazioni, il caso sarà analizzato tenendo conto di recenti sentenze significative riguardanti questioni climatiche risolte con uno human rights-based approach.

 

Eleonora Frasca, Il controllo democratico sulle operazioni di ricerca e soccorso in mare nel Mediterraneo centrale, inFederalismiFocus Human Rights, 2020, n. 23

Attraverso un confronto tra la pronuncia del Tribunale UE nel caso Izuzquiza e Semsrott/Frontex e la sentenza n. 1121/2020 del Consiglio di Stato, questo contributo mette in luce le potenzialità, ma soprattutto i limiti, del diritto di accesso civico generalizzato. Tale strumento giuridico potrebbe risultare utile a portare alla conoscenza della collettività informazioni relative allo svolgimento delle operazioni navali nel Mediterraneo centrale, in ottemperanza agli obblighi giuridici di ricerca e soccorso in mare. Tale giurisprudenza è rivelatoria delle difficoltà che si profilano nell’interpretazione dell’ampiezza dell’accesso, sia da parte delle amministrazioni nelle motivazioni dei provvedimenti diniego, sia da parte del giudice con rispetto al sindacato di tali provvedimenti.

 

Jennifer J Lee, Elisa Ortega Velázquez, The Detention of Migrant Children: A Comparative Study of the United States and Mexico, in FederalismiFocus Human Rights, 2020, n. 23

Detention facilities are no place for children who are irregular migrants. Yet both the United States (US) and Mexico have struggled with how to respond to the arrival of Central American children who are primarily fleeing violence. In these neighbouring countries, the detention of children reflects both an ineffective and misguided strategy to deter people from moving across their southern borders. This focus on border control is further reinforced by the US outsourcing of enforcement controls to Mexico. In the US, a preoccupation with border control can quickly undermine the purported interest of protecting migrant children because they lack the fundamental right to be free from detention. In Mexico, its role as a buffer State causes it to overlook its human rights, constitutional, and federal law commitments to the fundamental rights of children, while allowing practical obstacles to stand in the way of these legal obligations. This article examines how the political imperative of border control in the US influences the various approaches taken by the US and Mexico towards the detention of migrant children. It analyses the shortcomings and best practices of each system and concludes with recommended reforms that actualize the right of migrant children to be free from detention.

 

Eugenio Zaniboni, Countering Migrant Smuggling and Human Trafficking Through Special Investigative Techniques: Transnational Undercover Operations in the Italian and International Legal Systems, in FederalismiFocus Human Rights, 2020, n. 23

The adoption of international coordination measures to spread the use of ‘special investigative techniques’ to combat organised crime effectively is encouraged by Article 20 of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. The paper examines the Italian legal framework, amended by a new law passed in 2019, on an evolving legal tool such as the “undercover operations” involving, or taking place in more than one State. The article seeks to establish whether and to what extent Italy is complying with its international commitments in this field.

 

Post

Ben Hulme, Analysis of the United Kingdom’s Proposal for a UK-EU Readmission Agreement, in EU Law Analysis, 21 agosto 2020

Among the collection of draft texts for the future UK/EU relationship released by the UK government in May 2020, one which has received little attention thus far has been the draft UK-EU Readmission Agreement. Readmission is the process by which an individual who did not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the requirements for entry, presence or residence in a state, is returned to their state of origin or, in certain circumstances, to a third country. Although it is accepted customary international law that a state accepts the return of its own nationals, no such obligation exists towards those of a third country or who are stateless. Instead, the EU has sought to conclude readmission agreements which contain these additional reciprocal obligations, which is a contrast from the approach of many of its Member States who do not seek to include these additional obligations in their own bilateral agreements. For the UK, the only readmission agreement with provisions on third country nationals, but not stateless persons, is with Albania.

 

Rafe Jennings, Government Scraps Immigration “Streaming Tool” before Judicial Review, in UK Human Rights Blog, 6 agosto 2020.

In response to a legal challenge brought by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI), the Home Office has scrapped an algorithm used for sorting visa applications. Represented by Foxglove, a legal non-profit specialising in data privacy law, JCWI launched judicial review proceedings,, arguing that the algorithmic tool was unlawful on the grounds that it was discriminatory under the Equality Act 2010 and irrational under common law.

 

Lena Kainz, Alexander Betts, Power and proliferation: Explaining the fragmentation of global migration governance, in Migration Studies, 2020

Fragmentation is widely recognised as one of the defining characteristics of global migration governance. However, there has been little academic analysis of fragmentation, either as a dependent or independent variable in the international politics of migration. We aim to explain why it is that global migration governance has historically emerged as a patchwork of international institutions. In order to do so, we outline an original theoretical framework based on the proposition that power asymmetries between predominantly ‘sending’ and ‘receiving’ countries create a dynamic in which relatively weak states seek multilateralism and relatively strong states veto multilateralism, leading to institutional proliferation as a means to address immediate functional challenges. We apply this framework to four key historical turning points in the recent history of global migration governance: first, the impasse at the United Nations and the expansion of Regional Consultative Processes (1985–2001); second, the surge of new mandate creations and the first High-Level Dialogue on Migration and Development (1999–2006); third, the establishment of the Global Forum on Migration and Development and the Global Migration Group (2006–8); and finally, the New York Declaration and the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (2016–18).

 

Dominic Ruck Keene, Immigration Bail policy found systemically unfair, in UK Human Rights Blog, 30 luglio 2020

In three conjoined judicial reviews concerning the legality of the Home Secretary’s exercise of her power under paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016 to provide accommodation to those who are granted immigration bail, Mr Justice Johnson held in R (Humnyntskyi) v SSHD [2020] EWHC 1912 (Admin) that each of the three claimants had been unlawfully denied such accommodation, and that the relevant policy was systemically unfair.

 

Christian Mommers, The proposed recast of the EU Returns Directive: voluntary return under threat?, in EU Law Analysis, 28 agosto 2020

Discussions on the European Commission’s proposal for a recast of the Returns Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC), which it published in September 2018, are likely to gain speed after the summer. Among a range of other issues, which may well claim the limelight, the proposed recast has important implications for voluntary return. Voluntary return, in brief, relates to the granting of a period when the member state refrains from enforcement and during which the individual has an opportunity to meet the obligation to return of his own accord. Although giving such an opportunity is a key principle of the Directive, the proposal seeks to open the possibility of giving only very short periods for voluntary return, would make denial of a voluntary departure period mandatory rather than discretionary in some cases, and introduces criteria that could result in a wide-ranging application of exceptions to the general rule that voluntary departure should be possible.

 

Steve Peers, Family reunion,the rights of the child and effective remedies: latest CJEU judgment, in EU Law Analysis, 8 agosto 2020

For parents of teenagers, it’s always later than you think, and time is forever slipping through your fingers. But imagine what it’s like for parents who can never live with their children, due to the arbitrary viciousness of immigration law. A first step unseen. A first word unheard. A school play unwitnessed. And even if the immigrant parent moves heaven and earth to comply with the conditions for family reunion in immigration law, it’s possible that just as the children might be able to join their parents, time runs out for their application because they come of age – leaving only the unbearable emptiness of a nest that was never full.

 

Steve Peers, Updated Qs and As on the legal issues of asylum-seekers crossing the Channel, in EU Law Analysis, 8 agosto 2020

The issue of asylum seekers crossing the Channel has again arisen as a moral panic. These crossings raise a number of legal issues. There’s already a good discussion of many of them in the Free Movement blog, but I think it’s also useful to address some legal issues here, in a question and answer format. The following is an update of a January 2019 blog post on the issue; the updates particularly concern the Brexit process, with new material on bilateral treaties with France.

Libri

Romit Bhandari, Human Rights and The Revision of Refugee Law, Routledge, 2020

This book addresses the relationship between International Refugee Law and International Human Rights Law. Using international refugee law’s analytical turn to human rights as its object of inquiry, it represents a critical intervention into the revisionism that has led to conceptual fragmentation and restrictive practices. Mainstream literature in refugee law reflects a mood of celebration, a narrative of progress which praises the discipline’s rescue from obsolescence. This is commonly ascribed to its repositioning alongside human rights law, its veritable rediscovery as an arm of this far greater edifice. By using human rights logic to construct the current legal paradigm and inform us of who qualifies as a refugee, this purportedly lent areas of conceptual uncertainty a set of objective, modern criteria and increased enfranchisement to new, non-traditional claimants. The present work challenges this dominant position by finding the untold limits of its current paradigm. It stands alone in this orientation and hereby represents one of the most comprehensive, heterodox and structurally detailed reviews of this connection. The exploration of the gap between modern approaches and the unsatisfactory realities of seeking asylum forms the substance of this book. It asserts, by contrast, the existence of revolution rather than evolution. Human rights law has erased the founding tenets of the Refugee Convention, enabling powerful states to contain refugees in their region of origin. The book will be essential reading for those interested in Refugee Law, Refugee Studies, Postcolonial Legal Studies, Postmodern Critiques and Critical Legal Theory. Additionally, given its relevance for the adjudication of refugee claims, it will be an important resource for solicitors, barristers and judges.

 

William Chiaromonte, Maria Dolores Ferrara, Maura Ranieri, Migranti e lavoro, il Mulino, 2020

Muovendo da una considerazione unitaria dei fenomeni collegati alle migrazioni, il volume offre una sintesi delle varie prospettive di studio in tema di lavoro dei migranti e, allo stesso tempo, apre nuovi campi d’indagine. Sulla base di questa scelta metodologica, esso prende in esame la condizione dei migranti e l’accesso al lavoro nella dimensione storica e nella regolazione nazionale, europea e internazionale; le tutele connesse al rapporto di lavoro sul piano del diritto antidiscriminatorio, della salute e della sicurezza nei luoghi di lavoro, della previdenza e dell’assistenza sociale, degli strumenti di integrazione e di inclusione anche di matrice collettiva; infine, il contrasto ai fenomeni elusivi e di sfruttamento della manodopera migrante, anche in relazione ad alcuni status speciali quali il lavoro stagionale, il lavoro carcerario e il lavoro in distacco. L’intento è quello di sollecitare una riflessione che contribuisca a una diversa narrazione delle questioni inerenti ai fenomeni migratori e che superi l’angusta visuale delle esigenze di «securizzazione» alla base dei recenti interventi regolativi dei flussi migratori (e non solo), ripartendo proprio dal diritto al lavoro e dalla garanzia di condizioni di lavoro paritarie, eque e dignitose.

 

Adam B. Cox, Cristina M. Rodriguez, The President and Immigration Law, Oxford, 2020

Who controls American immigration policy? The biggest immigration controversies of the last decade have all involved policies produced by the President — policies such as President Obama’s decision to protect Dreamers from deportation and President Trump’s proclamation banning immigrants from several majority-Muslim nations. While critics of these policies have been separated by a vast ideological chasm, their broadsides have embodied the same widely shared belief: that Congress, not the President, ought to dictate who may come to the United States and who will be forced to leave. This belief is a myth. In The President and Immigration Law, Adam B. Cox and Cristina M. Rodríguez chronicle the untold story of how, over the course of two centuries, the President became our immigration policymaker-in-chief. Diving deep into the history of American immigration policy — from founding-era disputes over deporting sympathizers with France to contemporary debates about asylum-seekers at the Southern border — they show how migration crises, real or imagined, have empowered presidents. Far more importantly, they also uncover how the Executive’s ordinary power to decide when to enforce the law, and against whom, has become an extraordinarily powerful vehicle for making immigration policy. This pathbreaking account helps us understand how the United States has come to run an enormous shadow immigration system-one in which nearly half of all noncitizens in the country are living in violation of the law. It also provides a blueprint for reform, one that accepts rather than laments the role the President plays in shaping the national community, while also outlining strategies to curb the abuse of law enforcement authority in immigration and beyond.

 

Marie-Claire Foblets, Luc Leboeuf (ed.), Humanitarian Admission to Europe The Law Between Promises and Constraints, Hart Publishing, 2020

Bringing together contributions from legal scholars and practitioners, this book contributes to a broader reflection on the extent to which policy controversies on humanitarian admission to Europe are channeled and managed through law. The book is divided into four parts. The first part identifies the international and European legal obligations that are binding on both the EU and the Member States, and the constraints they impose – potentially and actually – when dealing with migrants who are outside EU territory. The second part studies the legal framework of humanitarian admission in three Member States (Germany, Italy and Belgium), as well as the related procedures and practices. The third part focuses on the experiences of those seeking humanitarian admission, including how they mobilise the law to obtain legal access to Europe. It presents the results of ethnographic fieldwork conducted among refugees in a refugee camp in Uganda who are seeking resettlement, as well as the testimony of the lawyer who defended a Syrian family applying for a humanitarian visa in Belgium in a landmark case that was litigated before the CJEU (X and X v Belgium). The fourth part discusses the prospects for future developments in the EU legal and policy framework, including attempts at reforming the EU Visa Code and establishing a Union resettlement framework.

 

Dora Kostakopoulou, EU Citizenship Law and Policy, Elgar, 2020

This theoretically ambitious work combines analytical, institutional and critical approaches in order to provide an in-depth, panoramic and contextual account of European Union citizenship law and policy.

 

Laila Lalami, Conditional Citizens, Pantheon, 2020

What does it mean to be American? In this starkly illuminating and impassioned book, Pulitzer Prize finalist Laila Lalami recounts her unlikely journey from Moroccan immigrant to U.S. citizen, using it as a starting point for her exploration of the rights, liberties, and protections that are traditionally associated with American citizenship. Tapping into history, politics, and literature, she elucidates how accidents of birth – such as national origin, race, and gender – that once determined the boundaries of Americanness still their shadows today. Lalami poignantly illustrates how white supremacy survives through adaptation and legislation, with the result that a caste system is maintained that keeps the modern equivalent of white male landowners at the top of the social hierarchy. Conditional citizens, she argues, are all the people with whom America embraces with one arm and pushes away with the other. Brilliantly argued and deeply personal, Conditional Citizens weaves together Lalami’s own experiences with explorations of the place of nonwhites in the broader American culture.

 

Ming Hsu Chen, Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era, Stanford, 2020

Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era provides readers with the everyday perspectives of immigrants on what it is like to try to integrate into American society during a time when immigration policy is focused on enforcement and exclusion. The law says that everyone who is not a citizen is an alien. But the social reality is more complicated. Ming Hsu Chen argues that the citizen/alien binary should instead be reframed as a spectrum of citizenship, a concept that emphasizes continuities between the otherwise distinct experiences of membership and belonging for immigrants seeking to become citizens. To understand citizenship from the perspective of noncitizens, this book utilizes interviews with more than one-hundred immigrants of varying legal statuses about their attempts to integrate economically, socially, politically, and legally during a modern era of intense immigration enforcement. Studying the experiences of green card holders, refugees, military service members, temporary workers, international students, and undocumented immigrants uncovers the common plight that underlies their distinctions: limited legal status breeds a sense of citizenship insecurity for all immigrants that inhibits their full integration into society. Bringing together theories of citizenship with empirical data on integration and analysis of contemporary policy, Chen builds a case that formal citizenship status matters more than ever during times of enforcement and argues for constructing pathways to citizenship that enhance both formal and substantive equality of immigrants.

 

Greg Prieto, Myth and Reality in the U.S. Immigration Debate, Routledge, 2020

“What part of illegal don’t you understand?” This oft-repeated slogan from immigration restrictionists illustrates the contentious quality of the immigration reform debate in the United States: a debate that has raged on unresolved since at least 1986 when our immigration system was last reformed. This impasse is due, in large part, to widespread misinformation about immigration. This short and accessible textbook takes a critical perspective on immigration law and policy, arguing that immigrant “illegality” is itself produced by law, with tremendous consequences for individuals and families. Across six chapters that examine the conceptual, historical, economic, global, legal, and racial dimensions of immigration to the United States, Prieto argues that illegal immigration is a problem of policy, not people. History and cutting-edge social science data guide an analysis of the actual, empirical impact of immigration on U.S. society. By debunking myths about immigration, the reader is invited to form their own opinion on the basis of fact and in light of the unequal treatment different immigrant groups have received since the nation’s founding. Myth and Reality in the U.S. Immigration Debate synthesizes key lessons from the fields of sociology, law and society, history, economics and critical race studies in a digestible and engaging format. This text will serve as an introduction to the study of immigration and a primer for those who wish to engage in a sober and compassionate conversation about immigrants and immigration in the United States.

 

Dana Schmalz, Refugees, Democracy and the Law. Political Rights at the Margins of the State, Routledge, 2020

The book provides an in-depth discussion of democratic theory questions in relation to refugee law. The work introduces readers to the evolution of refugee law and its core issues today, as well as central lines in the debate about democracy and migration. Bringing together these fields, the book links theoretical considerations and legal analysis. Based on its specific understanding of the refugee concept, it offers a reconstruction of refugee law as constantly confronted with the question of how to secure rights to those who have no voice in the democratic process. In this reconstruction, the book highlights, on the one hand, the need to look beyond the legal regulations for understanding the challenges and gaps in refugee protection. It is also the structural lack of political voice, the book argues, which shapes the refugee’s situation. On the other hand, the book opposes a view of law as mere expression of power and points out the dynamics within the law which reflect endeavors towards mitigating exclusion. The book will be essential reading for academics and researchers working in the areas of migration and refugee law, legal theory and political theory.

 

Davide Strazzari, Federalismo e immigrazione, Editoriale Scientifica, 2020

La disarticolazione del tradizionale rapporto tra sovranità statale e cittadinanza è tra gli aspetti che si è soliti ricondurre alle conseguenze che il fenomeno immigratorio determina sugli ordinamenti giuridici nazionali. Tale profilo viene spesso analizzato considerando soprattutto la dimensione territoriale dello Stato e le conseguenti interrelazioni di esso con il piano internazionale e sovranazionale. Il volume, invece, affronta il tema prestando attenzione al c.d. immigration federalism. Attraverso un’indagine comparata che considera esempi diversi di stato territorialmente composto, viene sviluppata la tesi secondo la quale la devoluzione di funzioni legate alla politica dell’immigrazione è più ampia e strutturale in contesti di federalismo di tipo identitario-etnico, articolandosi anche con soluzioni di natura asimmetrica. L’analisi è condotta secondo una tripartizione che ruota attorno a tre possibili declinazioni del concetto di “cittadinanza regionale” – rispettivamente la cittadinanza territoriale, sociale e culturale – in grado di offrire una panoramica della complessità del ruolo subnazionale in materia.

 

Articoli

Georgios Anagnostaras, The Common European Asylum System: Balancing Mutual Trust Against Fundamental Rights Protection, in German Law Journal, 2020, vol. 21, n. 6

The Common European Asylum System constitutes one of the principal areas in which the fundamental rights of individuals are essentially placed in competition with the core principle of mutual confidence and the need to preserve the effectiveness of EU law. That competitive relationship becomes particularly evident when applicants for international protection rely on alleged violations of their fundamental rights in order to contest their transfer to the Member State that is normally responsible for examining their asylum request according to the criteria of the Dublin III Regulation. The balancing process that needs to be carried out in this respect and the measure of the monitoring obligation that EU law imposes on the receiving Member State regarding the protection of the fundamental rights of asylum seekers are well exemplified by the preliminary ruling in Jawo. That case provides additional clarification regarding the circumstances in which the protection of fundamental rights may introduce exceptions to the principle of mutual trust. At the same time, it illustrates the inherent tensions that exist between the protection of fundamental rights and the application of the principle of mutual confidence.

 

Francesca Cancellaro, Dagli hotspot ai “porti chiusi”: quali rimedi per la libertà “sequestrata” alla frontiera?, in Sistema Penale, 28 settembre 2020

Il lavoro esamina le garanzie sostanziali e procedurali che circondano la libertà personale dello straniero nell’ambito delle politiche di controllo dell’immigrazione irregolare, con particolare riguardo al problema delle detenzioni di fatto nelle zone di frontiera. In assenza di un rimedio generale di habeas corpus nell’ordinamento italiano, l’autrice si interroga sull’esistenza di strumenti efficaci di tutela avverso le misure coercitive extra ordinem, soffermandosi sulla più recente casistica relativa ai trattenimenti nei centri hotspot, nonché a bordo di navi militari e private nel quadro della “politica dei porti chiusi”. Il contributo esamina tanto le prassi delle autorità di frontiera quanto le più recenti novità normative in materia, adottando un taglio interdisciplinare che tiene conto dei rilevanti profili di diritto penale e amministrativo, nonché degli aspetti inerenti alla tutela sovranazionale dei diritti umani.

