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 2020

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

Karen Nielsen Breidahl, Troels Fage Hedegaard et al., Migrants’ Attitudes and the Welfare State. The Danish Melting Pot, Elgar, 2021

Analysing two major surveys of 14 different migrant groups connected to Danish register data, this insightful book explores what migrants think of the welfare state. It investigates the question of whether migrants assimilate to the ideas of extensive state intervention in markets and families or if they retain the attitudes and values that are prevalent in their countries of origin. The authors examine what various migrant groups from countries including Poland, Romania, Spain, the UK, China, Japan, Turkey, Russia, the US, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iraq, and the former-Yugoslavia living in Denmark think about the trustworthiness of state institutions, state responsibility, economic redistribution, female employment, and childcare. Chapters also cover the key issues of national identification, social trust, and welfare nationalism. Concluding that migrants from diverse backgrounds assimilate well into the welfare attitudes, norms, and values of the Danish people in several areas, the book points to the potential assimilative impact of the welfare state. Incorporating new theoretical discussions, this book will be critical reading for academics and students studying migration and welfare states. It will also be a useful resource for comparative migration researchers interested in the impact of the host country context on migrants’ assimilation patterns.

 

Jeffrey H. Cohen, Ibrahim Sirkeci (ed.), Handbook of Culture and Migration, Elgar, 2021

Capturing the important place and power role that culture plays in the decision-making process of migration, this Handbook looks at human movement outside of a vacuum; taking into account the impact of family relationships, access to resources, and security and insecurity at both the points of origin and destination. Utilising case studies from around the world, chapters look at migration from the perspectives of a broad range of migrants, including refugees, labour migrants, students, highly educated migrants, and documented and undocumented movers. The Handbook moves beyond an understanding of the economics of migration, looking at the importance of love, skilled movers, food and identity in migrants’ lives. It analyses the assumption that migrants follow direct pathways to new destinations where they settle, recognising the dynamic ways in which movers travel, following circular routes and celebrating new opportunities. Highlighting the challenges migrants face, disputes around belonging and citizenship are explored in relation to rising nationalism and xenophobia. The insightful studies of the choices migrants make around both perceived and real needs and resources will make this Handbook a critical read for scholars and students of migration studies. It will also appeal to policy makers looking to understand the complexity of the impetus to migrant movement, and the important role that culture plays.

 

Isabella Crespi, Maria Letizia Zanier (a cura di), Migrazioni, processi educativi e percorsi di cittadinanza. Sfide per una società inclusiva, Mimesis, 2020

Quando si parla di migrazioni, spesso si parla di complessità. Caratteristica che questi fenomeni dimostrano negli attori e soggetti che coinvolgono, nei territori che connettono, nelle evoluzioni che comportano anche nel lungo periodo, nelle contaminazioni culturali di cui sono portatori, nelle ridiscussioni di diritti e doveri che influenzano. I diversi saggi, che uniscono le prospettive delle curatrici a quelle di tre giovani studiose, si snodano attraverso un percorso che va dall’analisi dei principali referenti teorici sulle vecchie e nuove migrazioni ai temi della famiglia, delle seconde generazioni, della socializzazione, della politica migratoria e delle politiche di inclusione. In ciascun capitolo, accanto alla rassegna teorica, viene dedicato spazio alla discussione delle esperienze di ricerca delle autrici e all’analisi di dati secondari. L’obiettivo principale del lavoro è offrire un testo che possa essere impiegato come valido supporto didattico nei corsi universitari di Sociologia, ma anche come strumento di riflessione per operatori e policy makers.

 

Gian Luigi Gatta, Valsamis Mitsilegas, Stefano Zirulia, Controlling Immigration Through Criminal Law. European and Comparative Perspectives on “Crimmigration”, Hart Publishing, 2021

This book provides a systematic and comprehensive overview of the increased role of criminal law in managing migration, from a European, domestic and comparative law perspective. The contributors critically engage with the current trends leading to the criminalisation of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and those who engage in ‘humanitarian smuggling’ and the national and common policies calling for a broader use of criminal law measures. The chapters explore the measures used to protect borders and their impact in terms of effectiveness and their ability to strike a fair balance between security and the protection of human rights. The contributors to the book cover a range of disciplines within law, human rights and criminology resulting in a broad understanding of the issues at play.

Daniela Vitiello, Le frontiere esterne dell’Unione europea, Cacucci Editore, 2020

Il regolamento 2019/1896 estende in maniera determinante il mandato dell’Agenzia in materia di promozione e protezione dei diritti fondamentali, rendendo ancor più urgente l’adozione di modalità operative che consentano di ricomporre la dicotomia tra controlli e garanzie. In questa prospettiva, le potenzialità della riforma non riguardano (sol)tanto la cooperazione Schengen e il contenimento delle forze centrifughe e securitarie dominanti a livello nazionale, ma anche la ricerca di un più adeguato bilanciamento tra le istanze di protezione dei diritti fondamentali e quelle di controllo dei confini. L’alternativa – ben illustrata dall’ennesima crisi innescata dalla decisione turca di sospendere l’accordo del 2016 sulla gestione dei profughi siriani – è continuare a sperimentare forme di esternalizzazione sempre più “avanzate”. Oltre a essere molto onerose, esse pongono l’Unione alla mercé di volubili partner stranieri e, al contempo, la costringono ad accettare la lenta ma inesorabile dissoluzione del sistema Schengen e della cooperazione in materia di asilo.