 

Sergio Carrera, Whose Pact? The Cognitive Dimensions of the New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, in CEPS, 2020, n. 22

This Policy Insight examines the new Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the principles and commitments enshrined in the United Nations Global Compact on Refugees (UN GCR) and the EU Treaties. It finds that from a legal viewpoint the ‘Pact’ is not really a Pact at all, if understood as an agreement concluded between relevant EU institutional parties. Rather, it is the European Commission’s policy guide for the duration of the current 9th legislature. The analysis shows that the Pact has intergovernmental aspects, in both name and fundamentals. It does not pursue a genuine Migration and Asylum Union. The Pact encourages an artificial need for consensus building or de facto unanimity among all EU member states’ governments in fields where the EU Treaties call for qualified majority voting (QMV) with the European Parliament as co-legislator. The Pact does not abolish the first irregular entry rule characterising the EU Dublin Regulation. It adopts a notion of interstate solidarity that leads to asymmetric responsibilities, where member states are given the flexibility to evade participating in the relocation of asylum seekers. The Pact also runs the risk of catapulting some contested member states practices’ and priorities about localisation, speed and de-territorialisation into EU policy. This Policy Insight argues that the Pact’s priority of setting up an independent monitoring mechanism of border procedures’ compliance with fundamental rights is a welcome step towards the better safeguarding of the rule of law. The EU inter-institutional negotiations on the Pact’s initiatives should be timely and robust in enforcing member states’ obligations under the current EU legal standards relating to asylum and borders, namely the prevention of detention and expedited expulsions, and the effective access by all individuals to dignified treatment and effective remedies. Trust and legitimacy of EU asylum and migration policy can only follow if international (human rights and refugee protection) commitments and EU Treaty principles are put first.

 

Marcello Di Filippo, Walking the (Barbed) Wire of the Prohibition of Collective Expulsion: An Assessment of the Strasbourg Case Law, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 2

Following the Hirsi judgment dating back to 2012, the prohibition of collective expulsion gained a prominent role in the European system of protection of human rights. Its implications on the restrictive migration policies implemented by European States at the borders or elsewhere are farreaching. With the N.D. & N.T. judgment of February 2020 the Strasbourg Court had the occasion to assess the controversial Spanish policy of hot returns at its terrestrial border with Morocco. Contrary to the previous findings of the Chamber, the Grand Chamber held that no violation of Art. 4 Protocol No. 4 of the Convention occurred. This article critically assesses the reasoning followed by the Court in introducing a sort of ‘bad behaviour exception’ to that provision: several flaws and questionable passages, both in abstract and in the application to the circumstances of the case, are highlighted. It then argues that it is possible and desirable to significantly reduce the impact of this unfortunate precedent on future cases dealing with collective rejections.

 

Rowan El-Bialy, Shree Mulay, Microaggression and everyday resistance in narratives of refugee resettlement, in Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 8, n. 3

The mental health of resettled refugees is not only affected by the trauma they experience before and while fleeing persecution, but also by experiences during the resettlement process. Drawing on a qualitative study of refugees’ experiences of mental wellbeing in a small Canadian city this paper documents participants’ experiences of microaggression and everyday resistance. In our analysis, we refer to the metaphor of uprooting that is often used to describe the totality of refugee displacement. In our expansion of the metaphor, microaggression re-uproots resettled refugees by challenging their right to be where they are. Using acts of everyday resistance, participants in our sample attempted to set down roots in the resettlement context despite microaggressions. Participants’ acts of everyday resistance are captured under five themes: rejecting victimhood, rejecting burden narratives, ignorance as an explanation, the transience of vulnerability, and setting down roots. This study contributes to the literature that de-emphasizes the vulnerability narrative of refugee mental health by demonstrating the role of personal agency in refugees’ experiences of their own wellbeing.

 

Marta Bivand Erdal, Theorizing interactions of migrant transnationalism and integration through a multiscalar approach, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

The aim of this article is to theorize interactions between migrant transnationalism and integration using a multiscalar approach. For migrant transnationalism scholars, attention to simultaneity in transnational social fields is given. However, much migration research in Europe continues to suffer from an ‘integration bias’, which under-appreciates the salience of simultaneity within transnational social fields in many migrants’ lives, and implicitly assumes a zero-sum approach to societal membership. Drawing on interviews with migrants in Oslo (Norway) a multiscalar analytical approach is adopted. The salience of where things happen and how they are understood, depending on the perspective of involved actors, across time, space and position, emerges when using this multiscalar approach. Identifying the roles of nested, taxonomical, but also emergent and perspective scales allows a fresh theoretical engagement with interactions between migrant transnationalism and integration, showing how simultaneity and (productive) friction result from additive, synergistic and even apparently antagonistic interactions.

 

Francesco Luigi Gatta, Diritti umani e stato di diritto alle frontiere: lo “scontro” tra le corti europee sul trattenimento dei migranti nelle zone di transito Corte di Giustizia (Grande Sezione), sentenza del 14 maggio 2020, cause riunite C-924/19 PPU e C-925/19 PPU, FMS e alt, in Osservatorio AIC, 2020, N. 5

This contribution analyses two recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Court of Justice, which have been both delivered by their highest judicial formation of Grand Chambers, on the issue of the placing of asylum seekers in the Röszke transit zone at the Serbian-Hungarian border. With regard to the legal qualification of such placing, the two Courts reach diametrically opposite conclusions: according to the Luxembourg judges it is an actual form of deprivation of the personal liberty, for those of Strasbourg, on the contrary, it is a mere restriction of the freedom of movement. This contribution intends to particularly analyse the reasons behind such disagreement between the two European Courts, expressing criticism towards the conclusion reached by the European Court of Human Rights. Further points of interest will be considered in the judgment of the Court of Justice, in particular as regards the reinstatement of the protection provided by the rights and safeguards under EU Law, which were violated and restricted by the Hungarian legislation in the fields of asylum and border controls.

 

Daniel Ghezelbash, Hyper-Legalism and Obfuscation: How States Evade Their International Obligations Towards Refugees, in The American Journal of Comparative Law, 2020, vol. 68, n. 2.

This Article examines how wealthy democratic states evade and avoid their international obligations towards refugees. The focus is on two strategies. The first is hyper-legalism—an overly formalistic bad-faith approach to interpreting international law. The second is obfuscation, which involves secrecy about what actions the government is taking and deliberate silence as to the purported legal justifications. The discussion is illustrated with examples from the United States, Australia, and Europe. The Article concludes with a discussion of possible tactics for resisting these strategies and holding governments accountable for their actions.

 

Fabian Kratz, On the way from misery to happiness? A longitudinal perspective on economic migration and well-being, in Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 8, n. 3

The assessment of returns from migration lies at the very heart of migration research. While a growing body of literature examines the links between migration and well-being, dynamic relationships require further elaboration. Using the longest running, nationally representative panel study with information on well-being, the German Socio-Economic Panel (1985–2016) this article addresses two essential, as yet unresolved, questions: How does the favourable self-selection of economic migrants affect their well-being before relocation? How does the well-being of economic migrants develop when individuals approach migration, and thereafter? Results show that—although favourably selected regarding determinants of well-being—economically motivated migrants are not happier before relocating than those who stay. Furthermore, economic migration has a causal impact on well-being, net of both observed and unobserved differences between migrants and stayers. This impact is transitory for women and long-lasting for men. For men, the results corroborate the view that migration enables access to opportunity structures favouring the pursuit of individual happiness. Results also differ by migration type: While long-distance movers and return migrants show a period of depressed happiness before a move, these findings do not hold for short-distance and onward migrants. Furthermore, moving towards urban areas results in stronger permanent effects than moving towards rural areas.

 

Donald Kerwin, Robert Warren, US Foreign-Born Workers in the Global Pandemic: Essential and Marginalized, in Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2020, vol. 19, n. 1

This article provides detailed estimates of foreign-born (immigrant) workers in the United States who are employed in “essential critical infrastructure” sectors, as defined by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (DHS 2020). Building on earlier work by the Center for Migration Studies (CMS), the article offers exhaustive estimates on essential workers on a national level, by state, for large metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and for smaller communities that heavily rely on immigrant labor. It also reports on these workers by job sector; immigration status; eligibility for tax rebates under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act); and other characteristics.

 

Elaine Lebon-McGregor, A History of Global Migration Governance: Challenging Linearity, in IMI Working Paper Series, 2020, vol 167

In December 2018 states adopted two Global Compacts, one on migration and one on refugees, establishing roadmaps for the future of international cooperation relevant to population movements. While often attributed to the “migration crises” of 2015, the Global Compacts are the product of more than one hundred years of institution-building during which the world has evolved tremendously. Challenging linear accounts of the evolution of global migration governance, this paper reviews the main developments relevant to global migration governance from 1919 to 2018. A tension between informality with action, and formality with inaction, has impacted the way that global migration governance has evolved. Proponents of a ‘management’ approach to global migration governance, primarily countries in the Global North, have preferred to keep intergovernmental discussions regarding migration outside of the United Nations (UN) in various state-led fora in different regional and global settings. Conversely, countries in the Global South, along with normative organizations such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) and Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), have sought to further a rights-based approach to the governance of migration within the UN. The ‘migration and development’ approach to global migration governance was used by Kofi Annan and Peter Sutherland in the 2000s to bring together states with fundamentally different views concerning the governance of migration. However, the outcome of these efforts is arguably a form of global governance that continues to reflect the preference of states, particularly in the Global North, to organize intergovernmental relations on migration in an informal and non-binding way.

 

Caroline Oliver, Rianne Dekker, Karin Geuijen, Jacqueline Broadhead, Innovative strategies for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees in European cities: multi-level governance, multi-sector urban networks and local engagement, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

Cities are taking a prominent role in solving global challenges, with a ‘new localism’ inviting a reorientation of power from nation-states downwards, outwards and globally. This special issue explores this phenomenon through extending the existing analyses of multi-level governance and the ‘local turn’ to the underexplored area of asylum seeker and refugee reception in European cities. The special issue draws on research in European cities where new strategies were piloted especially in the wake of ‘the refugee crisis’ from 2015, consolidating the ‘local turn’ evident in immigration and integration policy-making. The collection is in two parts: the first part explores innovation in local governance of asylum seeker reception. Here, case studies demonstrate how cities responded through forging new alliances both vertically and (especially) horizontally in networks within and between cities. The second part explores innovation in practice, analysing novel initiatives premised on local engagement and inclusivity of newcomers within the social fabric of the city. This editorial paper draws out the wider lessons of efforts from this comparative exploration of attempts to rethink asylum seeker and refugee reception at the local level.

 

Christopher R. Parsons, Sebastien Rojon, Lena Rose, Farhan Samanani, High skilled migration through the lens of policy, in Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 8, n. 3

High skilled migrants and the policies designed to attract and select such individuals are widely championed. In formulating and evaluating such policies, however, policy makers and academics alike face significant challenges, since, from the perspective of policy, what it means to be high skilled remains a fluid concept. The resulting ambiguity stymies meaningful international comparisons of the mobility of skills, undermines the design and evaluation of immigration policies and hinders the measurement of human capital. In this paper, we adopt an inductive approach to examine how high skilled migrants are classified based upon states’ unilateral immigration policies, thereby highlighting the difficulties of comparing high skilled policies across countries. We further elucidate the challenges in measuring the outcomes of high skilled migration policies that arise due to differing national priorities in recording high skilled migrants. We conclude by making a number of policy recommendations, which if enacted, would bring clarity to scholars and policy makers alike in terms of being able to meaningfully compare the composition, and assess the efficacy of, high skilled migration policies across countries. In doing so we introduce three datasets comprising: harmonised high skill migration flow data, skilled occupational concordances and high skilled unilateral and bilateral migration policy data, which undergird our analysis and that can be built upon in years to come.

 

Marco Pecoraro, Didier Ruedin, Occupational exposure to foreigners and attitudes towards equal opportunities, in Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 8, n. 3

We examine the relationship between attitudes to foreigners and the share of foreigners at the occupational level. Using a question on equal opportunities for foreigners from the Swiss Household Panel, ordered probit regression models show a negative association between the share of foreigners in one’s occupation and positive attitudes to foreigners: workers seem to react to competition with foreigners. When we add the occupational unemployment rate, objective pressures in the labour market appear as relevant as contact at the occupational level. Further controlling for occupational heterogeneity establishes that both factors—particularly objective pressures—are probably accounted for by sorting on job quality. We also show that the association between the occupational share of foreigners and attitudes decreases for workers with better job prospects. This implies that workers welcome foreigners to overcome labour market shortages.

 

Asya Pisarevskaya, Nathan Levy, Peter Scholten, Joost Jansen, Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field, in Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 8, n. 3

Migration studies have developed rapidly as a research field over the past decades. This article provides an empirical analysis not only on the development in volume and the internationalization of the field, but also on the development in terms of topical focus within migration studies over the past three decades. To capture volume, internationalisation, and topic focus, our analysis involves a computer-based topic modelling of the landscape of migration studies. Rather than a linear growth path towards an increasingly diversified and fragmented field, as suggested in the literature, this reveals a more complex path of coming of age of migration studies. Although there seems to be even an accelerated growth for migration studies in terms of volume, its internationalisation proceeds only slowly. Furthermore, our analysis shows that rather than a growth of diversification of topics within migration topic, we see a shift between various topics within the field. Finally, our study shows that there is no consistent trend to more fragmentation in the field; in contrast, it reveals a recent recovery of connectedness between the topics in the field, suggesting an institutionalisation or even theoretical and conceptual coming of age of migration studies.

 

Stefano Rossi, Declinazioni della dignità sociale. L’iscrizione anagrafica nella sentenza n. 186/2020 della Corte costituzionale, in federalismi.it, 2020, n. 26

Con la sentenza n. 186/2020 la Corte costituzionale ha dichiarato incostituzionale il divieto dell’iscrizione anagrafica degli stranieri richiedenti asilo contenuta nel “Decreto Sicurezza” (d.l. n. 113/2018). Il saggio analizza le motivazioni del giudice costituzionale ponendo in rilievo come il canone della ragionevolezza – utilizzato per svolgere un giudizio di natura intrinseca e per vagliare un’ipotesi di disparità di trattamento – venga a garantire la pari dignità sociale, condizione, sostanza e fine del pieno sviluppo della persona umana.

 

Carolin Schütze, Attitudes matter-welfare work and migration in Sweden, in Migration Studies, 2020, vol. 8, n. 3

This paper investigates the factors that influence Swedish welfare workers’ attitudes towards migrants and how these attitudes are associated with their encounters with migrant users. Due to increased migration over the last decade, Sweden is now considered an immigrant nation. Migrants with the right to reside in Sweden are included within the larger welfare system. This paper argues that preconceived notions about migrants can affect the welfare services that they receive. Results from an online survey with a sample of 1,319 welfare practitioners reveal that welfare workers’ attitudes play a significant role when it comes to how they perceive their encounters with migrant users. The findings demonstrate that more favourable attitudes towards migrants were predicted mainly by personal contact with migrants and that different organisational contexts result in different experiences of encounters with migrant users. Less favourable attitudes towards migrants were primarily predicted by a strong ethnic national identity. Most importantly, the findings show that welfare workers’ who have more favourable attitudes towards migrants are less likely to perceive their encounters with migrant users as difficult. This paper contributes to welfare and migration research in two ways. First, this study provides additional support for previous claims from qualitative research by supporting the assumptions that preconceived negative ideas about migrants have meaning for practical welfare work. Second, this paper integrates two streams of research—attitude formation theory and street-level bureaucracy theory—thus expanding existing assumptions about what determines welfare practices with migrants.

 

Federica Zardo, The EU Trust Fund for Africa: Geopolitical Space Making through Migration Policy Instruments, in Geopolitics, 2020, vol. 25, n. 4.

As a response to the migration crisis, the EU has not only revised its policies but also mobilized resources, introduced new tools, or adapted the existing ones to the changing context. While the debate at the policy level is burgeoning, instruments have been limitedly explored. What kind of geopolitical dynamics are EU migration policy instruments producing? How do they contribute to redesigning the EU-African geopolitical space? The article combines a policy instruments approach with a spatial perspective on the EU migration policy. Through the analysis of the 2015 EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, it raises the argument that migration policy instruments are powerful spatial practices that are shaping the EU-African geopolitical space by coordinating the EU’s and Member States’ priorities and understandings of migration. Overall, the paper suggests that research on the EU external relations, particularly in the realm of migration, should not only pay more attention to policy instruments but also map them in the targeted territories to avoid “cartographic traps” and better understand the impact of the policies under scrutiny.

 

Post

Ulrike Brandl, A human right to seek refuge at Europe’s external borders: The ECtHR adjusts its case law in M.K. vs Poland, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 11 settembre 2020

The last years have seen a major shift in European states’ policy in the field of asylum and migration towards an increasingly muscular surveillance of external borders. This trend has already found its resonance in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Following this shift, the major issue that links several of the most crucial judgments delivered in the past years regards states’ obligations arising from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to receive applications for international protection at their external borders or at the high seas and to preliminarily allow persons seeking protection to stay on their territory or under their jurisdiction until their claim has been decided on. From a legal point of view, the focus not only lies on Article 3 ECHR and its inherent non refoulement obligation but also on a right that had not played a significant role for quite a long time: the prohibition of collective expulsion enshrined in Article 4 of Protocol n°4 to the European Convention on Human Rights. The conclusion that this obligation does not allow the denial of access to the territory without an individualised decision is uncontested. The jurisprudence however still leaves scope for further clarifications what exactly is an individualised decision and inasmuch as a “culpable conduct” on the part of applicants can justify to reject them at the border without examining their individual circumstances.

 

Galina Cornelisse, Judicial dialogue about the Return Directive: Which role for courts in an era of executive governance?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 1° settembre 2020

The concept of judicial dialogue that is central to our book Law and Judicial Dialogue on the Return of Irregular Migrants from the European Union shows that in times characterised by legislative stalemate and crisis driven governance, courts and judicial interactions serve as important guarantors for the rule of law. As such they also set standards for policy-making that the institutions would be wise to engage with in the ongoing legislative process. The Covid and perceived refugee crisis have seen a relapse of asylum and immigration policies across Europe towards executive driven policy making – both on the European level as on the level of the Member States. In this context the role of courts becomes especially salient and as such, a close look at the contribution of courts to the implementation of the Return Directive is more than timely. The contributors to our book show that European and domestic courts have played a crucial role in transforming the Return Directive from a ‘Directive of Shame’ to a positive normative example for legal orders around the globe. Judicial interactions in particular have been key for this policy transformation by giving the courts tools to act as gatekeepers for human rights protection and effective implementation of the Directive.

 

Iris Goldner Lang, Which connection between The Greek-Turkish border, the Western Balkans route and the ECtHR’s judgment in ND and NT?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 4 settembre 2020

Since the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement (see here and here on this blog) in March 2016 until 28 February 2020, the Greek-Turkish border had been mostly closed, with Turkey hosting around 3.6 million Syrian refugees (out of a total of over 4 million refugees). On 28 February 2020, Turkey announced that it would no longer stop migrants and refugees trying to enter the EU. According to the Greek media, the following day more than 4,000 persons repeatedly tried to cross the Greek border. The border was opened only on the Turkish side, as the Greek police stopped everybody who tried to cross the border, by using tear gas and rubber bullets. The situation continued to escalate in the following weeks with tens of thousands of people gathering on the Turkish side after having been reportedly taken there by Turkish buses. At the same time, Greece decided to suspend all asylum applications for one month. (on this blog see here and here about the geopolitical context of this crisis). The Greek border conduct was strongly supported and praised by EU leaders. The President of the European Commission openly thanked Greece as Europe’s “shield” in blocking the entry to the EU and promised financial and material support, as well as the deployment of Frontex. On top of this, the Commission has refused to release a preliminary legal assessment of the Greek decision to temporarily freeze all asylum applications. In the meantime, the number of people trying to cross the border considerably decreased.

 

Itamar Mann, Preserve the Ashes of Moria, in verfassungsblog.de, 11 settembre 2020

On Wednesday night, first images began to circulate online from the fires in Moria, the large and infamous refugee camp on Lesvos. Children and young adults displaced by war, once again displaced by flames, fleeing in medical facemasks. When Wednesday morning broke out, we learned that the camp was indeed burned to the ground, with around 13,000 refugees remaining shelterless in the surrounding area. In the afternoon, local authorities declared next steps.  As Dr. Essam Daod informed from a meeting on the island, plans are to close a vast area adjacent to the burnt camp and keep the camp’s population inside. The area, natural and agricultural countryside planted with olives, will provide a new living space for the group. While groceries are available for purchase, it was not clear that any organized living spaces would be provided. Later in the evening, Giorgios Christides reported the Greek government said it will provide food, water, tents, and sanitation materials. While limitations on movement for those who were in the camp are partially justified by Covid-19, the temporary plan is as dramatic as the fire.

 

Emilie McDonnell, Bad Role Models, The UK’s Proposal to Pushback Asylum Seekers at Sea, the Australian Model, and International Law, in verfassungsblog.de, 25 settembre 2020

Over the past several months, there has been an increase in asylum seekers and refugees crossing the English Channel in small inflatable boats. This prompted the UK government to propose stemming arrivals with an Australian-style approach: ‘pushing back’ boats to France before they can reach British territorial waters. The UK already funds France to prevent asylum seekers leaving French territory through ‘pullback’ measures. Such pushback and pullback practices likely violate several international refugee, human rights and law of the sea obligations. To uphold their obligations under international law and reduce the number of asylum seekers undertaking dangerous irregular journeys, states engaging in these practices must ensure that safe, accessible pathways to entering their territory exist.

 

Steve Peers, First analysis of the EU’s new asylum proposals, in EU Law Analysis, 25 settembre 2020

This week the EU Commission published its new package of proposals on asylum and (non-EU) migration – consisting of proposals for legislation, some ‘soft law’, attempts to relaunch talks on stalled proposals and plans for future measures. The following is an explanation of the new proposals (not attempting to cover every detail) with some first thoughts. Overall, while it is possible that the new package will lead to agreement on revised asylum laws, this will come at the cost of risking reduced human rights standards.

Libri

 

Jan C. Jansen, Simone Lässig, Refugee Crises, 1945-2000. Political and Societal Responses in International Comparison, Cambridge, 2020

This timely study examines responses to mass refugee movements by a range of actors, from local communities to supranational organizations. Bringing together ten case studies from around the world, encompassing the global North and South alike, Refugee Crises 1945–2000 explores a broad spectrum of types of migration and of international and domestic contexts. Whilst the driving forces and numbers of people involved, and the backgrounds (national, religious, social) of the migrants, vary considerably, this book highlights a common factor: that each receiving country was confronted with the crucial question of how to deal with the arrival of a large number of people seeking refuge. They could not simply be sent away, but they were also widely seen in the receiving countries as an unpredictable challenge to stability and social cohesion. Taking a long-term perspective, this is an eloquent contribution to the intense public debate about the impact of refugee migration on state stability, societal cohesion and as an impetus for social change.

 

Stian Øby Johansen, The Human Rights Accountability Mechanisms of International Organizations, Cambridge, 2020

International organizations are becoming increasingly powerful. Today, they affect the lives of individuals across the globe through their decisions and conduct. Consequently, international organizations are more capable of violating the human rights of individuals. But how can they be held to account for such violations? This book studies the procedural mechanisms that may hold international organizations to account for their human rights violations. It establishes a general framework for identifying, analyzing, and assessing the accountability mechanisms of international organizations. This general framework is then applied to three distinct cases: the EU’s Common Security and Defence Policy missions, refugee camp administration by the UNHCR, and detention by the International Criminal Court. The overall conclusion is that none of the existing accountability mechanisms across the three cases fulfill the normative requirements set out in the general framework. However, there are significant variations between cases, and between different types of accountability mechanisms.

 

John Morrissey, Haven: The Mediterranean Crisis and Human Security, Edward Elgar, 2020

The Mediterranean refugee crisis presents states across Europe with a common security challenge: how to intervene responsibly in mitigation and support. This book seeks to advance the UN concept of ‘human security’ in showing how a human security approach to the crisis can effectively conceptualize and respond to the intricacies of the challenges faced. It argues for a politics of solidarity in proffering integrated solutions that call out the failure of top-down, statist security measures. Leading international authors from a range of disciplines document key dimensions of the crisis, including: the legal mechanisms enabling or blocking asylum; the biopolitical systems for managing displaced peoples; and the multiple, overlapping historical precedents of today’s challenges.

 

Mira L. Siegelberg, Statelessness. A Modern History, Harvard University Press, 2020

The story of how a much-contested legal category—statelessness—transformed the international legal order and redefined the relationship between states and their citizens. Two world wars left millions stranded in Europe. The collapse of empires and the rise of independent states in the twentieth century produced an unprecedented number of people without national belonging and with nowhere to go. Mira Siegelberg’s innovative history weaves together ideas about law and politics, rights and citizenship, with the intimate plight of stateless persons, to explore how and why the problem of statelessness compelled a new understanding of the international order in the twentieth century and beyond. In the years following the First World War, the legal category of statelessness generated novel visions of cosmopolitan political and legal organization and challenged efforts to limit the boundaries of national membership and international authority. Yet, as Siegelberg shows, the emergence of mass statelessness ultimately gave rise to the rights regime created after World War II, which empowered the territorial state as the fundamental source of protection and rights, against alternative political configurations. Today we live with the results: more than twelve million people are stateless and millions more belong to categories of recent invention, including refugees and asylum seekers. By uncovering the ideological origins of the international agreements that define categories of citizenship and non-citizenship, Statelessness better equips us to confront current dilemmas of political organization and authority at the global level.

 

Articoli

Seyla Benhabib, The End of the 1951 Refugee Convention? Dilemmas of Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Human Rights, in Jus Cogens, 2020, 2

The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the main legal documents governing the movement of refugee and asylum seekers across international borders. As the number of displaced persons seeking refugee has reached unprecedented numbers, states have resorted to measures to circumvent their obligations under the Convention. These range from bilateral agreements condemning refugees to their vessels at sea to the excision of certain territories from national jurisdiction. While socio-economic developments and the rise of the worldwide web have led to deterritorialization of vast domains of the economy and the media which enable them to escape from state control, territorial presence, whether on terra firma or on vessels at sea which are functional surrogates for territorial sovereignty, continues to be the basis for the entitlement to human and citizens’ rights. We are facing a dual movement of deterritorialization and territorialization at once, both of which threaten the end of the 1951 Convention. This article is an exercise in non-ideal theory which, nonetheless, has implications for a seminal question in ideal democratic theory as to how to define and justify the boundaries of the demos. If the demos refers to the constitutional subject of a self-determining entity in whose name sovereignty is exercised, regimes of sovereignty, including those which govern the movement of peoples across borders, define the prerogatives as well as obligations of such sovereign entities under international law. The period ushered in by the 1951 Convention was such a sovereignty regime which today may be nearing its end.

 

Rosemary Byrne, Gregor Noll and Jens Vedsted-Hansen, Understanding the crisis of refugee law: Legal scholarship and the EU asylum system, in Leiden Journal of International Law, 2020

In 2015 Europe’s refugee protection crisis triggered the effective collapse of the world’s most complex regional framework for asylum. A development both unexpected and unexplained by the hierarchical model of European asylum law that tends to dominate the scholarly field. The abandonment among member states of core obligations under international and EU law and the principles of solidarity and good faith is central to this crisis. This dynamic has been in the making since the accession process when EU membership was offered in exchange for transposing international obligations through the EU asylum acquis, collectivizing external border control and shifting refugee ‘responsibility’ to new member states with minimal standards for refugee protection and weak enforcement mechanisms. Yet, the critical feature of this asylum crisis is its development into a European constitutional crisis, impacting freedom of movement, sincere co-operation, democracy, and the rule of law. A hierarchical model of law offers only a partial explanation of this interplay between refugee protection and European governance. A turn to the methodological debates in international law urges the repositioning of the lens of refugee legal scholarship, offering insights into the evolution towards crisis by looking at law from below against the backdrop of law in history, subregional law-making, and shifting power constellations. This process suggests that refugee law scholarship could benefit from widening its methodological canon by visiting its parent field of public international law.

 

Jana Brandt & Kyra Selina Hagge, Education and social support: do migrants benefit as much as natives?, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

Education and having access to social support play a vital role in the human life. Integrated and better-educated people demonstrate an increased personal health and well-being. Social isolation, on the contrary, can affect not only the personal development, but also pertains to society. These topics are especially relevant in the current migration debate. Our paper examines the link between schooling and the individuals’ probability to receive different types of social support, in particular emotional, instrumental, informational, and appraisal support. Using logit and ordinal logit regressions on cross-sectional micro-data provided by the SOEP, we distinguish between two subgroups, the native population and people who migrated to Germany. Our findings confirm that higher levels of education increase the probability to access social support as well as the number of support providers in the network. Migrants are disadvantaged when it comes to the access of social support. However, our results suggest no significant negative returns to education for people with migration experiences.

 

Josh De Wind, Blind men and the elephant: one view of the field of migration studies, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

There are many ways to conceive and represent the field of migration studies. The CrossMigration article provides us with a broad overview to help us understand and contribute to the field’s development. This article explores a number of additional and complementary views drawn from the field-building activities of the Social Science Research Council between 1994 and 2014.

 

Adriano Dirri, La Corte di Giustizia torna sul meccanismo di ricollocazione dei migranti tra rivendicazioni identitarie e tenuta dei valori fondanti dell’Unione europea, in Osservatorio AIC, 2020, n. 5

On April 2, 2020, the Court of Justice delivered the judgement on the infringement procedure started in late 2017. The Court ruled that Hungary, Poland and Czech Republic failed to fulfill their obligation under the relocation mechanism set by the Decisions 2015/1523 and 2015/1601. The Court dismissed the argument of the three Member States especially regarding art. 72 TFUE, where lies the derogation to the rules embodied in the Title V TFUE. According to the Court, this provision must be strictly interpreted, and it does not represent a general derogation. Moreover, this judgement highlights that the refugee crisis has been a systemic crisis of the European Union, where the foundational values as well as the principle of sincere cooperation are at stake. Thus, this judgement has to be read in in the context of the crisis of the rule of law within the European Union and the infringement procedure might a viable tool for ascertaining the violation of the EU law and obligations.

 

Amina Maneggia, Non-refoulement of Climate Change Migrants: Individual Human Rights Protection or ‘Responsibility to Protect’? The Teitiota Case Before the Human Rights Committee, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 2

In its Views of 24 October 2019 in the case of Teitiota v. New Zealand, the Human Rights Committee had to decide whether a ‘climate change migrant’ enjoyed international protection against refoulement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The applicant claimed that his forced return to Kiribati exposed him to life-threatening natural hazards and lack of access to fresh water, in violation of his right to life, due to the serious environmental degradation caused by sea level rise in the island state. For the first time, the Committee recognized that the effects of climate change may expose individuals to a violation of their rights to life and to be free from inhuman and degrading treatment under Arts 6 or 7 of the Covenant, thereby triggering the nonrefoulement obligation. However, in the specific case the Committee concluded that the domestic authorities’ assessment that the author had not been exposed to a real risk of a violation of his right to life, including his right to a life with dignity, was not manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable or unjust. After discussing the Committee’s assessment of the ‘reasonable foreseeability’ of this risk in light of the general environmental situation in Kiribati, which equally affects its entire population, this article analyses the high threshold of gravity – i.e., of ‘uninhabitability’ – applied by the Committee to ascertain the existence of such risk for the individual applicant. It then comments the aptness of such threshold to take into account the global responsibility for climate change adequately, its link with the notion of the ‘responsibility to protect’, and its limits and potentialities in the perspective of human rights protection.

 

James F. Hollifield, Is migration a unique field of study in social sciences? A response to Levy, Pisarevskaya, and Scholten, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

The emergence of a new research field or area of study in the social sciences always is fraught with controversy, fits and starts, theoretical, methodological, and even epistemological debates. Migration studies is no different, but some things are relatively unique about this ‘new’ field of study, while others are more conventional. The article on the ‘rise of migration studies’ by the CrossMigration team, Levy et al. (Comparative Migration Studies, 8 forthcoming), “Between Fragmentation and Institutionalization” under consideration here captures some of the controversies in migration studies, and poses some interesting questions about the direction of the field. Building on the ‘bibliometric analysis’ of journal articles by the cross-migration group, I ask what is unique about migration studies and what is conventional?

 

Donald Kerwin, Robert Warren, US Foreign-Born Workers in the Global Pandemic: Essential and Marginalized, in Jurnal on Migration and Human Security, 2020, n. 3

This article provides detailed estimates of foreign-born (immigrant) workers in the United States who are employed in “essential critical infrastructure” sectors, as defined by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) (DHS 2020). Building on earlier work by the Center for Migration Studies (CMS), the article offers exhaustive estimates on essential workers on a national level, by state, for large metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), and for smaller communities that heavily rely on immigrant labor. It also reports on these workers by job sector; immigration status; eligibility for tax rebates under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act); and other characteristics.

 

Russell King, On migration, geography, and epistemic communities, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

This commentary paper starts by questioning the assumption that migration means international migration, and goes on to affirm that migration studies has indeed come of age as a coherent if highly diverse research field. Several emerging epistemic communities are identified: migration and development; gender and migration; lifestyle migration; and youth and student migrations. Finally, I argue that the role of geography in the study of migration has been under-valued.

 

Eleonore Kofman, Unequal internationalisation and the emergence of a new epistemic community: gender and migration, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

In this contribution to the formation of an epistemic community and its knowledge production developed in the Paper Between fragmentation and institutionalisation: the rise of migration studies as a research field, I seek to go beyond the bibliometric analysis, and in particular explore the nature of its internationalisation, the connections authors have across the globe and the unequal valuation of differently located research. These aspects underpin networks in the formation and evolution of epistemic communities. I shall illustrate my points through an epistemic community which has grown significantly in the past two decades, but scarcely gains a mention in the Paper. Gender and migration can be placed within the much broader cluster of globalisation, and especially in more recent years, transnationalism. My analysis does not start from bibliometric measures, which I do not have, but is based on selected reviews at different stages of the emergence of this field and my own involvement in it since the early 1990s.

 

Nathan Levy, An IMISCOE effect? The role of a network of excellence in developing European migration research in the twenty-first century, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

IMISCOE, it is argued, has played a key role in institutionalising migration studies. This commentary explores the bibliometric data from the opening article of this series to examine this claim more deeply, and finds indications of an ‘IMISCOE effect’. The network is increasingly prominent in the field; it has established a ‘citation community’ among its members; it has been a key part of the internationalisation of the field. Its influence is unlikely to decline, which is also a point of caution, namely, that the ‘IMISCOE effect’ does not belie the diversity of perspectives in migration research that exist within and beyond the network.

 

Marco Omizzolo, Sfruttamento lavorativo e caporalato in Italia: la profughizzazione del lavoro in agricoltura e il caso dei braccianti indiani dell’Agro Pontino, in costituzionalismo.it, 2020, n. 2

Lo sfruttamento e il caporalato organizzato e praticato in molte aziende agricole italiane sono caratterizzati, secondo l’Osservatorio Placido Rizzotto, da circa 450 mila braccianti che quotidianamente vedono violati i loro diritti fondamentali, di cui 132 mila obbligati a vivere e a lavorare in condizioni paraschiavistiche. In Italia, l’economia non osservata è stimata in circa 208 miliardi di euro, il lavoro irregolare in circa 77 miliardi, ovvero il 37,3% mentre il business del lavoro irregolare e del caporalato in agricoltura è pari a 4,8 miliardi di euro. Secondo ancora l’Osservatorio Placido Rizzotto, circa 1,8 miliardi di euro sono di evasione contributiva annuale per via dello sfruttamento lavorativo. Inoltre, più di 300.000 lavoratori agricoli, ovvero quasi il 30% del totale, lavorano meno di 50 giornate l’anno. Secondo invece il sesto rapporto Agromafia, elaborato da Eurispes insieme all’Osservatorio sulla Criminalità nell’Agricoltura e sul Sistema Agroalimentare, il volume d’affari complessivo annuale delle agromafie per il 2018 avrebbe raggiunto i 24,5 miliardi di euro con un salto del 12,4% nell’ultimo anno e con una crescita che ri- sente assolutamente della stagnazione dell’economia.

 

Nanda Oudejans, What is asylum? More than protection, less than citizenship, in Constellations, 2020, n. 3

Increasingly, European and other Western States no longer wish to accept refugees but rather explore and implement extraterritorial asylum policies that seek to keep refugees safe in their region of origin or transit. Australia recently reached an agreement with Cambodia to permanently transfer recognized refugees (see Gammelthoft‐Hansen, Pijnenburg, & Rijken, 2018, p. 366). Likewise, Israel reached transfer agreements with Uganda and Rwanda to exchange recognized refugees (see Bar‐Tuvia, 2018, p. 475). States promote protection outside their territories as a mechanism that prevents the unmanaged inflow of refugees into their societies while also claiming that regional protection facilitates the return of refugees once their country of origin has become safe. For instance, the EU Migration Partnership Framework launched in 2016 identifies two main objectives of the EU’s cooperation with third states: “enable … refugees to stay close to their homes” and “increase the rate of returns to the country of origin or transit countries” (European Commission, 2016, p. 5).

 

Eeva-Kaisa Prokkola, Geopolitics of Border Securitization: Sovereignty, Nationalism and Solidarity in Asylum Reception in Finland, in Geopolitics, 2020, n. 4

The paper examines the recent security interventions at the northern Finnish-Swedish border crossing point in the town of Tornio, the particular focus being on the 2015 migration influx in which Finland received a tenfold increase in asylum applications compared with the previous years (~3000 → 32 476 asylum applicants). The resultant securitization of the Finnish-Swedish border and the organization of asylum reception practices, in which nongovernmental organizations played an important role, created tension between the Finnish and Swedish authorities, borderlanders, and within wider Finnish society. An empirical study of various materials (documents, interviews, social media debates and media reports) is used to examine the coexistence and intertwining of different border securitization practices and discourses. The analysis is structured around three story lines that disclose border securitization as multiple and aims to problematize the assumption that states, as entities holding sovereign authority, fully determine matters of border securitization. Firstly, the state intervention examined here occurred through and fully depended on collaboration with local authorities and nongovernmental actors. Secondly, nationalistic groups mobilized demonstrations against immigration and started independent street patrols in the name of security, throwing into question the effectiveness and authority of the state government in matters of border securitization. Thirdly, the discourses of the securitized Finnish-Swedish border reflect the wider solidarity crisis between EU countries with respect to shared sovereignty. The study complicates the understanding of border securitization as a straight forward state effort and provides a picture of a hybrid border securitization environment.

 

Steven Vertovec, Two cheers for Migration Studies, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2020, n. 8

Over the last 30 years, as the CrossMigration project demonstrates, Migration Studies has been positively institutionalized in a number of ways. Further, a number of new theoretical interventions have significantly altered the ways we understand migration. What unfortunately has not changed, I believe, is the low level of impact that academic studies of migration has had on public understanding. For these reasons, we can call for a limited “two cheers for Migration studies”, but not the conventional three cheers.

 

Ruth Ellen Wasem, More than a Wall: The Rise and Fall of US Asylum and Refugee Policy, in Jurnal on Migration and Human Security, 2020, n. 3

This article uses a multidisciplinary approach — analyzing historical sources, refugee and asylum admissions data, legislative provisions, and public opinion data — to track the rise and fall of the US asylum and refugee policy. It shows that there has always been a political struggle between people who advocate for a generous refugee and asylum system and those who oppose it. Today, the flexible system of protecting refugees and asylees, established in 1980, is giving way to policies that weaponize them. It offers a historical analysis of US refugee and asylum policies, as well as xenophobic and nativist attitudes toward refugees. It places Trump administration refugee policies in three categories: those that abandon longstanding US legal principles and policies, most notably non-refoulement and due process; those that block the entry of refugees and asylees; and those that criminalize foreign nationals who attempt to seek asylum in the United States. The article concludes with an analysis of public opinion research to square the growing public support for refugees and asylees shown in polling data with the subgroup popularity of Donald Trump’s harsh xenophobic rhetoric and policies. These seemingly contradictory trends are consistent with research on right-wing populism. It argues that the restoration of generous humanitarian policies requires robust civic engagement and steadfast legislative efforts.