 

Articoli

Giorgia Bevilacqua, Adele Del Guercio, La vicenda Rackete: profili di compatibilità con il diritto internazionale del mare e dei diritti umani, in Diritti dell’uomo. Cronache e battaglie, 1/2020, pp. 29-64

 

Erik Cruz, Stewart J D’Alessio, Lisa Stolzenberg, Decisions made in terror: testing the relationship between terrorism and immigration, in Migration Studies, 2020, n. 4

A contentious issue regarding immigration is the contempt that many natives hold for immigrants. Studies report that enhanced job competition, the potential for cultural misunderstandings, and security fears are salient in predicting native population discontent for immigrants. However, the threat posed by terrorism has been overlooked in prior research. Using data drawn from twenty mostly European countries and a nonlinear hierarchical modeling statistical procedure, we find that acts of terrorism are associated with a substantive decrease in the desire for outgroup immigration. No effect of terrorism on ingroup immigration is observed. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.

 

Andrea De Guttry, Emanuele Sommario, The ‘2018 Global Compact for Migration’ and the Political and Electoral Rights of Migrants. A missed opportunity?, in OIDU, 2020, n. 5

On 19 December 2018, the UN General Assembly approved Resolution 73/195 endorsing the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Global Compact for Migration or GCM). Despite its non-binding status, the GCM has raised strong expectations and attracted criticism on various grounds, much of which has been commented upon elsewhere. One of the most overlooked, yet crucially relevant, aspects is the lack of attention devoted to migrants’ exercise of their political rights. The granting of these rights is an essential tool to both promote inclusion and integration of migrants in the receiving societies and also to ease their future voluntary return to their home countries. The GCM represented a unique occasion to stress the importance of these rights in the interest of both States and the migrants themselves. A closer look at the content of the GCM highlights that, unfortunately, this important opportunity was missed.

 

Patrizia De Pasquale, Dal Nuovo Patto per la migrazione e l’asilo a un diritto dell’emergenza dell’Unione europea: a che punto è la notte?, in Diritto pubblico, comparato ed europeo, 2020, n. 4

 

Elizabeth Ferris, Research on climate change and migration where are we and where are we going?, in Migration Studies, 2020, n. 4

Today the issue of climate change-induced mobility—whether displacement, migration, or relocation—is receiving increased interest from policy-makers, academics, and the general public. Many are turning to the academic community for answers to basic questions (how many people are expected to move? when? where?) and for directions for future policies (what measures can support people to remain in their communities? If people have to move, how can the disruption be minimized—for those moving and for the affected communities?). While there is a growing body of literature on the issue, the academic community writ large is presently unable to provide consistent comprehensive evidence or guidance on these issues. Most obviously, there is no consensus about what terminology to use—climate change refugee? Environmental migrant?

 

Melissa Gatter, Preserving order: narrating resilience as threat in Jordan’s Azraq refugee camp, in Territory, Politics, Governance, 2021, n. 5

Built in 2014, Azraq is narrated as the ‘new and improved’ refugee camp in the humanitarian world while at the same time containing 40,000 Syrians in a high-security desert environment. Based on 14 months of ethnographic fieldwork in Azraq, Jordan, this article understands Azraq’s camp governance as bringing to light a Jordanian care-control politics operated through national aid workers, whose daily actions perpetuate a conflation of humanitarianism and security. This case study analyses Azraq’s politics of time to illuminate that humanitarian language of vulnerability in the camp reflects not only need but also control. National aid workers perceive the newest refugees to the camp (Village 5) to be the most vulnerable and least threatening to the camp’s order, a discursive relationship that has justified mechanisms of control carried out in the name of care. This article argues that local humanitarian assessments of vulnerability in Azraq create a system that preserves vulnerability, which is defined here as a refugee’s dependence on aid to survive, and prevents resilience, or a refugee’s ability to achieve self-sustenance. It confronts humanitarian narratives that drive Jordan’s securitized response by portraying time and refugee-led development as instigating disorder and chaos.

 

Nasar Meer, Claudio Di Maio et al., Governing displaced migration in Europe: housing and the role of the “local”, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 1

This article will explore the extent to which a focus on the ‘local’ can tell us something meaningful about recent developments in the governance of displaced migrants and refugees. Taking a multi-sited approach spanning cases in the south and north of Europe, we consider how the challenge of housing and accommodation in particular, a core sector of migrant reception and integration, can shed light on the ways local and city level approaches may negotiate, and sometimes diverge from, national level policy and rhetoric. While it can be said that despite variation, local authorities are by definition ultimately ‘always subordinate’ (Emilsson, Comparative Migration Studies, 3: 1-17, 2015: 4), they can also show evidence of ‘decoupling’ across geographies of policy delivery (Pope and Meyer, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 3: 280–305, 2016: 290). This article traces how possible local variations in different European cases are patterned by ground-level politics, local strategic networks, and pre-existing economic resources in a manner that is empirically detailed through the study of housing.