 

Federica Zardo, The EU Trust Fund for Africa: Geopolitical Space Making through Migration Policy Instruments, in Geopolitics, 2020

As a response to the migration crisis, the EU has not only revised its policies but also mobilized resources, introduced new tools, or adapted the existing ones to the changing context. While the debate at the policy level is burgeoning, instruments have been limitedly explored. What kind of geopolitical dynamics are EU migration policy instruments producing? How do they contribute to redesigning the EU-African geopolitical space? The article combines a policy instruments approach with a spatial perspective on the EU migration policy. Through the analysis of the 2015 EU Emergency Trust Fund for Africa, it raises the argument that migration policy instruments are powerful spatial practices that are shaping the EU-African geopolitical space by coordinating the EU’s and Member States’ priorities and understandings of migration. Overall, the paper suggests that research on the EU external relations, particularly in the realm of migration, should not only pay more attention to policy instruments but also map them in the targeted territories to avoid “cartographic traps” and better understand the impact of the policies under scrutiny.

 

Stefano Zirulia, Profili di illegittimità della normativa penale italiana ed europea in materia di favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione irregolare, in Sistema Penale, 2020

Il presente contributo affronta la nota questione della c.d. “criminalizzazione della solidarietà” nei confronti di migranti irregolari e richiedenti asilo in una duplice prospettiva: da un lato ricostruisce la dimensione prasseologica del problema, esaminando la casistica più recente e soffermandosi sulle questioni esegetiche, spesso a cavallo tra discipline appartenenti a rami diversi dell’ordinamento, con le quali gli interpreti sono oggi chiamati a confrontarsi; dall’altro lato mette in luce una serie di vizi di illegittimità che, ad avviso dell’autore, affliggono tanto la disciplina europea in materia di contrasto al favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione irregolare, quanto le norme incriminatrici che ne costituiscono attuazione sul piano nazionale, in primis l’articolo 12 del testo unico immigrazione.

Post

AAVV, The Informalisation of the EU’s External Action in the Field of Migration and Asylum, in verfassungsblog.de, settembre/ottobre 2020

The contributions in this symposium aim to examine the legal and policy implications of the increased informalisation of the EU’s external action in the field of migration and asylum. This trend poses significant constitutional challenges for the EU legal order, individuals it affects, and the global regime for refugee protection.

 

AAVV, The New EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, in Heinrich Böll Stiftung, settembre-ottobre 2020

After years of erratic and uncoordinated actions, the European Commission has revealed the long-awaited New Pact on Migration and Asylum to “propose a fresh start” on this highly politicised policy priority. Will the “New Pact” become the coherent strategy on migration the EU needs? How can the EU strike the right balance between responsibility and solidarity, on the one hand, and opposed national interests and priorities, on the other hand? Our dossier illustrates different perspectives on the European Commission’s proposal, with contributions from our foreign offices and partners in the EU and beyond.

 

AAVV, The new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the UN Global Compact on Refugees, in ASILE, settembre-ottobre 2020

The first ASILE Forum assesses the European Commission’s Pact on Migration and Asylum in light of the UN Global Compact on Refugees and EU law. It examines the implications of the Pact’s dualistic understanding of individuals from the perspective of refugee protection, human rights and the rule of law. The Forum features a kick-off Policy Insight, followed by written contributions from a group of European and international scholars. The Forum brings together and engages the international experiences of many world regions in an attempt to draw specificities, commonalities and lessons learned when examining the Pact. It ultimately explores the following question: Will the Pact reinforce mutual trust and legitimacy of EU policies?

 

Hanne Beirens, The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum—A Bold Move to Avoid the Abyss?, in MPI, 20 ottobre 2020

The recently unveiled EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is a complex document that seeks to set out a comprehensive vision for a bloc that has been riven by increasingly acrimonious internal differences over migration since the 2015-16 migration and refugee crisis. The growing rifts have not only hamstrung Europe’s ability to speak with one voice on high-level migration and protection issues, but increasingly have colored national capitals’ relations with Brussels in other fora, taxing the European experiment at a time it already has been wounded by Brexit.

 

Francesco Luigi Gatta, Systematic push back of ‘well behaving’ asylum seekers at the Polish border: M.K. and Others v. Poland, in Strasbourg Observers, 7 ottobre 2020

On 23 July 2020, the ECtHR delivered its judgment in the case M.K. and Others v. Poland, concerning the removal of certain Russian families to Belarus, after they had repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to lodge asylum applications at the Polish border. With an encouraging decision, the Court found – unanimously – multiple violations of the Convention, unmasking a wide State practice of systematic push back of asylum seekers at the borders between Poland and Belarus. The Court adds a new chapter to its growing case-law concerning border controls, collective expulsions of migrants and push back practises at land borders. For the first time, following the judgment in N.D. & N.T. v. Spain, it explicitly performs the ‘own culpable conduct test’ or the ‘N.D. & N.T. exception’, methodically assessing the applicants’ behaviour at borders. It also provides some insights about individual assessments and interviews to be performed by border authorities.

 

Kees Groenendijk, The considerable contribution of British lawyers to EU (migration) law, in EU law analysis, 23 ottobre 2020

The final sentence of press release 10/20 on the consequences of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU for the Court of Justice reads: “The Court of Justice pays tribute to the major contribution of all its former British members to European integration in general and to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the General Court in particular.” After all dramatic statements on the behaviour of British politicians during the 47 years the United Kingdom was a Member State of the EEC and the EU, it may be right to take a minute to consider the British contribution to EU law, and EU migration and free movement law in particular. Together with their Irish colleagues, the five British judges and the five British advocates-general who were members of the Court since 1973 with their experience as practising common law lawyers unmistakably contributed to the gradual development of that Court, modelled in the 1957 Treaty of Rome after the French Conseil d’Etat, towards a more open and dynamic court. The President of the Court in his speech at the farewell ceremony for the last British judge praised the British members for their pragmatism, common sense and their inimitable sense of humour. He also recalled that the Court only after the arrival of the British and Irish judges started to cite previous case-law in its judgments “because such citations did not necessarily form part of the legal traditions of the six original Member States” – though without adopting a strict rule of stare decisis.

 

Stian Øby Johansen, Human Rights Accountability of CSDP Missions on Migration, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 8 ottobre 2020

Respect for human rights and the rule of law are among the European Union’s foundational values proclaimed in TEU article 2. The Lisbon treaty’s merging of the EU’s three pillars, together with the elevation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to the level of primary law, ensured a sufficient level of substantive human rights protection across all the Union’s activities. However, the right to an effective remedy – enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter , as well as in regional and global human rights treaties – requires available and effective procedural mechanisms for holding human rights violators to account. When it comes to the availability and functioning of such mechanisms, which I will refer to as accountability mechanisms, there is less uniformity and significant gaps.

 

Francesco Maiani, A “Fresh Start” or One More Clunker? Dublin and Solidarity in the New Pact, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 20 ottobre 2020

Five years after the peak of the 2015 policy crisis, the European Commission launched what it labelled as a ‘new’ Pact on Migration and Asylum. The academic Odysseus Network for legal studies on immigration and asylum in Europe is the natural setting to provide a timely and quality review of the diverse aspects of the Commission proposals. They will be published in a special collection of more than a dozen blogposts written by eminent experts from across Europe over the next weeks. We have designed a specific website to bring together the individual contributions in an overarching format – and invite you to consult it on a regular basis or to subscribe to our newsletter informing you about new blogposts.

 

Michael Spencer, When is it too harsh to separate a child from their parent?, in UK Human Rights Blog, 16 ottobre 2020

There has, in recent years, been a proliferation of case law on appeals against deportation by foreign national criminals on grounds of private and family life.  The statutory scheme is complex enough, but the various tests (“unduly harsh”, “very compelling circumstances”) have also been subject to extensive judicial gloss, leaving practitioners and judges to wade through a confusing sea of alphabet-country soup case names. It will come as welcome news, then, that the Court of Appeal has greatly simplified things by encouraging tribunals to focus on just a handful of key authorities.  In doing so, it has also somewhat softened the approach to determining whether separating a foreign national criminal from his settled child or partner is “unduly harsh”.

 

Daniel Thym, Secondary Movements: Overcoming the Lack of Trust among the Member States?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 29 ottobre 2020

Trust is an essential prerequisite for a functioning area of freedom, security and justice – as the Court of Justice coined it so well: ‘At issue here is the raison d’être of the European Union and the creation of …, in particular, the Common European Asylum System, based on mutual confidence.’ Our theme is not the controversial case law on fundamental rights, which judges dealt with when emphasising the relevance of mutual trust, but the more generic question of how countries in northern and southern Europe interact when asylum seekers take advantage of the border-free Schengen area to relocate themselves autonomously. That phenomenon is usually referred to as ‘secondary movements’, even though the Commission evades the term in the ‘pact’, which nevertheless referred to the issue indirectly in the title of the accompanying press release with its call for a ‘balance between responsibility and solidarity.’ When it comes to policy debates among the Member States in the Council, enhanced rules on relocation (solidarity) and the prevention of secondary movements (responsibility) are two sides of the same coin.

 

Daniel Thym, European Realpolitik: Legislative Uncertainties and Operational Pitfalls of the ‘New’ Pact on Migration and Asylum, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 28 settembre 2020

Five years after the peak of the 2015 policy crisis, the European Commission launched what it labelled as a ‘new’ Pact on Migration and Asylum. The academic Odysseus Network for legal studies on immigration and asylum in Europe is the natural setting to provide a timely and quality review of the diverse aspects of the Commission proposals. They will be published in a special collection of more than a dozen blogposts written by eminent experts from across Europe over the next weeks. We have designed a specific website to bring together the individual contributions in an overarching format – and invite you to consult it on a regular basis or to subscribe to our newsletter informing you about new blogposts.

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

Europea

 

Nazionale

Europea

Raccomandazione 2020/1144  del Consiglio dell’Unione europea del 30 luglio 2020 – Raccomandazione che modifica la raccomandazione (UE) 2020/912 relativa alla restrizione temporanea dei viaggi non essenziali verso l’UE e all’eventuale revoca di tale restrizione 

Decisione (PESC) 2020/1104 del Comitato politico e di sicurezza del 23 luglio 2020 – Decisione relativa alla riconferma dell’autorizzazione dell’operazione militare dell’Unione europea nel Mediterraneo (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI) (EUNAVFOR MED IRINI/1/2020)

 

Nazionale

Regione siciliana, ordinanza contingibile e urgente n. 33 del 22 agosto 2020 

Circolare del Ministero dell’Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l’immigrazione, del 14 agosto 2020 – Decreto-legge 30 luglio 2020, n. 83, recante “misure urgenti connesse con la scadenza della dichiarazione di emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19, deliberata il 31 gennaio 2020 

Ordinanza del Ministero della salute del 30 luglio 2020, n. 191 – Ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di contenimento e gestione dell’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 

Decreto-legge del 30 luglio 2020, n. 83 – Misure urgenti connesse con la scadenza della dichiarazione di emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 deliberata il 31 gennaio 2020 

Circolare del Ministero dell’Interno e del Ministero del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali del 24 luglio 2020, n. 2399 – Decreto-legge 19 maggio 2020, n. 34, convertito nella legge 17 luglio 2020, n. 77, recante “Misure urgenti in materia di salute, nonché di politiche sociali connesse all’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19”, Art. 103 “Emersione di rapporti di lavoro”. Decreto del Ministro dell’Interno di concerto con il Ministro del Lavoro e delle Politiche Sociali, il Ministro delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali e il Ministro dell’Economia e delle Finanze, del 27 maggio 2020 

Europea

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing a screening of third country nationals at the external borders and amending Regulations (EC) No 767/2008, (EU) 2017/2226, (EU) 2018/1240 and (EU) 2019/817

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Amended proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of ‘Eurodac’ for the comparison of biometric data for the effective application of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Regulation on Asylum and Migration Management] and of Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Resettlement Regulation], for identifying an illegally staying third-country national or stateless person and on requests for the comparison with Eurodac data by Member States’ law enforcement authorities and Europol for law enforcement purposes and amending Regulations (EU) 2018/1240 and (EU) 2019/818

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on asylum and migration management and amending Council Directive (EC) 2003/109 and the proposed Regulation (EU) XXX/XXX [Asylum and Migration Fund]

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Amended proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a common procedure for international protection in the Union and repealing Directive 2013/32/EU

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL addressing situations of crisis and force majeure in the field of migration and asylum

Raccomandazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Commission Recommendation of 23.9.2020 on legal pathways to protection in the EU: promoting resettlement, humanitarian admission and other complementary pathways

Raccomandazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Commission Recommendation of 23.9.2020 on cooperation among Member States concerning operations carried out by vessels owned or operated by private entities for the purpose of search and rescue activities

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 23 settembre 2020 – Commission Guidance on the implementation of EU rules on definition and prevention of the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and residence

Regolamento di esecuzione (UE) 2020/1190 della Commissione del 11 agosto 2020 – Regolamento di esecuzione che rettifica il regolamento di esecuzione (UE) 2015/983 sulla procedura di rilascio della tessera professionale europea e sull’applicazione del meccanismo di allerta ai sensi della direttiva 2005/36/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio

 

Nazionale

Circolare INPS del 11 settembre 2020, n. 101 – Prime istruzioni relative agli adempimenti dichiarativi e contributivi cui sono tenuti i datori di lavoro che hanno presentato domanda di emersione di rapporti di lavoro irregolare

Decreto-legge 16 luglio 2020, n. 76, coordinato con la legge di conversione 11 settembre 2020, n. 120 – Misure urgenti per la semplificazione e l’innovazione digitale (Art. 40-quater – Visto per investitori esteri) 

Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri del 7 settembre 2020 – Ulteriori disposizioni attuative del decreto-legge 25 marzo 2020, n. 19, recante misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19, e del decreto-legge 16 maggio 2020, n. 33, recante ulteriori misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19

Europea

Raccomandazione (UE) 2020/1475 del Consiglio del 13 ottobre 2020 – Raccomandazione per un approccio coordinato alla limitazione della libertà di circolazione in risposta alla pandemia di COVID-19

Informazioni provenienti dagli Stati Membri del 6 ottobre 2020 – Aggiornamento dell’elenco dei permessi di soggiorno di cui all’articolo 2, paragrafo 16, del regolamento (UE) 2016/399 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che istituisce un codice unionale relativo al regime di attraversamento delle frontiere da parte delle persone (codice frontiere Schengen) 

Comunicazione della Commissione europea del 1 ottobre 2020 – Orientamenti della Commissione sull’attuazione delle norme dell’UE concernenti la definizione e la prevenzione del favoreggiamento dell’ingresso, del transito e del soggiorno illegali 

 

 

Nazionale

Decreto-legge del 21 ottobre 2020, n. 130 – Disposizioni urgenti in materia di immigrazione, protezione internazionale e complementare, modifiche agli articoli 131-bis, 391-bis, 391-ter e 588 del codice penale, nonché misure in materia di divieto di accesso agli esercizi pubblici ed ai locali di pubblico trattenimento, di contrasto all’utilizzo distorto del web e di disciplina del Garante nazionale dei diritti delle persone private della libertà personale 

Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri del 13 ottobre 2020 – Ulteriori disposizioni attuative del decreto-legge 25 marzo 2020, n. 19, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 25 maggio 2020, n. 35, recante «Misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19», e del decreto-legge 16 maggio 2020, n. 33, convertito, con modificazioni, dalla legge 14 luglio 2020, n. 74, recante «Ulteriori misure urgenti per fronteggiare l’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19» 

Circolare interministeriale dell’8 ottobre 2020 – Decreto del Presidente del Consiglio dei ministri del 7 luglio 2020 concernente la programmazione transitoria dei flussi d’ingresso dei lavoratori non comunitari nel territorio dello Stato per l’anno 2020 

Decreto-legge del 7 ottobre 2020, n. 125 – Misure urgenti connesse con la proroga della dichiarazione dello stato di emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 e per la continuità operativa del sistema di allerta COVID, nonché per l’attuazione della direttiva (UE) 2020/739 del 3 giugno 2020

Ordinanza del Ministero della salute del 7 ottobre 2020 – Ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di contenimento e gestione dell’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 

Delibera del Consiglio dei ministri del 7 ottobre 2020 – Proroga dello stato di emergenza in conseguenza del rischio sanitario connesso all’insorgenza di patologie derivanti da agenti virali trasmissibili 

Circolare congiunta del Ministero dell’interno e del Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali del 30 settembre 2020 – Decreto 7 luglio 2020. Determinazione e destinazione del contributo forfettario per le somme dovute dal datore di lavoro, relativamente ai rapporti di lavoro irregolare

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.

Trattamenti inumani e degradantiCEDH, Arrêt du16 June 2020, Affaire M.R. c. Suisse, Requête no. 6040/17

Le requérant a déposé trois demandes d’asile en Suisse qui ont été soigneusement examinées par les autorités nationales. L’intéressé n’a pas rendu crédible qu’il avait exercé des activités politiques avant son départ d’Iran. S’agissant des activités politiques en exil, il est difficile de déterminer si l’implication ne sert pas de prétexte pour créer des motifs d’asile postérieurs à la fuite. En tout état de cause, le requérant, dont l’engagement en Suisse s’est limité à assumer des tâches administratives et à participer à des manifestations, ne présente pas le profil d’un opposant sérieux au régime iranien. L’intéressé n’a pas étayé l’allégation selon laquelle il courrait un risque réel et concret d’être soumis à un traitement contraire à l’art. 2 ou 3 CEDH en cas de retour en Iran.

 

Rispetto della vita privata e familiare CEDH, Arrêt du 14 mai 2020, Affaire Hirtu et Autres c. France, Requête no. 24720/13

L’affaire concerne l’évacuation d’un campement non-autorisé sur lequel les requérants, d’origine rom, étaient installés depuis six mois. La Cour observe tout d’abord que les circonstances de leur évacuation forcée et leurs conditions de vie ultérieures ne constituent pas un traitement inhumain et dégradant. Les autorités avaient en principe le droit d’expulser les requérants qui occupaient un terrain communal illégalement et ne pouvaient prétendre avoir une espérance légitime d’y rester. Toutefois, s’agissant des modalités de l’expulsion, la Cour relève que cette mesure n’a pas été prise en exécution d’une décision de justice, mais selon la procédure de la mise en demeure prévue par l’article 9 de la loi du 5 juillet 2000. Le choix de cette procédure a entraîné plusieurs conséquences. En raison du bref délai entre l’arrêté préfectoral et sa mise en oeuvre, il n’y a eu aucune prise en compte des conséquences de l’expulsion et de la situation particulière des requérants. Et, en raison de la procédure appliquée, le recours prévu par le droit interne est intervenu après la prise de décision par l’administration et s’est avéré en l’espèce inefficace. La Cour souligne que l’appartenance des requérants à un groupe socialement défavorisé et leurs besoins particuliers doivent être pris en compte dans l’examen de proportionnalité que les autorités nationales sont tenues d’effectuer. Tel n’ayant pas été le cas en l’espèce, la Cour conclut que les modalités de l’expulsion des requérants ont entraîné la violation du droit au respect de leur vie privée et familiale. Enfin, la Cour constate qu’aucun examen juridictionnel des arguments des requérants sous l’angle des articles 3 et 8 de la Convention n’a eu lieu en première instance, ni au fond, ni en référé, contrairement aux exigences de l’article 13. 

 

Espulsione ECtHR, Judgment of 11 June 2020, M.S. v. Slovakia and Ukraine, Application no. 17189/11 

The applicant, an Afghan national whose date of birth is in dispute, left his country of origin after his father was killed and another family member received threats. He entered Ukraine in 2010 and was arrested after irregularly attempting to cross the Slovakian border. It is alleged that an interpreter was available to translate from Slovak to English, but another Afghan migrant helped translate to Pashto. A decision was later taken to expel the applicant to Ukraine, and a subsequent decision was then made by the Ukrainian authorities to expel the applicant to Afghanistan and place him in detention pending expulsion. In the meantime, he lodged an asylum request due to the fear of persecution in Afghanistan. The applicant complains that his expulsion order was made without a proper examination of his asylum claim and the risk he faced contrary to Article 3 and 13 ECHR, and that he had not been informed of the reasons for his detention pending expulsion contrary to Article 5(2) and (4) ECHR. The Court first noted that the applicant’s complaints in respect of Article 3, 13 and 5(2) against Slovakia were manifestly ill-founded. Regarding the alleged violations of Articles 3 and 13, the Court noted that the Ukrainian authorities had, inter alia, failed to assess the real-risk of ill-treatment in the event of the applicant’s return to Afghanistan; failed to ensure that the applicant had legal representation and an opportunity to challenge the expulsion decision; and had examined an outdated country of origin information report. As such, the Court noted that these shortcomings in the Ukrainian authorities’ assessment amounted to a procedural violation of Article 3 ECHR. In regard to the applicant’s detention pending expulsion, the Court noted, inter alia, that the Ukrainian authorities had failed to submit evidence disproving his account of events and to support the claim that he had been informed, in a language he understood, of the legal reasons for his detention. Moreover, there was no evidence that the applicant had access to legal advice or support and the assistance of an interpreter during these proceedings. It therefore concluded that the applicant’s detention pending expulsion amounted to a violation of Article 5 (2) and (4) ECHR.