 

Sara Riva, Gerhard Hoffstaedter, The aporia of refugee rights in a time of crises: the role of brokers in accessing refugee protection in transit and at the border, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 1

Many refugees fleeing from persecution across borders, find navigating the refugee registration system extremely complicated. In many border spaces, destination or transit countries, the difficult registration processes and the lack of support services requires the intervention and support of many non-state actors. Over the past decades, neoliberal policies have increasingly relegated public responsibilities to the private sphere. In this vein, a range of organisations have been working with refugees to assist them access to their legal status. This paper seeks to critically examine on-the-ground practices of these individuals, international and local non-profit organisations—or brokers—in Malaysia and the United States of America. Using ethnographic fieldwork data from these two very disparate fieldsites—one a signatory of the Protocol to the Convention, the other a non-signatory country—we document shared difficulties, frustrations, opportunities and specific obstacles, strategies and tactics refugees and organisations deploy. Building on Hannah Arendt’s insights of an internal contradiction in the human rights framework, we point to a new aporia: Whilst there now exist international instruments to protect refugees, access to this framework and its protections is becoming ever more challenging. This means that those seeking asylum need the assistance and mediation of third-party organisations in order to access their rights. The struggle for recognition and protection thus is no longer about achieving universal rights, but rather on how vulnerable populations can access them.

 

Martina Tazzioli, The politics of migrant dispersal. Dividing and policing migrant multiplicities, in Migration Studies, 2020, n. 4

This article focuses on the politics of migrant dispersal that has been enforced in Europe for regaining control over ‘unruly’ migrants’ presence and movements, with a specific focus on the French and on the Italian contexts. The article shows that dispersal can be considered as a spatial strategy of governmentality and that far from being a new policy, it was already adopted to manage former colonised populations. The article argues that strategies of migrant dispersal are today enacted by state authorities, in collaboration with humanitarian actors, for troubling migrants’ presence and autonomous movements, as well as for disrupting and dividing temporary migrant collective formations. First, it retraces a colonial genealogy of dispersal, as a political technology used for disciplining unruly populations. Then, it analyses how dispersal strategies have been put into place in France (Calais and Paris) and in Italy (Ventimiglia) not only by scattering migrants across space but also by dismantling migrant spaces of life (‘lieux de vie’). The article moves on demonstrating that the politics of dispersal is mainly enforced for preventing the consolidation of migrant multiplicities, criminalising them as ‘migrant mobs’ and spatially dividing them. The third section of the article brings attention to the effects of migrants’ forced hypermobility and to the convoluted geographies that dispersal triggers. It concludes by bringing attention to the increasing criminalisation of migrant support networks that try to prevent the dismantling of migrant autonomous spaces.

 

Kira Vinke, Jonas Bergmann, Migration as Adaptation?, in Migration Studies, 2020, n. 4

The discourse on climate change and migration has shifted from labelling migration merely as a consequence of climate impacts, to describing it as a form of human adaptation. This article explores the adaptation framing of the climate change and migration nexus and highlights its shortcomings and advantages. While for some groups, under certain circumstances migration can be an effective form of adaptation, for others it leads to increased vulnerabilities and a poverty spiral, reducing their adaptive capacities. Non-economic losses connected to a change of place further challenge the notion of successful adaptation. Even when migration improves the situation of a household, it may conceal the lack of action on climate change adaptation from national governments or the international community. Given the growing body of evidence on the diverse circumstances and outcomes of migration in the context of climate change, we distinguish between reactive and proactive migration and argue for a precise differentiation in the academic debate.

 

Marielle Zill, Ilse van Liempt et al., Uneven geographies of asylum accommodation: Conceptualizing the impact of spatial, material, and institutional differences on (un)familiarity between asylum seekers and local residents, in Migration Studies, 2020, n. 4

Asylum accommodation is held to isolate asylum seekers spatially and socially from the majority population in host societies. Little attention has been devoted to variation in asylum accommodation at the level of the everyday. Central to this paper is the argument that variation between localities, as well as variation on the level of the built environment creates ‘uneven geographies of asylum accommodation’. The paper theorizes that more ‘open’ forms of asylum accommodation may foster familiarity between asylum seekers and local residents through the development of closer everyday social relations, and more ‘closed’ forms of asylum accommodation may enforce feelings of unfamiliarity by strengthening processes of categorization and everyday bordering. In so doing, we propose to differentiate between ‘spatial’, ‘material’ and ‘institutional’ dimensions of openness of asylum accommodation and aim to understand ‘(un)familiarity’ as expression of people’s experiences, knowledge and perceptions of social distance. We further argue that feelings of (un)familiarity are connected to processes of belonging and estrangement.

 

Post

Alberto Alemanno, Dimitry Kochenov, Mitigating Brexit through Bilateral Free-Movement of Persons, inVerfassungsblog, 4 gennaio 2021

Rather than bemoaning the Brexit choice the UK made, it is time to start thinking about living with it in a way that would cause as little disruption as possible for all those concerned. How to mitigate, at least to some degree, the sudden, unprecedented loss of rights that Brexit caused? EU citizenship not any more on the table, bilateral freedom of movement of persons agreements with the EU Member States, EEA countries and Switzerland could offer a way forward. This solution is fully in line with EU law and has already been tested.