 

Protezione internazionale – CGUE sentenza del 25 giugno 2020, Ministerio Fiscal c. VL, C-36/20 PPU

Un giudice istruttore chiamato a pronunciarsi sul trattenimento di un cittadino di un paese terzo in situazione irregolare rientra nella nozione delle «altre autorità» che, ai sensi dell’articolo 6, par. 1, co. 2, della direttiva 2013/32 (c.d. direttiva “procedure”), sono preposte a ricevere domande di protezione internazionale sebbene non siano competenti, a norma del diritto nazionale, a registrarle. A tale titolo, un siffatto giudice istruttore è tenuto ad informare il richiedente sulle modalità concrete di inoltro di una siffatta domanda. La Corte ha altresì dichiarato che l’impossibilità di trovare un alloggio in un centro di accoglienza umanitaria non può giustificare il trattenimento di un richiedente protezione internazionale.

 

Espulsione CGUE, sentenza 11 giugno 2020,Subdelegación del Gobierno en Guadalajara, C-448/19

L’espulsione del cittadino di un Paese terzo soggiornante di lungo periodo ex art. 12 della direttiva 2003/109/CE può essere disposto solo se egli costituisce una minaccia effettiva e sufficientemente grave per l’ordine pubblico e la sicurezza nazionale. In particolare, l’espulsione non può essere decisa in base alla mera esistenza di condanne penali a suo carico e senza considerare la durata del suo soggiorno nel territorio di tale Stato membro, la sua età, le conseguenze per lui e per i suoi familiari, i suoi vincoli con lo Stato membro di soggiorno o l’assenza di vincoli con il paese d’origine.

 

Asilo Administrative Court of International Protection of Cyprus, 5 June 2020, A.B. v. the Republic of Cyprus, Reg. no. 1118/18

On 5 June 2020, the Administrative Court of International Protection of Cyprus ruled on the application of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee convention to a case of a stateless person of Palestinian origin. The applicant made a request for asylum in Cyprus and the domestic authorities granted him subsidiary protection status on account of the serious harm he would be exposed to upon return to Gaza. He appealed against the decision, claiming that the authorities failed to recognise the protection he received from UNRWA and to grant him refugee status in accordance with the jurisprudence of the CJEU. The Court first found that the applicant had indeed received UNRWA protection, since he had submitted a registration card and other residence-related documents, which according to the CJUE’s jurisprudence  were sufficient to establish his claim of being an UNRWA beneficiary. Moving on to the application of Article 1D of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Court referred to the CJEU cases of El Kott and Alheto, noting that the applicant is not required to prove fear of persecution but the asylum authorities have to individually examine whether the applicant was actually receiving UNRWA protection and whether that protection has ceased for objective reasons of insecurity and cannot be addressed by the organisation.
Looking into the domestic findings, the Court noted that according to many humanitarian reports there are ongoing hostilities and the authorities there cannot effectively protect the applicant from persecution or serious harm. Following the El Kott interpretation, the Court concluded that the national authorities failed to recognise the applicant’s refugee status and modified the contested decision accordingly.

 

Sottrazione o mantenimento di minori all’estero Corte Cost., sentenza del 29 maggio 2020, n. 102

È dichiarata l’illegittimità costituzionale dell’art. 574-bis, co. 3, c.p. nella parte in cui prevede l’applicazione automatica della sospensione dell’esercizio della responsabilità genitoriale nei confronti del genitore condannato per sottrazione e mantenimento del minore all’estero, anziché la possibilità per il giudice di applicare detta pena accessoria quando corrisponde effettivamente al concreto e attuale interesse del minore coinvolto. Il carattere intrinsecamente offensivo del delitto in questione – sia per l’altro genitore che per il minore sottratto – non basta a giustificare, al metro degli artt. 2, 3 e 30 Cost., l’automatica applicazione della pena accessoria in questione in caso di condanna a pena non sospesa. Occorre infatti considerare che tale pena accessoria presenta caratteri del tutto peculiari rispetto alle altre pene previste dal codice penale, dal momento che colpisce, accanto al condannato, anche il minore. In base al principio generale secondo cui ogni decisione che riguarda il minore deve essere guidata dal criterio della ricerca della soluzione ottimale per il suo interesse, l’applicazione della pena accessoria potrà giustificarsi solo ove risponda in concreto agli interessi del minore, da apprezzare secondo le circostanze del fatto concreto. Tali circostanze ben potrebbero aver evidenziato che il mantenimento del rapporto con il genitore autore della sottrazione o trattenimento all’estero non risulta pregiudizievole per il minore, e anzi corrisponde a un suo preciso interesse, che lo Stato avrebbe allora il dovere di salvaguardare in via preminente rispetto alle stesse esigenze punitive nei confronti di chi abbia violato la legge penale.

 

Divieto di espulsione – Cass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 3 giugno 2020, n. 10504

La convivenza more uxorio dello straniero con un cittadino italiano non rientra tra le ipotesi tassative di divieto di espulsione di cui all’art. 19 del d.lgs. n. 286/ 1998. Tali ipotesi, essendo previste in deroga alla regola generale dell’obbligo di espulsione nelle fattispecie contemplate dall’art. 13 dello stesso d.lgs, non sono suscettibili di interpretazione analogica o estensiva. Né contrasta con principi costituzionali la previsione contenuta nell’art. 19 citato del divieto di espulsione solo per lo straniero coniugato con un cittadino italiano e per lo straniero convivente con cittadini che siano con lo stesso in rapporto di parentela entro il quarto grado, atteso che essa risponde all’esigenza di tutelare da un lato l’unità della famiglia, dall’altro il vincolo parentale e riguarda persone che si trovano in una situazione di certezza di rapporti giuridici, che è invece assente nella convivenza more uxorio.

 

Divieto di discriminazione – Cass. civ., sez. I, sentenza del 28 maggio 2020, n. 10095

In materia di discriminazione in base alla razza o all’origine etnica, la differenziazione di trattamento vietata ex art. 43 del d.lgs. n. 286/1998 rileva nella sua oggettività, a prescindere dallo stato soggettivo del suo autore e dalla percezione soggettiva della vittima della discriminazione, nei confronti della quale si configura una posizione di diritto soggettivo assoluto.

 

Mandato d’arresto europeo Cass. pen., sez. VI, sentenza del 26 maggio 2020, n. 15924

Ai fini del rifiuto dell’esecuzione del mandato d’arresto europeo (MAE) in ragione della sussistenza di un fondato pericolo che l’individuo oggetto del MAE, qualora consegnato, sia sottoposto a un procedimento in violazione del diritto ad un equo processo, l’interessato deve allegare circostanze specifiche e concrete che possano giustificare anche il mero sospetto del carattere non equo del procedimento, non essendo per contro sufficiente la mera denuncia di carenze sistemiche nello Stato membro UE emittente.

 

Espulsione – Cass. pen., sez. I, sentenza del 21 maggio 2020, n. 15625

Le cause di forza maggiore che consentono di ripristinare la detenzione dello straniero destinatario dell’ordine di espulsione a titolo di sanzione sostitutiva alla detenzione per il tempo strettamente necessario a darvi esecuzione ex art. 16, co. 9-bis del d.lgs. n. 286/1998 devono intendersi quali ostacoli logistici sopravvenuti ed imprevedibili. Trattandosi di una disposizione di legge in tema di libertà personale non risultano consentite interpretazioni analogiche o estensive. Il riferimento a causa di forza maggiore non comprende, in particolare, i vizi della decisione – come la sua adozione in assenza dei presupposti soggettivi prescritti dalla legge – rimediabili attraverso l’impugnazione del provvedimento che ne è affetto.

 

Bonus bebè Corte App. Firenze, sez. lavoro, sentenza del 12 maggio 2020, n. 180/2020

Costitusce discriminazione il rigetto opposto dall’INPS al riconoscimento dell’assegno di natalità di cui all’art. 1 comma 125 L. 190/2014 (c.d. bonus bebè) a una cittadina extra UE in possesso del permesso di soggiorno per motivi familiari ex art. 30 TUI in quanto la prestazione, proprio perché costituente diritto soggettivo ed erogata in dipendenza di condizioni di rischio certamente comprese tra quelle di cui all’art. 3 del Regolamento CE 833/2004, può essere inclusa nella nozione di sicurezza sociale, come definita dalla Corte di Giustizia e da ciò deriva l’immediata soggezione del legislatore nazionale, nella relativa disciplina, alle norme dettate dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione, aventi nella specifica materia l’efficacia propria dei trattati ex art. 6 del TUE.

 

Buoni spesa – Trib. Napoli, XII sez. civile, ordinanza del 25 maggio 2020, n. 7699

La condotta del Comune di Napoli e per esso della Giunta comunale, consistente nell’aver emanato la delibera n. 91 del 30 marzo 2020, con cui sono stati individuati i criteri di selezione delle domande per l’erogazione di risorse destinate a misure urgenti di solidarietà alimentare sotto forma di buoni spesa ai sensi dell’Ordinanza della Protezione Civile n. 658/2020, costituisce discriminazione nella parte in cui ha previsto, quale criterio di ammissione al beneficio per i possessori di un legittimo titolo di permanenza in Italia, il requisito della residenza anziché i soli requisiti relativi alla condizione di disagio economico e della stabile dimora di fatto nel territorio comunale.

 

Protezione internazionale Trib. Roma, sez. diritti della persona e immigrazione civile, decreto del 7 aprile 2020, n. 11302

Con provvedimento cautelare urgente ex art. 700 c.p.c., il Tribunale di Roma ha ordinato alla Questura di formalizzare la ricezione della (prima) domanda di protezione internazionale presentata da due cittadini extracomunitari, in proprio e quali genitori dei tre figli minori, al fine di accedere al sistema di accoglienza di cui all’art. 14, l. n. 142/2015. I ricorrenti erano giunti in Italia nel mese di marzo, ma a causa dell’emergenza coronavirus, non erano ancora riusciti a registrare la loro prima domanda di protezione internazionale, con la conseguente impossibilità di ottenere una dignitosa sistemazione alloggiativa. Se infatti l’art. 1, co. 2 della l. n. 142/2015 dispone che «le misure di accoglienza (…) si applicano dal momento della manifestazione di volontà di chiedere la protezione», l’art. 14, co. 1, tuttavia prevede che «il richiedente che ha formalizzato la domanda e che risulta privo di mezzi sufficienti a garantire una qualità di vita adeguata per il sostentamento proprio e dei propri familiari, ha acceso, con i familiari, alle misure di accoglienza». L’eccezionale emergenza sanitaria giustifica il potere discrezionale della questura di adottare soluzioni organizzative che risultino attuative di un bilanciamento tra le esigenze dell’utenza e quelle della salute pubblica; questo senza che la posizione di diritto soggettivo della persona che intende presentare domanda di protezione internazionale e che aspira ad acquisire lo status di richiedente asilo possa, nell’attuale contesto, ritenersi di per sé violato. Tuttavia, nella concreta fattispecie in esame, in presenza di prima domanda di protezione da parte di un intero nucleo familiare composto da tre minori, la misura organizzativa adottata dalla questura ed il differimento ad un mese di distanza dalla stesura del provvedimento ha privato i ricorrenti della possibilità di accedere al sistema di accoglienza, lasciandoli in una condizione di precarietà, rischio per la salute ed incertezza che, nel predetto bilanciamento, non risulta giustificata nemmeno dalla emergenza sanitaria.

 

Protezione internazionaleTrib. Torino, IX sez. civile, ordinanza del 6 aprile 2020, n. 5262

Con provvedimento cautelare urgente ex art. 700 c.p.c., il Tribunale di Torino ha ordinato alla Questura la ricezione della domanda di protezione internazionale (art. 26, d.lgs. n. 25/2008) del richiedente. Il Tribunale sottolinea che la richiesta di protezione internazionale non è soggetta ad alcun vincolo di forma, limitandosi l’art. 6, co. 1, del d.lgs. n. 25/2008 a richiedere unicamente che la domanda sia presentata “personalmente” dal richiedente. La disciplina di cui agli artt. 6 e 26, d.lgs. n. 25/2008 è, del resto, conforme alla normativa comunitaria, la quale fa divieto agli Stati membri di esigere «documenti inutili o sproporzionati» nonché di imporre «altri requisiti amministrativi ai richiedenti prima di riconoscere loro i diritti conferiti dalla presente direttiva» (art. 6, Direttiva 2013/33/UE). Non può condividersi, pertanto, l’assunto della difesa dell’Amministrazione convenuta secondo cui la presentazione della domanda di protezione richiede la necessaria presenza fisica del richiedente (ciò che peraltro nel caso di specie non era possibile, essendo il ricorrente detenuto). Inoltre non può essere condiviso l’assunto dell’Amministrazione convenuta secondo cui il ritardo nell’iscrizione sarebbe dovuto alla grave situazione di emergenza sanitaria in corso, tenuto conto del tempo decorso (oltre un mese) dalla data di presentazione della domanda senza che ne sia stata effettuata la registrazione (nonostante l’inoltro di plurimi solleciti a mezzo PEC da parte della difesa del ricorrente). D’altra parte, l’art. 103, d.l. 18/2020 prevede che le pubbliche amministrazioni adottino «ogni misura organizzativa idonea ad assicurare comunque la ragionevole durata e la celere conclusione dei procedimenti, con priorità per quelli da considerare urgenti, anche sulla base di motivate istanze degli interessati». Quanto al requisito del periculum in mora, l’omessa registrazione della domanda di protezione internazionale reca pregiudizio al richiedente in quanto non solo, in generale, lo priva di una condizione di certezza circa la regolarità della sua permanenza nel territorio nazionale, ma nel caso concreto lo espone al rischio specifico di un rimpatrio, laddove sia data esecuzione al provvedimento espulsivo di cui il predetto è stato destinatario. Infatti, pur rendendo la contingente situazione di emergenza più complessa l’esecuzione dei rimpatri, in ragione delle misure di “chiusura” delle frontiere e di interruzione dei collegamenti aerei adottate da molti Stati terzi per contrastare la diffusione epidemiologica da Covid-19, non ne esclude con certezza la possibilità.

 

Protezione sussidiaria – Trib. Genova, sez. XI civile, decreto del 25 maggio 2020, n. 1600

Il Tribunale di Genova ha riconosciuto la protezione sussidiaria ai sensi dell’art. 14 lett. b), d.lgs. n. 251/2007, a un attivista senegalese per i diritti dei minori che ha lasciato il Paese a seguito di pesanti intimidazioni. Contrariamente a quanto ritenuto dalla Commissione, la vicenda narrata dal richiedente è apparsa infatti sufficientemente dettagliata, priva di contraddizioni, globalmente plausibile e come tale credibile, applicando i parametri di cui all’art. 3, co. 5, del d.lgs. n. 251/2007, tenuto conto del beneficio del dubbio, in base alla definizione fornita dall’Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati e dell’interpretazione resa dalla Corte di Cassazione con recente sentenza. Anche la valutazione circa la presenza di un rischio di persecuzione o di un danno grave ai danni del richiedente ha avuto esito positivo. Benché il richiedente non abbia un timore fondato di subire atti di persecuzione per motivi di razza, religione, nazionalità, appartenenza a un determinato gruppo sociale o per le sue opinioni politiche, egli è stato minacciato e sequestrato, subendo trattamenti inumani e degradanti. In tale contesto, lo Stato non è stato in grado di fornirgli tutela, né potrà verosimilmente garantirgli protezione in caso tornasse nella sua città di origine e fosse nuovamente oggetto di aggressioni.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 3 giugno 2020, n. 3493

La mancata consegna al minore straniero appena entrato in Italia del permesso di soggiorno per minore età, sia pur rilasciato dalla Questura, preclude allo stesso la conoscenza del procedimento per ottenere il rinnovo o la conversione del permesso di soggiorno, nonché della documentazione a tal fine necessaria. È pertanto illegittimo il decreto che, in mancanza del rilascio del primo permesso all’entrata, nega la conversione del permesso per minore età in permesso per motivi di lavoro fondato sul ritardo nella presentazione dell’istanza e sull’assenza di documentazione relativa all’istruttoria di cui all’art. 32 del co. 1-bis, d.lgs. n. 286/1998 e all’attività lavorativa nelle banche dati dell’I.N.P.S. e dell’Agenzia Nazionale Politiche Attive del Lavoro.

 

Permesso di soggiorno – Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 1 giugno 2020, n. 3431

In assenza di indicazioni contrarie, il parere del Ministero del lavoro e delle politiche sociali (art. 32, co. 1-bis, d.lgs. n. 286/1998) non ha natura vincolante, configurando un possibile modus procedendi dell’Amministrazione chiamata a pronunciarsi sull’istanza di conversione del permesso di soggiorno per minore età in motivi di lavoro subordinato. Di conseguenza, in presenza di parere non favorevole, la PA deve comunque compiere accertamenti per valutare autonomamente la sussistenza dei presupposti per il rilascio del titolo richiesto.

 

Permesso di soggiorno – Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 1 giugno 2020, n. 3407

La circostanza che sia trascorso un notevole lasso di tempo tra l’adozione e la notifica del provvedimento di diniego di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro subordinato impone all’Autorità adita in sede di ricorso gerarchico di esaminare, per la verifica della capacità reddituale dello straniero, gli elementi sopravvenuti a detto provvedimento, a prescindere dalle ragioni che hanno determinato il divario temporale. Soltanto così può dirsi garantita la necessaria coerenza tra la data in cui si perfeziona l’efficacia del provvedimento e la situazione giuridico-fattuale interessata.

 

SPRAR Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 28 maggio 2020, n. 3375

Rientra nella giurisdizione del giudice amministrativo la controversia avente ad oggetto la revoca di benefici accordati dallo Stato agli enti locali per la gestione del servizio di accoglienza e protezione dei richiedenti asilo e rifugiati.

 

Protezione internazionale – TAR Lazio, sez. I stralcio, sentenza 8 giugno 2020, n. 6179

L’inutile decorso del termine semestrale per il trasferimento del richiedente protezione internazionale dall’Italia verso lo Stato membro competente in applicazione del regolamento c.d. “Dublino III” attribuisce la competenza allo Stato italiano per l’esame della domanda di protezione e determina pertanto l’illegittimità dell’ordine di trasferimento impartito dal Ministero dell’Interno. Si tratta tuttavia di elemento viziante che non implica la caducazione ipso iure della decisione di trasferimento. Ne segue che persiste in capo al ricorrente l’interesse ad ottenerne la rimozione.

 

Edifici di culto TAR Toscana, sez. I, sentenza 1 giugno 2020, n. 663

La discrezionalità del Comune relativa alla modificazione del proprio territorio è correttamente esercitata se tutti gli interessi implicati dall’azione amministrativa sono previamente stati acquisiti al procedimento e comparati tra loro. È pertanto illegittima la delibera comunale che varia la destinazione urbanistica di un’area per la realizzazione di edifici di culto acquistata da un’associazione per la costruzione di una moschea destinandola a parcheggi e verde pubblico, avendo del tutto trascurato l’incidenza della variante sull’aspettativa vantata dall’Associazione Culturale Islamica ricorrente.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Campania, sez. VI, sentenza 1° giugno 2020, n. 2102

È annullato per violazione dell’art. 10-bis, l. n. 241/90, il decreto questorile di diniego del permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo in relazione al quale è stato omesso il preavviso di rigetto per irreperibilità del destinatario, atteso che, essendo lo straniero titolare di indirizzo PEC risultante dal registro delle imprese, l’Amministrazione avrebbe potuto avvalersi anche di tale strumento per comunicare con l’istante.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Campania, sez. VI, sentenza del 28 maggio 2020, n. 2044

L’omissione del preavviso di diniego del rilascio del permesso di soggiorno in applicazione dell’art. 2, co. 1, l. n. 241/1990 va limitata alle ipotesi in cui l’istanza sia manifestamente irricevibile o manifestamente infondata, sicché il contradditorio risulta assolutamente superfluo in quanto ininfluente per l’accoglimento, non potendo riguardare, in particolare, tutti quei casi in cui il provvedimento si basa su un’articolata istruttoria.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lombardia, sez. I, sentenza del 29 maggio 2020, n. 967

La segnalazione nel SIS per motivi di sicurezza (art. 96 Conv. Schengen) non ostacola automaticamente il rilascio del permesso di soggiorno e, di conseguenza, l’Amministrazione è sempre tenuta all’accertamento della concreta pericolosità dell’interessato per l’ordine pubblico e la pubblica sicurezza. Tuttavia, il provvedimento di diniego è legittimo se, pur ritenendosi vincolata all’effetto automaticamente ostativo al rilascio del titolo, l’Amministrazione ha comunque proceduto a valutare in concreto la pericolosità dello straniero.