 

Gallina Cornelisse, The Pact and Detention: An Empty Promise of ‘certainty, clarity and decent conditions’, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 6 gennaio 2021

When presenting the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, the Commission wrote that its underlying rationale is the need for a new, durable European framework: ‘one that can provide certainty, clarity and decent conditions for the men, women and children arriving in the EU.’ Particularly when it comes to detention and accommodation at the borders of Europe, the last ten years have shown structural weaknesses in EU law and its implementation precisely with regard to ‘certainty, clarity and decent conditions.’ Thus, certainty and clarity are negated by the numerous instances of de facto detention that occur at the borders of Europe, or the vague legal framework governing the situation in the hotspots. And the conditions that prevail in some of Europe’s immigration detention centres, or in other places where people are either deprived of their liberty or where their freedom of movement is restricted, are a far cry from any possible interpretation of the term decency. Thus, proposals for new policies that aim to enhance certainty, clarity and decent conditions in this area are long overdue.

 

Izabella Majcher, The implementation of the EU Return Directive: The European Parliament aligns the EU expulsion policy with recommendations of UN human rights expert mechanisms, in EU Law Analysis, 19 gennaio 2021

On 17 December 2020, the European Parliament (hereafter Parliament) adopted the Resolution on the implementation of the Return Directive (2008/115/EC). The Resolution is an outcome of an own-initiative procedure launched in December 2019 as a response to a failure by the European Commission (hereafter Commission) to carry out an evaluation of the implementation of the Directive. In line with the better regulation guidelines, Article 19 of the Directive provides that the Commission should report on the application of the Directive every three years, starting from 2013. However, the Commission did so only once, in 2014 (see discussion here). In fact, failing to evaluate the implementation of the Return Directive did not prevent the Commission from issuing guidance on the implementation of the Directive and even proposing a recast of the Directive. In 2017, the Commission published the Recommendation on making returns more effective when implementing the Directive and the Return Handbook, which were followed in 2018 by a proposal to recast the Directive, which was not accompanied by an impact assessment. (On the proposed recast of the Directive, see discussion here and here).

 

Giulia Mentasti, Il decreto ‘immigrazione-sicurezza’ (d.l. n. 130/2020) diventa legge (l. 18 dicembre 2020, n. 173): le novità introdotte in sede di conversione, in Sistema Penale, 15 gennaio 2021

Dopo il via libera da parte di Camera e Senato, il d.l. 21 ottobre 2020, n. 130 è stato convertito, con alcune modificazioni, dalla l. 18 dicembre 2020, n. 173. Giunge dunque a compimento il travagliato processo di sostanziale revisione dei precedenti decreti sicurezza emanati durante il Governo Conte I (il d.l. 4 ottobre 2018, n. 113 e il d.l. 14 giugno 2019, n. 53), da tempo oggetto di numerose critiche, alla luce di svariate difficoltà applicative e di coordinamento con l’intera disciplina in materia di immigrazione e non solo, nonché del mancato rispetto dei principi costituzionali e internazionali, come evidenziato persino dal Presidente della Repubblica e dalla Corte costituzionale. Questa Rivista ha già dato conto, a suo tempo, delle novità introdotte dal decreto-legge, sicché in questa sede ci limiteremo a segnalare le modifiche introdotte in sede di conversione.

 

Madalina Moraru, The new design of the EU’s return system under the Pact on Asylum and Migration, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 14 gennaio 2021

Returns do not feature in the Pact’s title, nevertheless they are a redline running across all of the Pact’s five legislative acts, and two non-binding proposals scheduled for 2021. These proposals aim to increase returns of irregularly staying third-country nationals from the EU by way of: introducing a mandatory, expedited return border procedure that could become the new regular return procedure; creating an EU Return Coordinator position to increase coordination among domestic return practices; increasing the links between asylum and return policies into a single integrated migration procedure; and introducing return sponsorship as a form of solidarity cooperation among the Member States. Some of these proposals are likely to increase solidarity among the Member States, and achieve more effective returns that also observe fundamental rights – such as a more humane return border procedure compared to the procedure included in the 2018 Recast Return Directive proposal of the European Commission. Nevertheless, the increased links between asylum and return policies, the extension of the scope of application of the return border procedure coupled with the limitation of procedural guarantees risk to weaken the right to asylum, the principle of non-refoulement and diminish the role of courts in favour of an executive dominated migration management system.

 

Fulvio Vassallo Paleologo, Fermo amministrativo o abuso di potere? La guerra ai soccorsi in mare prosegue in Europa, in a-dif.org, 2 gennaio 2021

E’ stata pubblicata l’ordinanza del Tribunale amministrativo di Palermo del 22 dicembre 2020 con la quale lo stesso Tribunale chiamato a pronunciarsi sulla legittimità del provvedimento di fermo amministrativo della nave Sea Watch 4 operato dalla Capitaneria di Porto di Palermo dopo l’ispezione approfondita del 19 settembre dello stesso anno, ha respinto la richiesta di sospensiva del provvedimento ed ha disposto la rimessione degli atti alla Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea perché questa si pronunci in sede di questione pregiudiziale d’urgenza, riservandosi di procedere all’esame del caso sulla base dell’indirizzo interpretativo che sarà adottato dalla Corte di Lussemburgo.

 

Liam Thornton, Asylum Seekers subject to ‘Dublin procedures’ have a right to work under EU Law, in EU Law Analysis, 19 gennaio 2021

The Court of Justice of the European Union last week held in the K.S decision that Ireland’s 2018 Reception Regulations  do not comply with the 2013 EU Reception Conditions Directive. Persons subject to a potential transfer under the Dublin system have a right to enter the labour market in Ireland where: – No decision on their substantive protection claim (not the Dublin transfer issue) has issued within nine months. As the person is subject to a Dublin transfer process, and a substantive protection claim is not being progressed, this iu essence provides a right to enter the labour market within nine months. This right only ceases when the transfer to the EU member state responsible for determining the protection application occurs; – The person is not responsible for the delay in progressing the Dublin procedures/transfer; – Taking legal action to challenge a Dublin transfer decision is not a delay attributable to the person challenging the Dublin transfer decision; this is simply an exercise of legal rights explicitly provided to protection applicants under the Dublin III Regulation.

 

Rachel Westerby, When refugees become migrants: State ‘cherry-picking’ for refugee protection, in RLI, 20 ottobre 2020

Alongside voluntary repatriation and local integration, resettlement to a third country is one of three durable solutions that the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) is mandated to provide for refugees. Although Refugee Status Determination (RSD) by UNHCR is a prerequisite for resettlement, receiving third countries generally grant formal refugee status in-country, after refugees arrive. Resettlement therefore represents a key pathway to the protection that international law affords those determined to be refugees. Obligations (for states) and rights (for refugees) are largely non-existent in the resettlement process. UNHCR identifies refugees for whom resettlement is the ‘most appropriate (durable) solution’, and submits their cases for consideration by third countries. States receiving resettled refugees do so voluntarily, and are free to select or reject any case submitted to them. Refugees can neither apply for resettlement nor appeal a third country’s decision to reject them.

Libri

 

David Fernández-Rojo, EU Migration Agencies. The Operation and Cooperation of FRONTEX, EASO and EUROPOL, Edward Elgar, 2021

This insightful book analyzes the evolution of the operational tasks and cooperation of the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX), the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (EUROPOL). Exploring the recent expansion of the legal mandates of these decentralized EU agencies and the activities they undertake in practice, David Fernández-Rojo offers a critical assessment of the EU migration agencies. The book identifies two key trends in the administration of the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Fernández-Rojo discusses how on one hand the new legal frameworks of FRONTEX, EASO and EUROPOL stress that their operational roles are limited to providing national authorities with technical assistance, while on the other hand these agencies are increasingly involved in guaranteeing the enforcement of EU migration, asylum and border management measures. The book expertly illustrates how FRONTEX, EASO and EUROPOL establish an effective and uniform national implementation of laws and policies, with a focus on their multilateral cooperation in the hotspots established in the aftermath of the refugee crisis. Examining the de jure and de facto operational powers and cooperation of EU migration agencies, this book will be critical reading for academics and students of law, international relations and political science. Its assessment of the effectiveness of policy implementation will also be beneficial for legal practitioners, policy makers and NGOs.

 

Andrew Geddes, Governing Migration Beyond the State. Europe, North America, South America, and Southeast Asia in a Global Context, Oxford University Press, 2021

International migration has become a salient concern in global politics but there is also significant variation in governance responses. By focusing on four key world regions — Europe, North America, South America, and Southeast Asia — this book explores the underlying factors that shape governance responses. Rather than focusing on the more visible outputs or outcomes of governance processes such as laws and policies, this book opens the ‘black box’ of migration governance to reveal how understandings and representations of the causes and effects of migration held by key governance actors in these four regions have powerful effects, not only on governance outcomes, but more broadly on the prospects for global migration governance. By doing so, the book shows how migration governance systems through their operation and effects can shape migration — in its various forms — and the lived experiences of migrants

 

Monia Giovannetti, Nazzarena Zorzella (a cura di), Immigrazione, protezione internazionale e misure penali. Commento al decreto legge n. 130/2020, conv. con mod. in legge 18 dicembre 2020, n. 173, Pacini Editore, 2021

Il d.l. n. 130/2020, convertito con mod. in l. n. 173/2020, rimane nel solco di una discutibile legiferazione d’urgenza, ma incide con rilevanti modifiche in vari e diversificati settori normativi. Nello specifico del diritto dell’immigrazione e dell’asilo, si introducono elementi di flessibilità della condizione giuridica delle persone straniere, superando le restrizioni imposte dai decreti-sicurezza 2018/2019; si amplia la protezione speciale; si riorganizza il sistema di accoglienza; e si rende la procedura asilo più conforme al diritto europeo. Tuttavia, il d.l. mantiene, pur attenuandone la portata, il reato di soccorso in mare e lascia sostanzialmente inalterata la disciplina sulla cittadinanza. Per quanto riguarda la parte penale, il d.l. n. 130/2020 introduce o aggrava alcune disposizioni penali che determinano una maggiore restrizione dei diritti di libertà (nuova ipotesi di flagranza differita, ampliamento dei poteri del questore per il cd. daspo urbano, nuovo reato di introduzione di dispositivi di comunicazione in carcere, esclusione della lieve tenuità dei fatti nei delitti di offesa dei pubblici ufficiali), ma amplia le funzioni del Garante dei diritti delle persone private della libertà personale, introducendo un meccanismo nazionale di prevenzione e innova un sistema penale di contrasto all’acquisto via internet di sostanze stupefacenti. I commenti seguono l’articolato del decreto legge, accorpando razionalmente gli istituti giuridici trattati.