Europea

Asilo – CGUE, sentenza del 16 luglio 2020, Milkiyas Addis c. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C‑517/17

Gli articoli 14 e 34 della direttiva 2013/32/UE, del 26 giugno 2013, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di protezione internazionale, devono essere interpretati nel senso che ostano a una normativa nazionale in forza della quale la violazione dell’obbligo di dare al richiedente protezione internazionale la facoltà di sostenere un colloquio personale prima dell’adozione di una decisione di inammissibilità basata sull’articolo 33, paragrafo 2, lettera a), della direttiva in parola non comporta l’annullamento di tale decisione e il rinvio della causa dinanzi all’autorità accertante, a meno che detta normativa consenta a tale richiedente, nell’ambito del procedimento di ricorso avverso la decisione di cui trattasi, di esporre di persona tutti i suoi argomenti contro detta decisione nel corso di un’audizione che rispetti le condizioni e le garanzie fondamentali applicabili, enunciate dall’articolo 15 di detta direttiva, e a meno che tali argomenti non siano atti a modificare la stessa decisione.

 

Ricongiungimento familiare – CGUE, sentenza del 16 luglio 2020, B.M.M. e al. c. Stato belga Cause riunite C‑133/19, C‑136/19 e C‑137/19

L’articolo 4, paragrafo 1, primo comma, lettera c), della direttiva 2003/86/UE, del 22 settembre 2003, relativa al diritto al ricongiungimento familiare, deve essere interpretato nel senso che la data a cui occorre fare riferimento per determinare se un cittadino di un paese terzo o un apolide non coniugato sia un figlio minorenne, ai sensi di tale disposizione, è quella in cui è presentata la domanda di ingresso e di soggiorno ai fini del ricongiungimento familiare per figli minorenni e non quella in cui le autorità competenti di tale Stato membro statuiscono su tale domanda, eventualmente dopo un ricorso avverso la decisione di rigetto di siffatta domanda. L’articolo 18 della direttiva 2003/86, letto alla luce dell’articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta a che il ricorso avverso il rigetto di una domanda di ricongiungimento familiare di un figlio minorenne sia dichiarato irricevibile per il solo motivo che il figlio è divenuto maggiorenne nelle more del procedimento giurisdizionale.

 

Espulsioni collettive ECtHR, 23 July 2020, M.K. and Others v. Poland, Applications nos. 40503/1742902/17 and 43643/17

The case concerns various applications submitted by Russian nationals, including children, who attempted to cross the Terespol border between Poland and Belarus on multiple occasions. The applicants, who were attempting to flee from Chechnya, stated that they feared for their safety and that they wished to apply for international protection. They were turned away by Polish border authorities on the basis that they had not stated that they would face persecution in Chechnya. The Polish authorities refused to implement interim measures granted by the Court, which required the authorities to refrain from returning the applicants to Belarus. They complained, inter alia, that they had been denied access to asylum procedures at the Polish border and exposed to a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR; that the refusal to examine their applications amounted to a collective expulsion in violation of Article 4 Protocol No. 4; and no effective remedies against these violations were provided, in violation of Article 13 ECHR. The Court observed that if a State removes an asylum applicant to a third country without examining the merits of the application itself, it must review whether the applicants would have access to adequate asylum procedures in said third country. It noted, inter alia, that the State’s claim that the applicants did not present documents requesting international protection was not credible, and that there was evidence to support the claim that their asylum applications would not be treated seriously by Belarusian authorities in the event of their return. The Court concluded that the Polish authorities had failed to review the applicants’ requests for international protection, in compliance with their procedural obligations, contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Moreover, by failing to allow the applicants to remain on Polish territory pending the examination of their applications, the Polish authorities knowingly exposed the applicants to a serious risk of chain-refoulement and treatment prohibited by Article 3 ECHR in Belarus. Having determined that the applicants’ removals amounted to expulsion, the Court had to assess whether it was collective in nature. It noted, inter alia, that while the applicants had been interviewed by border authorities and individual decisions had been issued for the applicants, these decisions did not adequately reflect the applicants’ fear of persecution and had, instead, emphasised arguments supporting the identification of the applicants as economic migrants. Moreover, the Court identified that this was a common practice of misrepresenting statements of individuals attempting to cross the border. It therefore concluded that the decisions to turn away the applicants were taken without proper regard to individual situations amounted to a collective expulsion contrary to Article 4 Protocol No. 4. The Court added that the applicants did not have access to effective remedies to challenge the refusal of entry amounted to a violation of Article 13 ECHR in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 4 Protocol No. 4. Furthermore, the Court found that by failing to implement the interim measures granted by the Court and refrain from returning the applicants to Belarus, the applicants had been put at risk of treatment that the measures aimed to prevent, contrary to Article 34 ECHR.

 

Italiana 

Iscrizione anagrafica dei richiedenti asiloCorte Cost., sentenza del 31 luglio 2020, n. 186

Con sentenza n. 186/2020, la Corte costituzionale ha dichiarato l’illegittimità del divieto di iscrizione anagrafica per i richiedenti asilo previsto all’articolo 13, co. 1, lett. a), n. 2), del d.l. n. 113/2018 (c.d. primo “decreto sicurezza”) per contrasto con l’art. 3 della Costituzione, sotto il duplice profilo della ragionevolezza e dell’uguaglianza. Tale divieto appare infatti viziato, anzitutto, da irrazionalità intrinseca, in quanto, rendendo problematica la stessa individuazione degli stranieri esclusi dalla registrazione, è incoerente con le finalità del decreto, che mira ad aumentare il livello di sicurezza. Inoltre, esso finisce per riservare agli stranieri richiedenti asilo un trattamento irragionevolmente differenziato rispetto ad altre categorie di stranieri legalmente soggiornanti nel territorio statale, oltre che ai cittadini italiani. Per la sua portata e per le conseguenze che comporta anche in termini di stigma sociale – di cui è espressione, non solo simbolica, l’impossibilità per i richiedenti asilo di ottenere la carta d’identità – la violazione del principio di uguaglianza enunciato all’articolo 3 della Costituzione assume in questo caso anche la specifica valenza di lesione della «pari dignità sociale». La Corte ha invece escluso un’evidente mancanza dei presupposti straordinari di necessità e urgenza e ha ritenuto che la disposizione si inseriva in modo omogeneo nel capo contenente le norme in materia di protezione internazionale. Pertanto ha ritenuto infondata la questione sollevata con riferimento all’articolo 77, co. 2, della Costituzione. In conseguenza dell’incostituzionalità della norma sul divieto di iscrizione anagrafica dei richiedenti asilo, sono state dichiarate incostituzionali anche le restanti disposizioni dell’art. 13 del suddetto decreto, che prevedevano, tra l’altro, che il permesso di soggiorno costituisse documento di riconoscimento in luogo della carta d’identità, e che l’accesso ai servizi erogati ai richiedenti asilo fosse assicurato nel luogo di domicilio, anziché in quello di residenza.

 

Protezione umanitariaCass. civ., sez. II, ordinanza 8 luglio 2020, n. 14307

In tema di protezione umanitaria, la valutazione dell’integrazione nel territorio nazionale dello straniero giunto in Italia da minorenne deve tener conto dei profili di vulnerabilità connessi all’età del richiedente. In particolare, va tenuto in considerazione l’eventuale percorso scolastico seguito dallo straniero poiché potrebbe (i) escludere che egli abbia potuto accostarsi al mondo del lavoro ovvero (ii) esporlo ad una specifica vulnerabilità qualora, ove rimpatriato, venisse pregiudicato il suo diritto a completare il percorso di studi avviato.

 

Revoca delle misure di accoglienza Cons. Stato, sez. I, parere sul ricorso straordinario al Presidente della Repubblica, 8 luglio 2020, n. 1271

La disapplicazione dell’art. 23 d.lgs. n. 142/2015 in materia di revoca delle misure di accoglienza per effetto della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia UE (causa C-233/18) determina una situazione di incertezza nella legislazione vigente che integra i presupposti di cui all’art. 58 R.D. n. 444/1942 per riferire al Presidente del Consiglio e al Ministro dell’interno, competente ratione materiae, ai fini dell’eventuale assunzione di iniziative normative.

 

Protezione umanitaria ed emergenza sanitaria – Trib. Napoli, decreto del 25 giugno 2020,  25 giugno 2020, n. 23602

Il Tribunale di Napoli ha riconosciuto a un cittadino pakistano, già integrato in Italia, il diritto a un permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari – sulla base della normativa previgente al d.l. n. 113/2018 ratione temporis applicabile – considerando che nel paese di origine la situazione di emergenza sanitaria, data dalla diffusione del COVID-19, non è adeguatamente gestita tramite il servizio sanitario nazionale. I giudici – alla luce di informazioni precise e aggiornate circa la situazione generale esistente nel Paese di origine  (Country of origin information, COI)  tratte da un Report dell’ EASO – hanno infatti rilevato che, a causa dell’orientamento commerciale del sistema sanitario pakistano, i servizi sanitari per i poveri sono diventati carenti, specie in zone rurali: il 65% della popolazione rurale non ha accesso ai servizi e nell’intero Punjab gli ospedali COVID sono soltanto sei. Poiché il ritorno in patria porrebbe a serio rischio il diritto alla salute del ricorrente, proveniente appunto da un piccolo villaggio nel Punjab, deve essergli accordata la protezione umanitaria, tenuto anche conto del fatto che egli è ormai integrato, parla la lingua italiana e ha avuto diversi contratti di lavoro regolari, avendo fruito, come richiedente asilo, di un permesso di soggiorno temporaneo.

 

Estera

Rescission of DACAU.S. Supreme Court, Judgment of 18 June 2020, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587 

In June 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memorandum announcing the immigration program known as DACA, which has enabled approximately 700,000 qualifying unauthorized aliens who had entered the United States as minors to secure a forbearance of removal in two-year, renewable increments. Successful DACA applicants also became eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. In September 2017, the Attorney General advised the DHS Acting Secretary to rescind DACA as unlawful. The Acting Secretary issued a decision memorandum the next day rescinding DACA. Multiple groups challenged the rescission of DACA in three different jurisdictions, alleging that the rescission was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA and that it infringed the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. All three district courts ruled for the plaintiffs at different stages of the proceedings. All three cases were appealed. As a preliminary matter, the Court held that DHS’s decision to rescind DACA was reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) based on the presumption of judicial review. Upon review, the Court concluded that the Acting Secretary’s decision to rescind DACA was arbitrary and capricious because she failed to provide any reasons for terminating the forbearance provision of DACA. The successor Secretary’s later memo could not be used to provide new post hoc rationalizations for the rescission. The sole justification for rescinding DACA was the Attorney General’s letter stating that DACA had legal flaws, premised on the availability of benefits under DACA, based on an earlier decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals striking portions of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) related to benefits. The Court noted that “the Attorney General neither addressed the forbearance policy at the heart of DACA nor compelled DHS to abandon that policy.” While the Acting Secretary was not required to consider all policy alternatives to rescinding DACA — a benefits and forbearance policy — she was required to consider alternatives within the ambit of the existing policy, including the potential for a forbearance-only program. She was also required to address whether there was any legitimate reliance on the DACA Memorandum. Her failures to consider a forbearance-only alternative and to address reliance interests rendered the rescission arbitrary and capricious.

 

Tratta di esseri umani ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 25 June 2020, S.M. v. Croatia, Application no. 60561/14 

The case concerned a Croatian woman’s complaint that she had been forced into prostitution. She alleged in particular that the authorities had failed to respond adequately to her complaint and that Croatia lacked a proper legal framework to deal with such issues. First, the Court ruled that Article 4 could be applied in cases such as the applicant’s involving human trafficking and exploitation of women for the purposes of prostitution, even if there had been no international element to her case. The Court then went on to find that, although there was an adequate legal framework in Croatia for criminalising trafficking in human beings, forced prostitution and exploitation of prostitution, there had been shortcomings in the authorities’ investigation into her case. In particular, they had not interviewed all the possible witnesses and, in finding that she had voluntarily given sexual services to acquit the accused, had taken no account of international laws on human trafficking according to which the consent of the victim was irrelevant.

 

Trattamenti inumani e degradanti CEDH Arrêt du 25 juin 2020, Moustahi c. France, Requête no. 9347/14 

L’affaire concerne les conditions dans lesquelles deux enfants, appréhendés lors de leur entrée irrégulière sur le territoire français à Mayotte, ont été placés en rétention administrative en compagnie d’adultes, rattachés arbitrairement à l’un d’eux et renvoyés expéditivement vers les Comores sans examen attentif et individualisé de leur situation. La Cour est convaincue que le rattachement des deux enfants à un adulte n’a pas été opéré dans le but de préserver l’intérêt supérieur des enfants, mais dans celui de permettre leur expulsion rapide vers les Comores. Leur placement en rétention n’a pu qu’engendrer une situation de stress et d’angoisse et avoir des conséquences particulièrement traumatisantes pour leur psychisme. Les autorités françaises n’ont pas veillé à une prise en charge effective des enfants et n’ont pas tenu compte de la situation que ceux-ci risquaient d’affronter lors de leur retour dans leur pays d’origine. La Cour conclut qu’il y a eu violation des articles: 3 (interdiction des traitements inhumains et dégradants), 5 § 1 (droit à la liberté et à la sûreté), 5 § 4 (droit de faire statuer à bref délai sur la légalité de la détention), 8 (droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale) de la de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme; 4 (interdiction de expulsions collectives d’étrangers), 13 (droit à un recours effectif) combiné avec l’article 8 et de l’article 13 combiné avec l’article 4 du Protocole no 4.

 

Espulsione CEDH, Arrêt du 7 juillet 2020, Affaire K.A. c. Suisse, Requête no. 62130/15 

L’affaire concerne le rejet de la demande du requérant de prolonger son autorisation de séjour en Suisse et l’interdiction temporaire d’entrée sur le territoire suisse prononcée à son encontre à la suite de sa condamnation pénale pour une infraction à la loi sur les stupéfiants. Le requérant a été renvoyé de la Suisse où résident son épouse et son fils, tous les deux malades. La Cour juge que les autorités internes, en particulier le Tribunal fédéral, ont procédé à un examen suffisant et convaincant des faits et considérations pertinents et à une mise en balance circonstanciée des intérêts en cause. Ainsi, malgré l’intensité des liens personnels du requérant avec la Suisse, les autorités suisses pouvaient légitimement considérer, du fait du comportement du requérant et de la gravité des faits reprochés, qu’il était nécessaire, aux fins de la défense de l’ordre et de la prévention des infractions pénales, de ne pas prolonger son autorisation de séjour et de lui interdire l’entrée sur le territoire suisse pour une durée limitée de sept ans. Pourtant il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 8 (droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

 

Carta di soggiornoCGUE, sentenza del 18 giugno 2020, Ryanair Designated Activity Company c. Országos Rendőr-főkapitányság, C‑754/18

L’articolo 5, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2004/38/CE, del 29 aprile 2004, relativa al diritto dei cittadini dell’Unione e dei loro familiari di circolare e di soggiornare liberamente nel territorio degli Stati membri, che modifica il regolamento (CEE) n. 1612/68 ed abroga le direttive 64/221/CEE, 68/360/CEE, 72/194/CEE, 73/148/CEE, 75/34/CEE, 75/35/CEE, 90/364/CEE, 90/365/CEE e 93/96/CEE, dev’essere interpretato nel senso che il possesso della carta di soggiorno permanente di cui all’articolo 20 di tale direttiva esonera la persona che non ha la cittadinanza di uno Stato membro, ma che è familiare di un cittadino dell’Unione e che è titolare di tale carta, dall’obbligo di ottenere il visto per fare ingresso nel territorio degli Stati membri. L’articolo 5, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2004/38 deve essere interpretato nel senso che il possesso della carta di soggiorno permanente di cui all’articolo 20 di tale direttiva esonera il familiare di un cittadino dell’Unione che ne è titolare dall’obbligo di ottenere il visto quando tale carta è stata rilasciata da uno Stato membro non appartenente allo spazio Schengen. L’articolo 20 della direttiva 2004/38 dev’essere interpretato nel senso che il possesso della carta di soggiorno prevista in tale articolo costituisce prova sufficiente del fatto che il suo titolare ha la qualità di familiare di un cittadino dell’Unione, cosicché l’interessato ha diritto, senza che siano necessarie una verifica o una giustificazione supplementari, di fare ingresso nel territorio di uno Stato membro essendo esonerato dall’obbligo di visto in forza dell’articolo 5, paragrafo 2, di tale direttiva.

 

Trattenimento CGUE, sentenza del 2 luglio 2020, Stadt Frankfurt am Main, C-18/19

L’articolo 16, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2008/115/CE, del 16 dicembre 2008, recante norme e procedure comuni applicabili negli Stati membri al rimpatrio di cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare, dev’essere interpretato nel senso che esso non osta ad una normativa nazionale che consente il trattenimento di un cittadino di paesi terzi, il cui soggiorno è irregolare, in un istituto penitenziario ai fini dell’allontanamento, separato dai detenuti ordinari, per il motivo che egli costituisce una minaccia reale, attuale e sufficientemente grave per un interesse fondamentale della società o per la sicurezza interna o esterna dello Stato membro interessato.

 

Reddito di inclusioneCorte Cost., sentenza del 10 luglio 2020, n. 146

Sono dichiarate inammissibili le questioni di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 3, co. 1, lett. a) n.1 d.lgs. n.147/2017 sollevate dal Tribunale di Bergamo, sez. lavoro, in riferimento agli artt. 2, 3, 31, 38 e 117 Cost., nonché all’art. 14 CEDU e agli artt. 20, 21, 33 e 34 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali UE, nella parte in cui condiziona l’accesso degli stranieri al reddito di inclusione (ReI) al possesso del permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo. La Corte costituzionale ha ritenuto fondata l’eccezione sollevata dall’Avvocatura dello Stato e dall’INPS sul difetto  di  motivazione in ordine alla rilevanza delle questioni. Il rimettente non infatti ha tenuto conto dell’intervenuta abrogazione della norma censurata ad opera del d.l. n. 4/2019 (Disposizioni urgenti in  materia di reddito di cittadinanza e di pensioni), convertito nella l. n. 26/2019 né ha argomentato sulla sua  applicabilità, nonostante l’abrogazione e sebbene la  stessa  normativa  abrogatrice preveda una disposizione transitoria sui  termini  di  applicabilità della disciplina censurata. 

 

Protezione umanitaria Corte App. Milano, sentenza del 29 giugno 2020, n. 1819

Secondo la Corte di Appello di Milano sussistono apprezzabili ragioni per riconoscere ad un cittadino proveniente dalla Nigeria la protezione umanitaria che si concretizza in un permesso di natura residuale concedibile a favore di persone per le quali, pur non potendo riconoscere loro to status di rifugiato, né rilevando elementi che consentano di attribuire la protezione sussidiaria, un rinvio nel paese d’origine comporterebbe la perdita di rilevanti opportunità sotto un profilo etico-giuridico. Ormai proiettato verso stili di vita inconciliabili con quelli che ha abbandonato, pur non essendo emersi elementi sufficienti per ritenere sussistente un pericolo di danno grave ai sensi dell’art. 14, lettera c), d.lgs. n. 251/07, come sopra delineato, potrebbe subire ripercussioni dannose in caso rimpatrio e tanto induce a riconoscere, in riforma dell’impugnata ordinanza, un permesso per ragioni umanitarie ex art. 5, comma 6, d.lgs. n. 286/1998.