 

Elliott Young, Forever Prisoners. How the United States Made the World’s Largest Immigrant Detention System, Oxford University Press, 2021

Stories of non-US citizens caught in the jaws of the immigration bureaucracy and subject to indefinite detention are in the headlines daily. These men, women, and children remain almost completely without rights, unprotected by law and the Constitution, and their status as outsiders, even though many of have lived and worked in this country for years, has left them vulnerable to the most extreme forms of state power. Although the rhetoric surrounding these individuals is extreme, the US government has been locking up immigrants since the late nineteenth century, often for indefinite periods and with limited ability to challenge their confinement. Forever Prisoners offers the first broad history of immigrant detention in the United States. Elliott Young focuses on five stories, including Chinese detained off the coast of Washington in the late 1880s, an “insane” Russian-Brazilian Jew caught on a ship shuttling between New York and South America during World War I, Japanese Peruvians kidnapped and locked up in a Texas jail during World War II, a prison uprising by Mariel Cuban refugees in 1987, and a Salvadoran mother who grew up in the United States and has spent years incarcerated while fighting deportation. Young shows how foreigners have been caged not just for immigration violations, but also held in state and federal prisons for criminal offenses, in insane asylums for mental illness, as enemy aliens in INS facilities, and in refugee camps. Since the 1980s, the conflation of criminality with undocumented migrants has given rise to the most extensive system of immigrant incarceration in the nation’s history. Today over half a million immigrants are caged each year, some serving indefinite terms in what has become the world’s most extensive immigrant detention system. And yet, Young finds, the rate of all forms of incarceration for immigrants was as high in the early twentieth century as it is today, demonstrating a return to past carceral practices. Providing critical historical context for today’s news cycle, Forever Prisoners focuses on the sites of limbo where America’s immigration population have been and continue to be held.

 

Inocent Moyo, Jussi P. Laine, Christopher Changwe Nshimbi, Intra-Africa Migrations. Reimaging Borders and Migration Management, Routledge, 2021

This book discusses regional and continental integration in Africa by examining the management of migration across the continent. It examines borders and securitisation of migration and the challenges and opportunities that arise out of reconfigured continental demographics. The book offers insights on intra-Africa migrations and highlights how intra-continental migration creates socio-economic and cultural borders. It explores how these borders, beyond the physical boundaries of states, including the Berlin Conference-constructed borders, create cultural divides, challenges for economic integration and cross-border security, and irregular migration patterns. While the movement of economic goods is valued for regional economic integration, the mobility of people is seen as a threat. This approach to migration contradicts the intentions of true integration and development, and triggers negative responses such as xenophobia that cannot be addressed by simply managing the physical border and allowing free movement. This book engages in a pivotal discussion of these issues, which are hitherto missing in African border studies, by demonstrating the ubiquity and overreaching influence of various kinds of borders on the African continent. With multidisciplinary contributions that provide an in-depth understanding of intra-Africa migrations and strategies for enhanced migration management, this book will be a useful resource for scholars and students studying geography, politics, security studies, development studies, African studies and sociology.

 

Natalia Ribas-Mateos, Timothy J. Dunn (ed.), Handbook on Human Security, Borders and Migration, Edward Elgar, 2021

Drawing on the concept of the ‘politics of compassion’, this Handbook interrogates the political, geopolitical, social and anthropological processes which produce and govern borders and give rise to contemporary border violence. Chapters map different aspects of structural violence and mobilities in some of the world’s most contentious border zones, highlighting the forms and practices that connect with labour exploitation, legal exclusion and a severe absence of human rights. International interdisciplinary contributors, including renowned sociologist Saskia Sassen, draw attention to the forms and spaces of resistance available to migrants and activists, contemplating how advocates attempt to provide protection and human security to those subjected to border violence. Offering empirical analyses of critical border spaces, the book covers extensively the US–Mexico border region and border zones around the Mediterranean. Border issues in South, Central and North America, Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, the Middle East, Central Africa and East and Central Asia are also discussed. The Handbook thus provides a truly transnational approach to borders and migration, demonstrating the dynamic but asymmetric relationship between the social structure of border enforcement and the human agency of migrants and global activists. Combining theoretical insights into structural violence and human rights with key case studies of border zones, this comprehensive Handbook is crucial reading for scholars and researchers of social and political science investigating human migration, the humanitarian, border control and human rights. Its practical insights will also benefit policy-makers involved in borders and migration, as well as advocates and NGOs working with migrants and refugees to create secure environments.

 

Articoli

Christin Achermann, Shaping migration at the border: the entangled rationalities of border control practices, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

This article analyses how border guards as members of a state organisation shape the movement of non-nationals into the territory of a nation state. Based on ethnographic fieldwork on the Swiss Border Guard (SBG), it explores the rationalities—understood as stabilised ways of reasoning and acting—that characterise practices within this state organisation. Combining organisational and structuration theory with a street-level bureaucracy perspective allows for a differentiated analysis of the various facets of border guards’ everyday work. Four rationalities of border-control practices are identified and compared: security, humanitarian, cost-calculation, and pragmatic rationality. I argue that, by considering both the specific goals and imperatives of border control and the characteristics of street-level bureaucrats acting within a state organisation, these entangled logics explain the complex and incoherent social reality of border control. More generally, the results contribute to organisational theory by pointing to the importance of taking into account that multiple entangled rationalities structure the practices of an organisation’s members.

 

Eugenio Carli, Trattenimento di migranti a bordo di navi, divieto di detenzione arbitraria e responsabilità internazionale dell’Italia, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 3

The recent practice adopted by Italy to prevent disembarkation from ships carrying migrants rescued in Mediterranean waters raises several legal issues. Prolonged and forced detention of such individuals on board of ships for several days, often in extreme psycho-physical health conditions, may in fact give rise to Italy’s international responsibility for the violation of the right to liberty recognized in all the main international human rights treaties. In particular, the circumstances analyzed may qualify as arbitrary – and often illegal – de facto detentions. The referral of these cases to international tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights, could lead to the issuing of a ‘pilot judgment’ which, ascertaining the responsibility of Italy for violation of the right in question, may require the State to modify its legislation on pre-admittance of migrants.

 

Cecilia Corsi, Migranti e immigrati di fronte all’emergenza coronavirus: tra vecchie e nuove fragilità, in Diritto Pubblico, 2020, n. 3

This essay offers a framework of the so many problems which have concerned the condition of the aliens during the pandemic. Many fundamental rights were involved: the civil liberties, the right to asylum, the right to health, the right to assistance benefits. Legislators, national and local agencies were involved by a lot of questions and consequently they have intervened to adopt measures to cope with the numerous problems that have arisen. And on not a few occasions, courts’ interventions were also needed to protect rights violated by administrations. It was a question of seeking a “reasonableµ balance between different needs. To the thorns that have also concerned the balance between the fundamental rights of citizens, there were for foreigners the many problems connected to people who do not have a stable relationship with the territory. And those who were already in situations of fragility suffered a further precariousness of their condition.

 

Alessia Di Pascale, Riammissioni informali e violazione del diritto di asilo, in Questione Giustizia, 2021

Il presente contributo esamina l’ordinanza adottata il 18.1.2021 dal Tribunale di Roma, con cui è stato accolto il ricorso urgente presentato da un cittadino pakistano, riammesso nel luglio del 2020 dall’Italia alla Slovenia, da qui in Croazia e quindi in Bosnia. L’ordinanza ha posto in luce la contrarietà della prassi attuata dalle autorità di frontiera, sulla base di un accordo bilaterale di riammissione, alla luce delle norme italiane, internazionali e dell’Unione europea, riconoscendo altresì il diritto del ricorrente, sulla base dell’art. 10, c. 3, Cost. di fare ingresso in Italia al fine di presentare la domanda di protezione internazionale.

 

Donald Kerwin, Mike Nicholson, Charting a Course to Rebuild and Strengthen the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP): Findings and Recommendations from the Center for Migration Studies Refugee Resettlement Survey: 2020, in Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2020, vol. 30

This report analyzes the US Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP), leveraging data from a national survey of resettlement stakeholders conducted in 2020.2 The survey examined USRAP from the time that refugees arrive in the United States. Its design and questionnaire were informed by three community gatherings organized by Refugee Council USA in the fall and winter of 2019, extensive input from an expert advisory group, and a literature review. This study finds that USRAP serves important purposes, enjoys extensive community support, and offers a variety of effective services. Overall, the survey finds a high degree of consensus on the US resettlement program’s strengths and objectives, and close alignment between its services and the needs of refugees at different stages of their settlement and integration. Because its infrastructure and community-based resettlement networks have been decimated in recent years, the main challenges of subsequent administrations, Congresses, and USRAP stakeholders will be to rebuild, revitalize, and regain broad and bipartisan support for the program.

 

Anita Manatschal, The integrative force of political institutions? Direct democracy and voter turnout across ethnic and nativity groups, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Much has been written on the positive effect of direct democracy (initiatives, referendums) on voter turnout. However, we have limited knowledge about potential differential effects on voters belonging to various ethnic groups. The paper argues that depending on a group’s responsiveness to the political context, direct democracy can (dis-)integrate voters (from) into the electorate. Empirical analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) voting supplement survey data, together with data on the absolute use of direct democracy across US states, corroborates this theoretical expectation, however lending more support for the disintegrating assumption. Frequent direct democratic elections further widen the negative voting gap between first-generation Asian voters and voters living in the US for three generations or longer, whereas they tend to diminish this voting gap for first-generation Hispanic voters. The disintegrative pattern for first-generation Asian voters remains even significant when excluding California from the state sample, yet not the integrative tendency for first-generation Hispanics. Additional analyses using alternative measures of direct democracy and voting, and applying statistical adjustments to address causality concerns, confirm the robustness of these findings, which shed light on the so-far underexplored (dis-)integrative potential of political institutions.