 

Permesso di soggiornoCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 8 luglio 2020, n. 4390

Ai fini del rinnovo del permesso per motivi di lavoro subordinato, il sostentamento fornito all’istante dal fratello convivente per mero spirito di liberalità non è computabile come reddito da “altra fonte lecita”, potendo cessare da un momento all’altro senza che, in assenza di vincoli giuridici, questi possa vantare al riguardo una legittima aspettativa. La possibilità di cumulo dei redditi ai fini del titolo di soggiorno è contemplata dal nostro ordinamento, in chiave tassativa, solo in ambito del ricongiungimento familiare, ove le esigenze sono ben diverse, entrando in gioco l’interesse costituzionalmente rilevante alla tutela dell’unità familiare, del tutto assente invece nella vicenda in questione. Ne consegue, pertanto, che il cumulo è possibile solo nei confronti dei congiunti del richiedente indicati all’art. 29, comma 3, T.U.I., tra cui non è contemplato il fratello, non potendo tale norma trovare applicazione analogica al caso di specie: a tal proposito, da una parte difetta l’identità di ratio, essendo all’evidenza le due fattispecie completamente diverse tra loro, dall’altra la citata disposizione è da ritenersi norma eccezionale e, come tale, non suscettibile di estensione analogica.

 

Permesso di soggiornoCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 6 luglio 2020, n. 4298

È annullato il provvedimento di rigetto dell’istanza di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro subordinato che, accertando l’insussistenza della condizione reddituale, non tiene conto degli elementi addotti dopo l’adozione del provvedimento ma prima della sua notifica all’interessato, in quanto è la peculiare condotta della PA – che, nel caso di specie, pur avendo già adottato il provvedimento terminale, riscontrava più volte le richieste istruttorie dell’interessato sempre tacendo tale circostanza – ad aver determinato la fase procedimentale successiva alla predisposizione del provvedimento di rigetto.

 

Emersione del lavoro nero – Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 3 luglio 2020, n. 4279

Il principio – affermato, in particolare, circa le falsificazioni inerenti al rapporto di lavoro – per cui l’utilizzo di documentazione contraffatta giustifica il diniego del rilascio o rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno (art. 4, co. 2 e art. 5, co. 8 bis TUI) si applica a qualsiasi ipotesi di contraffazione concernente i presupposti del titolo. Ne segue che è legittimo il diniego di emersione dal lavoro nero per assistenza alla persona/sostegno al bisogno familiare qualora il certificato medico allegato dallo straniero si riveli contraffatto.

 

Misure di accoglienzaCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 2 luglio 2020, n. 4260

Il riconoscimento della protezione umanitaria e l’avvenuto rilascio del permesso di soggiorno fanno venir meno ex lege i presupposti per l’erogazione delle misure relative alla prima fase dell’accoglienza (art. 14, co. 4, d.lgs. n. 142/2018). Ne segue che, in tali ipotesi, il provvedimento di revoca delle misure d’accoglienza adottato dal Prefetto non è contrario all’art. 1, co. 8 e 9, d.lgs. n. 113/2018 né è assimilabile ai casi di cui all’art. 23 d.lgs. n. 142/2015, non perseguendo finalità sanzionatorie ma conseguendo alla conclusione del procedimento.

 

Vita privata e familiareConsiglio di Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 2 luglio 2020, n. 4274

In virtù della presenza di rapporti affettivi (di natura eterosessuale od omosessuale), l’eventuale applicazione di una misura di allontanamento o di diniego di un permesso di soggiorno è in grado, di provocare un sacrificio sproporzionato del diritto alla vita privata e familiare per il soggetto portatore dell’interesse. Del resto la Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo che, anche in questa materia, si è premurata di chiarire che la nozione di «vita privata e familiare», contenuta nell’art. 8, par. 1, della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo includa, ormai, non solo le relazioni consacrate dal matrimonio, ma anche le unioni di fatto nonché, in generale, i legami esistenti tra i componenti del gruppo designato come famiglia naturale. Ne discende che, a fronte di un rapporto di convivenza dichiarato e documentato attraverso i certificati di residenza, seppure antecedentemente alla l. n. 76 del 2016, la Questura avrebbe dovuto valutare, ai sensi dell’art. 5, del d. lgs. n. 286 del 1998, la sussistenza di legami familiari ai fini del rilascio del permesso richiesto, unitamente agli altri elementi relativi al reddito. La valutazione della situazione familiare avrebbe dunque dovuto costituire oggetto dell’apprezzamento e della conseguente motivazione da parte dell’Amministrazione, a prescindere dall’avvenuto adeguamento della legislazione in materia di permessi di soggiorno.

Vita privata e familiareECtHR, Judgment of 16 June 2020, Rana v. Hungary, Application no. 40888/17

The case concerned a transgender man from Iran who had obtained asylum in Hungary but could not legally change his gender and name in that country. The Court noted that the domestic system for gender recognition had excluded the applicant simply because he did not have a birth certificate from Hungary, a change in the birth register being the way name and gender changes were legally recognised. The Court concluded that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and the applicant’s right to respect for his private life (art. 8 ECHR) owing to the refusal to give him access to the legal gender recognition procedure.

 

Fondo “Africa”Cons. Stato, sez. IV, sentenza del 15 luglio 2020, n. 4569

Il finanziamento di attività di supporto tecnico e formativo delle autorità libiche (v. decreto del direttore generale della DG per gli italiani all’estero e le politiche migratorie del MAECI n. 4110/47 del 28 agosto 2017) non contrasta con le finalità istitutive del c.d. “Fondo per l’Africa” (art. 1, co. 621, l. n. 232/2016). Occorre infatti distinguere la legittima finalità dell’intervento finanziato – volto a rafforzare l’assistenza tecnica alle autorità libiche per contrastare il traffico di migranti nel Mediterraneo – e le eventuali conseguenze in punto di violazione dei diritti umani che, sia pure in qualche modo ad esso ricollegabili, sono comunque dovute a fattori estranei e non controllabili dalle autorità italiane. Poiché l’obiettivo del finanziamento è di rafforzare l’assistenza tecnica alle autorità della Libia per intensificare la lotta contro il traffico di migranti nel Mar Mediterraneo, esso viene a inquadrarsi compiutamente nelle finalità perseguite dal legislatore, trattandosi in definitiva di un programma di cooperazione con un paese africano pacificamente interessato dalle rotte migratorie, nonché individuato dall’atto di indirizzo tra quelli di intervento prioritario.

 

“Supertassa” permesso di soggiornoC. App. Brescia, sentenza del 31 luglio 2020, n. 783

Rientra nella giurisdizione del giudice ordinario e non delle Commissioni Tributarie la causa promossa da un cittadino straniero volta ad accertare la discriminazione posta in essere dal Ministero dell’Interno che ha richiesto al cittadino straniero una somma superiore a quella richiesta ad un cittadino italiano per analoga prestazione.

 

Fondi UNRRATrib. Milano, ordinanza del 28 luglio 2020, n. 40658

La Direttiva del Ministero dell’Interno del 10 aprile 2019 e il conseguente Avviso pubblico emanato il 12 giugno 2019 costituiscono discriminazione per motivi di nazionalità nella parte in cui prevedevano, con riferimento all’anno 2019, che i proventi della gestione del patrimonio della Riserva Fondi UNRRA, pari ad € 1.800.000,00, fossero destinati con carattere prioritario a progetti socio-assistenziali aventi come destinatari cittadini italiani in condizione di marginalità sociale, anziché essere estesa anche ai soggetti ad essi equiparati ai sensi dell’art. 41 del d.lgs. n. 286/1998, ossia agli stranieri titolari della carta di soggiorno o di permesso di soggiorno di durata non inferiore ad un anno nonché ai minori iscritti nella loro carta di soggiorno o nel loro permesso di soggiorno.

 

Accesso alloggi ERP Trib. Milano, ordinanza del 27 luglio 2020, n. 23608

Costituisce discriminazione la condotta tenuta dalla Regione Lombardia consistente nell’aver emanato il regolamento regionale n. 4/2017, laddove prevede: i) all’art. 7, comma 1, lettera d) l’esclusione dal sistema abitativo pubblico dello straniero titolare del permesso per protezione internazionale e dello straniero titolare del permesso umanitario, ex art. 5, comma 6, d.lgs. n. 286/1998 e del permesso per “casi speciali”, qualora questi abbia la titolarità di diritti di proprietà o di altri diritti reali di godimento su beni immobili siti nel paese di provenienza; ii) all’art. 7, comma 1, lettera d) che il cittadino extra UE debba documentare l’assenza di diritti di proprietà o di altri diritti reali di godimento su beni immobili ubicati all’estero con modalità diverse da quelle che vengono richieste al cittadino italiano e, pertanto, richiedendo la documentazione di cui all’art. 3, comma 4, del DPR n. 445/2020, che attesti che tutti i componenti del nucleo familiare non
possiedono alloggi adeguati nel paese di provenienza; iii) all’art.7, comma 1, lettera d) che l’immobile venga considerato adeguato solo con riferimento alla metratura dello stesso; iv) all’art. 7, comma 1, lettera b) nella parte in cui prevede per l’accesso ai servizi abitativi pubblici il requisito della residente o attività lavorativa quinquennale nella Regione. La Regione Lombardia deve modificare il predetto Regolamento Regionale consentendo ai cittadini stranieri l’accesso al bando in condizioni di parità con i cittadini italiani e deve altresì pubblicare il presente provvedimento, per una volta, sul quotidiano “Il Corriere della Sera” e sul sito web della Regione.

 

Vita privata e familiare CEDH, Arrêt du 7 juillet 2020, K.A. c. Suisse, Requête no. 62130/15

L’affaire concerne le rejet de la demande du requérant de prolonger son autorisation de séjour en Suisse et l’interdiction temporaire d’entrée sur le territoire suisse prononcée à son encontre à la suite de sa condamnation pénale pour une infraction à la loi sur les stupéfiants. Le requérant a été renvoyé de la Suisse où résident son épouse et son fils, tous les deux malades. La Cour juge que les autorités internes, en particulier le Tribunal fédéral, ont procédé à un examen suffisant et convaincant des faits et considérations pertinents et à une mise en balance circonstanciée des intérêts en cause. Ainsi, malgré l’intensité des liens personnels du requérant avec la Suisse, les autorités suisses pouvaient légitimement considérer, du fait du comportement du requérant et de la gravité des faits reprochés, qu’il était nécessaire, aux fins de la défense de l’ordre et de la prévention des infractions pénales, de ne pas prolonger son autorisation de séjour et de lui interdire l’entrée sur le territoire suisse pour une durée limitée de sept ans.

 

Sgombero degli hotspot in Sicilia Tar Sicilia, decreto del 27 agosto 2020, n. 1259

Il TAR Sicilia ha accolto la richiesta di applicazione di misura cautelare ex art. 56 c.p.a. avanzata dalla Presidenza del Consiglio avverso l’ordinanza contingibile e urgente del Presidente della Regione Siciliana n. 33 del 22 agosto 2020, nella parte in cui prevede che, al fine di tutelare la salute e l’incolumità pubblica, tutti i migranti presenti negli hotspot ed in ogni Centro di accoglienza debbano essere improrogabilmente trasferiti e/o ricollocati in altre strutture fuori dal territorio della Regione Siciliana (art. 1), nonché nella parte in cui prevede un divieto di ingresso, transito e sosta nel territorio della Regione da parte di ogni migrante che raggiunga le coste siciliane con imbarcazioni di ogni sorta (art. 2). Le misure adottate con l’impugnato provvedimento sembrano infatti esorbitare dall’ambito dei poteri attribuiti alle regioni, laddove, sebbene disposte con la dichiarata finalità di tutela della salute in conseguenza del dilagare dell’epidemia da Covid-19 sul territorio regionale, impattano in modo decisivo sull’organizzazione e la gestione del fenomeno migratorio nel territorio italiano, che rientra pacificamente nell’ambito della competenza esclusiva dello Stato ai sensi dell’art. 117, co. 2, lett. b), della Costituzione. Inoltre, quanto ai presupposti fattuali del provvedimento, l’esistenza di un concreto aggravamento del rischio sanitario legato alla diffusione del Covid-19 tra la popolazione locale e all’interno delle strutture interessate appare meramente enunciata, senza che risulti sorretta da un’adeguata e rigorosa istruttoria emergente dalla motivazione del provvedimento stesso. Per effetto della pronuncia cautelare l’esecutività del provvedimento impugnato è pertanto sospesa fino alla data della trattazione collegiale (17 settembre 2020).

 

Titolo di viaggio TAR Puglia, sede di Lecce, sez. II, sentenza del 14 luglio 2020, n. 749

Le “fondate ragioni” che impediscono al beneficiario della protezione sussidiaria di richiedere il titolo di viaggio alle autorità diplomatiche del proprio Paese di cittadinanza (art. 24, comma 2, d.lgs. n. 251/2007) debbono essere valutate in relazione alle peculiarità del caso di specie e sussistono, in particolare, quando tali autorità subordinano il rilascio del titolo al conseguimento di documentazione ottenibile solo nel Paese d’origine, trattandosi di un onere impossibile da assolvere per lo straniero titolare della protezione.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Piemonte, sez. I, sentenza del 14 luglio 2020, n. 467

In materia di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno ricade interamente sullo straniero l’onere di provare la sussistenza dei gravi e comprovati motivi che ne giustificano l’assenza dal territorio italiano oltre i limiti previsti dall’art. 13, comma 4, DPR n. 394/1999, secondo il principio di prossimità della prova. Tali motivi possono anche consistere nell’aver prestato assistenza sanitaria al coniuge residente all’estero, purché la patologia sia documentata e risulti connotata da una gravità tale da impedire in via continuativa e in assoluto il rientro in Italia dell’interessato.

Accoglienza e asiloCEDH, arrêt du 10 septembre 2020, B.G. et Autres c. France, requête no. 63141/13

L’affaire concerne l’hébergement de demandeurs d’asile pendant plusieurs mois dans un campement de tentes sur un parking avenue de Blida à Metz et leur prise en charge matérielle et financière telle que prévue par le droit national. Les requérants nos 1 à 12 n’ont pas maintenu le contact avec leur avocat, ni tenu informé de leur lieu de résidence ou fourni un autre moyen de les joindre. La Cour considère que ces circonstances permettent de conclure que ces requérants ont perdu leur intérêt pour la procédure et n’entendent plus maintenir leur requête. En ce qui concerne les requérants n° 13 à 17, La Cour constate l’absence d’éléments précis au dossier permettant d’apprécier concrètement les conditions de vie de ces requérants dans le campement de tentes sur un parking avenue de Blida à Metz, occupé par eux du 29 juin 2013 au 9 octobre 2013. La Cour observe d’autre part que les autorités françaises ont adopté des mesures de prise en charge qui ont permis d’améliorer rapidement les conditions matérielles d’accueil, notamment un suivi médical et la scolarisation des enfants. Au final, la Cour établit qu’il n’y a pas eu violation de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

 

Protezione internazionaleCGUE, sentenza del 9 settembre 2020, JP c. Commissaire général aux réfugiés e aux apatrides, C-651/19

 In assenza di specifiche previsioni nella direttiva 2013/32/UE, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di protezione internazionale, la disciplina processuale della notifica delle decisioni relative alle domande di protezione internazionale, così come la fissazione dei termini di ricorso nell’ambito della procedura di protezione internazionale, ricade nell’autonomia processuale degli Stati membri. Difatti l’articolo 46 della citata direttiva, letto alla luce dell’articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, non osta a una normativa di uno Stato membro che assoggetta il ricorso contro una decisione di irricevibilità di una domanda ulteriore di protezione internazionale a un termine di decadenza di dieci giorni, inclusi i giorni festivi, a far data dalla notifica di una siffatta decisione, anche nell’ipotesi in cui, in mancanza di elezione di domicilio in tale Stato membro da parte del richiedente interessato, tale notifica sia effettuata presso la sede dell’autorità nazionale competente a esaminare tali domande. Questo purché: a) i richiedenti siano informati del fatto che, in caso di mancata elezione di un domicilio ai fini della notifica della decisione relativa alla loro domanda, si presumerà che abbiano eletto domicilio a tal fine presso la sede di detta autorità nazionale; b) le condizioni di accesso di detti richiedenti a tale sede non rendano loro eccessivamente difficile ricevere le decisioni che li riguardano; c) sia loro assicurato entro il suddetto termine l’accesso effettivo alle garanzie processuali riconosciute dal diritto dell’Unione a coloro che richiedono protezione internazionale e, in quarto luogo, sia rispettato il principio di equivalenza. 

 

Espulsione e interesse del minore Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment of 4 September 2020, HA (Iraq) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2020] EWCA Civ. 1176

 The case concerned two appeals, that of HA and RA, listed together as they raised similar issues. Both applicants committed criminal offences for which they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment of sixteen and twelve months respectively. Those sentences attracted the automatic deportation provisions of section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007. The appeals are subject to, inter alia, Part 5A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and largely centre around exceptions under section 117C. The applicants argued, inter alia, that their deportation orders would be unduly harsh as a result of their established family ties in the UK. The Court of Appeal first undertook an examination of what constitutes “unduly harsh” effects on the applicant’s children within the meaning of section 117C (5), which was considered in KO (Nigeria). The Court noted, inter alia, that “unduly” relates to the degree of harshness that would be suffered by a partner and/or child required by section 117C (5) and not the relative seriousness of the offence. The question for tribunals to consider is therefore whether the harshness which the deportation will cause for the partner and/or child is of a sufficiently elevated degree to outweigh that public interest. The Court found that the UT’s decision stating that HA’s deportation would not be unduly harsh on his children was not sustainable. Indeed, it held that it would be wrong to treat KO (Nigeria) as factual precedent for this decision, observing that such cases are never truly factually identical. It concluded that the approach of the UT was incorrect and held that the effect of the deportation order would be unduly harsh on the basis of, inter alia, the emotional and psychological impact on the children. Similarly, in RA’s appeal, the Court found, inter alia, that the reasons provided by the UT were not sufficient. The Court stated that the degree to which the UT must spell out its reasoning must be sensitive to the particular circumstances of the case, such as significant and weighty factor of RA’s child losing the advantages of British citizenship. Referring to findings of the Supreme Court in Zoumbas the Court observed cases concerning the welfare of a child, close scrutiny is required for all the substantially relevant considerations. The Court further considered that RA’s rehabilitation and lack of future risk of further offences was a relevant consideration and should not be excluded from the UT’s proportionality assessment. The Court allowed both appeals and remitted the cases to the UT for reconsideration.

 

 Foglio notizieCass. civ., sez. II, ordinanza del 1 settembre 2020, n. 18189

La sottoscrizione del foglio notizie contenente la dichiarazione di non voler presentare domanda di protezione internazionale non comporta l’automatica decadenza della richiesta di protezione precedentemente inoltrata. Pertanto, lo straniero che, avendo ritualmente proposto domanda di protezione, abbia successivamente sottoscritto la predetta dichiarazione non perde per ciò solo la qualifica di richiedente asilo e la competenza a decidere sul suo trattenimento spetta alla sezione specializzata del Tribunale ex art. 3, co. 1, lett. c), d.l. n. 13/2017.

 

Rimpatri – Cass. civ., sez. II, ordinanza del 1 settembre 2020, n. 18188

Va presunta la vulnerabilità dei minori nati in Italia che siano integrati nel tessuto socio-territoriale e nei percorsi scolastici, in applicazione dei criteri di rilevanza decrescente dell’età, per i minori di età prescolare, e di rilevanza crescente del grado di integrazione, per i minori in età scolare. Il giudice di merito è pertanto tenuto ad applicare alla posizione dei minori eventualmente coinvolti in

provvedimenti di rimpatrio interessanti i loro genitori, o uno di essi, il criterio della comparazione attenuata, in base al quale va ritenuta, sino a prova contraria, la prevalenza della condizione di vulnerabilità del minore rispetto alle norme regolanti il diritto di ingresso e soggiorno degli stranieri sul territorio nazionale, e va quindi dato primario rilievo al danno che deriverebbe, sulla persona del minore e sulle sue aspettative di vita in Italia, per effetto del rimpatrio in un contesto socio-territoriale con il quale il minore stesso non abbia in concreto alcun rapporto.

 

Soggiornanti di lungo periodoCGUE, sentenza del 3 settembre 2020, UQ e SI c. Subdelegación del Gobierno en Barcelona, cause riunite C-503/19 e C-592/19

Le autorità competenti di uno Stato membro non possono negare a un cittadino di un Paese terzo lo status di soggiornante di lungo periodo per motivi di ordine pubblico (art. 6, paragrafo 1, direttiva 2003/109) per il mero fatto che egli ha subito una condanna penale, senza un esame specifico della sua situazione per quanto concerne, in particolare, la natura del reato che ha commesso, il pericolo che egli può rappresentare per l’ordine pubblico o la pubblica sicurezza, la durata del suo soggiorno nel territorio di tale Stato membro e l’esistenza di legami con quest’ultimo.

 

Soggiorno irregolareCGUE, sentenza del 17 settembre 2020, JZ, C‑806/18

La direttiva 2008/115/CE recante norme e procedure comuni applicabili negli Stati membri al rimpatrio di cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare, e in particolare l’articolo 11 di quest’ultima, non osta alla normativa di uno Stato membro che prevede che possa essere inflitta una pena detentiva al cittadino di un paese terzo il cui soggiorno sia irregolare e per il quale la procedura di rimpatrio stabilita da tale direttiva sia stata condotta a termine, senza tuttavia che l’interessato abbia effettivamente lasciato il territorio degli Stati membri, allorché il comportamento incriminato sia definito come il soggiorno irregolare dell’interessato il quale sia a conoscenza di un divieto d’ingresso, emanato in particolare in ragione dei suoi precedenti penali o del pericolo che egli rappresenta per l’ordine pubblico o la sicurezza nazionale. Questo a condizione che il comportamento incriminato non sia definito con riferimento a una violazione di tale divieto d’ingresso e che tale normativa sia sufficientemente accessibile, precisa e prevedibile nella sua applicazione al fine di evitare qualsiasi pericolo di arbitrio.

 

Status di rifugiatoCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza del 10 settembre 2020, n. 18803

La violenza di genere, al pari di quella contro l’infanzia, non può essere ricondotta alla categoria del “fatto meramente privato”, poiché essa costituisce una delle fattispecie espressamente previste dall’art. 7, comma 2, d.lgs. n. 261/2007 ai fini del riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato, sia con riferimento agli «atti di violenza fisica o psichica, compresa la violenza sessuale», sia con riguardo, in generale, «agli atti specificamente diretti contro un genere sessuale o contro l’infanzia». È dunque cassato con rinvio il provvedimento di primo grado che conferma la decisione negativa sulla domanda d’asilo inoltrata da una straniera vittima di violenza domestica.

 

Cittadinanza – Cass. civ., sez. I, sentenza del 7 settembre 2020, n. 18610

Nelle ipotesi di acquisto della cittadinanza previste dall’art. 9, l. n. 91/1992, ai sensi dell’art. 4, comma 7, d.P.R. n. 572/1993, l’Ufficiale dello Stato civile è tenuto ad esercitare attività di controllo, vincolata e specifica, circa la perdurante sussistenza, in capo al naturalizzando, del requisito della residenza legale nel territorio italiano fino al momento della prestazione del giuramento di cui all’art. 10, l. n. 91/1992. Qualora, a quel momento, il requisito sia venuto meno, l’Ufficiale dello Stato civile è tenuto a rifiutare, ai sensi dell’art. 7 d.P.R. n. 396/2000, di ricevere la prestazione del giuramento del naturalizzando, in quanto adempimento in contrasto con l’ordinamento.

 

Protezione internazionaleCass. civ., sez. VI, ordinanza del 7 settembre 2020, n. 18538

Deve essere esaminato nel merito il ricorso avverso la decisione negativa della Commissione territoriale sull’istanza di protezione internazionale che, adottata solo su base documentale a causa dell’irreperibilità dello straniero, si riserva nel dispositivo di riesaminare il caso qualora il richiedente si fosse reso reperibile. Il ricorso avverso le decisioni in materia di protezione internazionale, infatti, ha ad oggetto non il provvedimento amministrativo ma il diritto soggettivo alla protezione internazionale.

 

Trattenimento – Cass. civ., sez. II, ordinanza del 3 settembre 2020, n. 18322

Il principio secondo il quale lo straniero non perde l’interesse al ricorso avverso il provvedimento che dispone il suo ulteriore trattenimento per effetto dell’annullamento in Cassazione di quello che lo aveva disposto per la prima volta e che ne costituisce antecedente logico-giuridico (principio affermato in relazione a un’ipotesi di annullamento del decreto di convalida del trattenimento seguito ad un provvedimento espulsivo poi revocato in autotutela), è estensibile anche alla proroga del trattenimento disposta dal Giudice di pace in relazione a un precedente provvedimento di respingimento e trattenimento la cui convalida sia stata successivamente cassata dalla Corte di Cassazione.

 

Discriminazione C. App. Genova, sentenza del 26 agosto 2020, n. 806

Sono discriminatorie nei confronti di persone di nazionalità di paesi del Terzo Mondo raggruppati con l’indicazione di tre Continenti – e dunque violano gli artt. 2 e 43 TU Immigrazione – le ordinanze sindacali che, correlando automaticamente l’insorgere di malattie infettive all’origine etnica e alla provenienza geografica dei soggetti, vincolano il diritto di dimora degli stessi all’interno del Comune alla presentazione di un certificato sanitario che accerti che una persona in quel momento sicuramente non stia incubando una malattia infettiva o non sia un portatore sano o asintomatico.

 

Permesso di soggiorno – Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 2 settembre 2020, n. 5348

È annullata la sentenza di primo grado che rigetta il ricorso avverso il provvedimento di diniego del rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno adottato in ragione dell’indicazione di una residenza fittizia, non essendo accertati l’effettiva compartecipazione e lo specifico ruolo del ricorrente nella vicenda che ha determinato la causa ostativa al rinnovo del titolo. L’assenza di tale collegamento soggettivo con il reato ostativo non rileva solo autonomamente, ma determina altresì un vizio di motivazione in ordine al mancato bilanciamento con le esigenze connesse all’attuale situazione familiare e lavorativa dell’interessato.

 

Cittadinanza TAR Lazio, sez. I-ter, sentenza del 31 agosto 2020, n. 9287

I precedenti penali del coniuge rilevano nel procedimento per l’attribuzione della cittadinanza italiana sia in ragione della comunione di vita che il matrimonio comporta che degli eventuali effetti dell’acquisto della cittadinanza da parte dell’istante sul coniuge stesso.

Espulsione ECtHR, Judgment of 6 October 2020, Bou Hassoun v. Bulgaria, Application no. 59066/16

Mr. Bou Hassoun, a Syrian national, had arrived in Bulgaria in 2009 and was granted asylum status in 2013. In 2010, he started a relationship with a Bulgarian national, and their son was born in 2014. However, on 22 October 2015 the head of the National Security Service issued an immediately enforceable order for the applicant’s expulsion, and a 5-year entry ban, because he potentially posed a “serious threat to national security”.  The order lacked factual reasons because the facts were deemed classified.  Subsequently, Mr. Hassoun’s application for judicial review to the Supreme Administrative Court was dismissed and the order was considered lawful. The applicant was not given access to the classified reasons for his expulsion and the judge had not taken arguments regarding his family and private life into consideration. Finally, the Bulgarian government alleged that Mr. Hassoun had signed a voluntary return form, indicating Turkey as a safe third country of return, after which he was taken to a border checkpoint with the assistance of the Bulgarian authorities, and, ultimately, expelled to Turkey. The ECtHR first considered that Bulgaria had interfered with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, under Article 8 ECHR, because of the implementation of an unlawful expulsion order. Referring to C.G. and Others v. Bulgaria and Kaushal and Others v. Bulgaria, it confirmed that this interference was not “in accordance with the law”, as the application did not enjoy a minimum degree of protection against arbitrariness: the expulsion order was the result of a purely internal assessment by the National Security Service and the applicant’s application for judicial review was rejected without any meaningful independent scrutiny of the allegations regarding the executive’s lack of reasons for expulsion.  Regarding Article 13, the ECtHR concluded that the judicial review proceedings did not provide the applicant with an effective domestic remedy. It underlined that Bulgarian domestic courts had already been condemned for not closely scrutinizing allegations regarding the executive’s lack of reasons for expulsion and concluded that this was also applicable to Mr. Hassoun’s case. It noted that the Supreme Administrative Court had not carried out a proper examination of the national security risk, had not paid attention to questions of proportionality nor addressed the interference with his right to respect for family and private life. Finally, it highlighted that the applicant’s lawyer was not presented with the documents on which the expulsion was based and that he was neither made aware of the specific facts concerning the allegations against his client.

 

Garanzie procedurali ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 15 October 2020, Muhammad and Muhammad v. Romania, Application no. 80892/12

Both applicants, born in Pakistan and UAE respectively, were lawfully present in Romania on student visas. In 2012, the Romanian Intelligence Service (“the SRI”) asked the public prosecutor’s office to begin proceedings to assess whether the applicants should be declared undesirable and provided them with classified documents that allegedly contained indications that the applicants intended to engage in activities capable of endangering national security. A first instance Court received authorisation to access sensitive documents and subsequently issued a decision declaring the applicants to be undesirable. The High Court upheld this decision.  The applicants left Romania on 27 December 2017 in compliance with the respective deportation orders. Relying on Article 1 § 1 of Protocol No. 7 ECHR, the applicants complained that they had not been afforded due procedural safeguards and had not been able to defend themselves effectively. The ECtHR found that the applicants’ right to be informed of,  the substance and factual elements of the accusations made against them, the content of the documents underlying the expulsion decision and the request for access to the classified material were all severely limited and such limitations were not duly justified. The Court indicated that domestic law was unclear on the question whether the protection of national security imposed non-disclosure of the file in a given court case. Nor did the domestic courts assess whether the authorities had rightfully restricted the applicants’ procedural rights by not disclosing the confidential documents to them. Similarly, the reasoning for withholding the classified documentation was not explained to the applicants. In the Court’s view, these points were compounded by the press release published by the SRI containing details of the case, contradicting the argument that no concrete information could be shared with the applicants of the facts supporting their expulsion.  Finally, the ECtHR assessed the existence of appropriate and adequate safeguards compensating for procedural limitations. The Court, referring to case-law, set out an enumerated non-exhaustive list of aspects that should be taken in to account in this type of assessment. The Court found that no specific information was provided to the applicants by an independent authority, that the applicants were not informed of the conduct of the domestic proceedings, the rights they enjoyed arising from this procedure and that the applicants’ representation could not be sufficiently effective in order to counterbalance the procedural limitations. Additionally, although the case was examined by an independent judicial authority, the Court did not find that this safeguard could sufficiently compensate for the limitations of procedural rights if the nature and degree of scrutiny afforded by the said independent authority did not permeate the reasoning of their decisions. The ECtHR found that the limitations imposed on the applicants’ enjoyment of their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 were not counterbalanced in domestic proceedings such as to preserve the essence of their rights and accordingly, there was a violation of Article 1 Protocol No. 7 ECHR.

 

Direttiva rimpatri CGUE, sentenza 8 ottobre 2020, MO c. Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo, C‑568/19

La c.d. direttiva “Rimpatri” (direttiva 2008/115/CE del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 16 dicembre 2008), recante norme e procedure comuni applicabili negli Stati membri al rimpatrio di cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare, deve essere interpretata nel senso che, qualora una normativa nazionale preveda, in caso di soggiorno irregolare di un cittadino di un paese terzo nel territorio di uno Stato membro, l’imposizione o di una sanzione pecuniaria o dell’allontanamento – misura quest’ultima che può essere adottata soltanto in presenza di circostanze aggravanti riguardanti tale cittadino, che si aggiungono al soggiorno irregolare del medesimo – l’autorità nazionale competente non può basarsi direttamente sulle disposizioni della direttiva in parola per adottare ed eseguire una decisione di rimpatrio, in assenza di dette circostanze aggravanti.

 

Diritto di accesso – Consiglio di Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 6 ottobre 2020, n. 5872

Il diritto di accesso esercitato dal difensore delegato attraverso l’istituto della rappresentanza può estendersi al diniego del permesso di soggiorno non ancora notificato allo straniero, ma il possibile e legittimo utilizzo del provvedimento conclusivo da parte dell’interessato non include la possibilità di sottrarsi alle ulteriori conseguenze connesse a tale diniego, nonché alle decorrenze temporali previste dalla legge. Ne segue che, in caso di mancato ritiro dell’atto, dovrà farsi riferimento non alla conoscenza acquisita mediante l’accesso ma alla disciplina della notifica.

 

Reati ostativiConsiglio di Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 1 ottobre 2020, n. 5754

La riabilitazione conseguita dallo straniero condannato per un reato c.d. ostativo è indice del possibile venir meno della pericolosità sociale presunta dal legislatore in relazione a tale categoria di condanne e fa sorgere in capo all’amministrazione richiesta del permesso di soggiorno l’obbligo di valutare la pericolosità dell’interessato con riferimento al complesso delle risultanze inerenti alla sua personalità. Tuttavia, quando la riabilitazione è successiva all’adozione della decisione che nega il titolo, in ossequio al principio tempus regit actum, non ne inficia la legittimità, avuto riguardo agli elementi sussistenti alla data di adozione dello stesso in punto di valutazione delle condizioni legittimanti il rilascio del rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno. È ovviamente fatta salva la ulteriore valutazione della personalità dell’appellante, ai fini della verifica all’attualità della esistenza di tali condizioni, in sede di rinnovazione del procedimento (ad istanza dell’interessato, ovvero a seguito dell’esercizio del potere di autotutela, avuto riguardo alla sopravvenienza rappresentata dalla riabilitazione).

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Toscana, Sez. II, sentenze dal 9 ottobre 2020, n. 1198

La mancata presentazione dello straniero per effettuare i rilievi dattiloscopici integra un’irregolarità amministrativa sanabile (art. 5, co. 5, TUI), trattandosi di una condizione procedurale (art. 5, co. 2 bis, TUI), e in ogni caso di attività ripetibile dalla PA senza significativi aggravi. Ne segue che lo straniero che non si presenti, anche dopo più inviti, non incorre in nessuna decadenza, né tale ragione è di per sé idonea a fondare il diniego del permesso di soggiorno richiesto. 

 

Legittimazione attivaTAR Lazio, sez. III, sentenza del 7 ottobre 2020, n. 10152

È dichiarato inammissibile per difetto di legittimazione attiva il ricorso promosso da un’associazione impegnata, inter alia, in attività di assistenza (logistica, amministrativa e legale) dei migranti e volto a ottenere l’annullamento del decreto interministeriale del 7 aprile 2020 che stabilisce che i porti italiani non rappresentano più “luoghi sicuri” per lo sbarco di migranti soccorsi in mare da navi battenti bandiera straniera al di fuori dell’area SAR italiana. Infatti, le varie ed eterogenee situazioni giuridiche soggettive che il ricorso assume lese dal provvedimento impugnato (pericolo di naufragio, esposizione al rischio di persecuzioni politiche, razziali ecc. nel proprio Paese di origine; sottoposizione a trattamenti degradanti) non vengono in rilievo come interessi diffusi o collettivi di cui l’ARCI possa qualificarsi come “ente esponenziale” e rappresentativo, bensì come situazioni proprie di persone titolari di un diritto soggettivo individuale.

 

Misure di accoglienza TAR Campania, sez. VI, sentenza del 7 ottobre 2020, n. 4288

È illegittima la revoca delle misure d’accoglienza disposta nei confronti del richiedente asilo che svolge attività lavorativa senza aver prima accertato, anche in contradditorio con l’interessato (art. 7, l. n. 241/90), la sufficienza dei mezzi di sostentamento che egli trae dal lavoro svolto (art. 14, co. 1, d.lgs. n. 142/2015). Inoltre, la circostanza secondo cui il richiedente asilo, che è inserito in strutture di accoglienza, non comunica lo svolgimento di attività lavorativa non costituisce violazione di gravità tale da determinare la revoca dell’ammissione alle misure di accoglienza.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Toscana, sez. II, sentenza del 5 ottobre 2020, n. 1159

È accolto il ricorso avverso il diniego di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per motivi di studio emesso nei confronti dello straniero che, in procinto di ottenere il titolo abilitante (laurea di primo livello) all’iscrizione del corso di studi in relazione al quale detto permesso è richiesto (laurea specialistica), non abbia prodotto, proprio per tale ragione, certificazione idonea a dimostrare il proseguimento degli studi.

 

DiscriminazioneTrib. Venezia, Sez. Lavoro, ordinanza del 19 ottobre 2020, n. 5191

Il Tribunale di Venezia ha accertato il carattere discriminatorio del mancato riconoscimento a favore dei cittadini stranieri minori di età irregolarmente soggiornanti, sia comunitari che extracomunitari, di un servizio ambulatoriale pediatrico pubblico accessibile gratuitamente equiparabile al pediatra di libera scelta cui dà diritto l’iscrizione al SSN (rectius della DGR 753/2019) e ha condannato Regione Veneto e ULSS 3 a rimuovere la discriminazione riconoscendo tale servizio, quanto alla Regione Veneto nell’ambito delle linee guida in sede di programmazione dei servizi sanitari, e quanto all’ULSS 3 in sede di approntamento dei medesimi servizi.

Secondo le attuali direttive inserite anche nelle linee guida regionali, infatti, i minori stranieri non regolarmente soggiornanti possono accedere alle prestazioni sanitarie unicamente tramite il Pronto Soccorso, senza poter fruire della disponibilità di un pediatra. Questa previsione di fatto li esclude dall’accesso al servizio pediatrico a libera scelta, di cui usufruiscono, invece, i minori italiani e soggiornanti regolari e nega loro l’assistenza di base come cura ordinaria e di monitoraggio della crescita in ottica preventiva.

 

Cittadinanza – Tribunale Ancona, ordinanza del 29 settembre 2020

Ai fini della concessione della cittadinanza italiana, integra il requisito reddituale il sussidio riconosciuto allo straniero inabile al lavoro perché affetto da grave malattia (nella fattispecie: morbo di Parkinson), con conseguente invalidità permanente, atteso che detto sussidio è ritenuto congruo ai fini del suo sostentamento dallo Stato italiano stesso.

 

Ricongiungimento familiare – Trib. Roma, Sez. Diritti della persona e immigrazione civile, ordinanza del 30 settembre 2020

È accolto il ricorso del rifugiato avverso il diniego del rilascio del visto per ricongiungimento familiare in favore della figlia da questi legalmente riconosciuta fin dalla nascita ma di cui egli è risultato non essere genitore biologico in esito al test del DNA. Infatti, al fine di dimostrare l’autenticità del rapporto di filiazione è sufficiente il possesso di status, che prescinde dal legame biologico e che non può essere rimesso in discussione solo sulla base di un’astratta inattendibilità degli atti di stato civile nel Paese d’origine.

 

DetenzioneJuzgado de Instrucción – Santa Cruz de Tenerife, 25 septiembre 2020, AJI 55/2020

Un giudice istruttore spagnolo, nella sentenza AJI 55/2020, applicando le conclusioni della sentenza C-36/20 VL c. Ministerio Fiscal, ha rifiutato la detenzione in un CIE del Signor Ba e di altri 31 richiedenti asilo nella medesima situazione.  Dopo l’arrivo dei migranti, le autorità spagnole avevano chiesto a tale giudice di emettere nei loro confronti un provvedimento di trattenimento in vista dell’espulsione e prima che venisse emesso un ordine di rimpatrio. Il giudice ha tuttavia sottolineato che, nel valutare la necessità della detenzione, devono essere prese in considerazione tutte le circostanze del caso e che, nel caso in cui le circostanze alla base di una possibile detenzione vengano meno, il principio di proporzionalità giustifica il rilascio di uno straniero. Facendo riferimento, tra l’altro, all’articolo 5 CEDU e all’articolo 13 del Patto internazionale sui diritti civili e politici, ha ribadito che, affinché la privazione della libertà sia conforme alla legge, è necessario rispettare una serie di garanzie, tra cui il controllo giudiziario. Infine, ha notato che l’esame del fascicolo amministrativo in questione e l’audizione con il sig. Ba e il Ministerio Fiscal, hanno reso chiaro che il migrante ha presentato domanda di asilo. Pertanto, non ha autorizzato la detenzione nel CIE per un periodo di 60 giorni.