 

Antonio Marchesi, Finanziare i rimpatri forzati in Libia è legittimo? Sulla sentenza del Consiglio di Stato n. 4569 del 15 luglio 2020, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 3

The Italian Consiglio di Stato has recently rejected a complaint submitted by ASGI and supported by other organizations against decree No. 4110/47 of the Italian Foreign Ministry authorizing the use of the ‘Africa Fund’ for the purposes of reinforcing operations by Libyan agencies involved in the patrolling of the Mediterranean. In doing so it has taken the Italian Government’s stated intentions into account while totally ignoring the actual consequences of the adopted measures. To consider whether Government acts are in fact apt to achieve the intended objectives would involve, according to the judges, trespassing administrative discretion. The result, however, is that it is practically impossible to successfully argue that, in these circumstances, an administrative act is illegitimate. The decision also rejects the complainants’ claim that decree No. 4110/47 is in violation of human rights obligations under constitutional and international law. This conclusion is based on the argument that Italy has no effective control over Libyan territory, which is where the violations have taken place. The complaint, however, does not attribute direct violations of the right of asylum, the right not to be arbitrarily detained and the right not to be subjected to torture to Italy. Rather, it refers to aid or assistance by Italy to Libya in committing the above-mentioned (internationally wrongful) acts … aid or assistance which does not require effective control of Libyan territory. Finally, the decision also rejects the claim that Law No. 232 of 2016, on which the decree is based, is unconstitutional. This conclusion relies, interalia, on a restrictive understanding of the right of asylum which, according to the judges, applies only to those foreign citizens who are already present on Italian territory (or at the Italian frontier).

 

Tekalign Ayalew Mengiste, Intensifications of Border Governance and Defiant Migration Trajectories in Ethiopia, in Geopolitics, n. 1

This article unpacks how state-led borderwork from above is dynamically and creatively negotiated and navigated from below by migrants and smugglers. It identifies certain everyday borderwork assemblages and describes the struggles that produce social and material infrastructure and geographical reconfigurations of mobility. The empirical material presented in this study is drawn from legal and policy reviews, life-story interviews with return migrants and key informant interviews with refugees, smugglers and migration-governing actors. In the Horn of Africa in recent years, Ethiopia has become a major sending and transit country of migrants and asylum-seekers. This development has generated both internal political challenges, as well as ΕU pressure on the Ethiopian government to introduce legislative and organisational structures to control clandestine migratory exits from and refugee transitions through Ethiopia. In exchange, the EU extends various promises to provide, for example, development aid and economic cooperation. However, the external pressure calling for stricter border controls and Ethiopia’s tighter migration laws have not stopped clandestine migration and refugee transits, nor have they facilitated safe and orderly migration, as promised. The article argues that migrants, their families and brokers continuously struggle and develop new strategies to redirect and spatially reconfigure migratory departures, despite the new restrictions. These are manifested in Ethiopia by the emergence of dynamic forms of  clandestine migration pathways and complex smuggling arrangements facilitating migration to the Middle East and southern Africa.

 

Tamás Molnár, The EU shaping the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration: the glass half full or half empty?, in International Journal of Law in Context, 2020, n. 3

While migration is a policy field that is fairly state-centric, the prominent role of the EU in the development of international migration law and policy has been acknowledged, to some extent, by the international community. This paper scrutinises the EU’s role and impact during the preparatory and inter-governmental talks leading to the adoption of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM). A central question is the degree to which the EU influenced negotiations and their outcome; and how the international community received the EU’s external action in this matter. Next to mapping the EU’s substantive input shaping the process, the EU’s internal machinery to formulate its position and the challenges faced within the bloc are also explored. The GCM process also illustrates the willingness of the international community – or the lack of it – to elevate European standards to the global level in the highly complex and politicised domain of migration.

 

Francesco Schiaffo, Crime and Migration Policies: real data and “mass paranoia”, in Cammino diritto, 2021, n. 2

La ricerca criminologica ha ampiamente dimostrato che è del tutto infondata l’idea secondo cui i flussi migratori sono necessariamente anche flussi di criminalità. La paura dell’immigrato, invece, continua a essere incoraggiata e usata come strumento di aggregazioni politico-elettorali. L’inclusione sociale degli immigrati è l’unica strategia efficace per la prevenzione della loro criminalizzazione che, altrimenti, resta comunque possibile.

 

Post

Patrícia Cabral, Protecting the right to a nationality for children of same-sex couples in the EU – A key issue before the CJEU in V.M.A. v Stolichna Obsthina (C-490/20), in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 15 febbraio 2021

The enjoyment of LGBTIQ* rights varies across Europe, including the recognition of same-sex partnerships or marriages and the recognition of legal parentage between children and those who raise them as parents – regardless of biology, gender or sexual orientation. As a result, rainbow families in Europe (families where a child has at least one parent who identifies themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex or queer) can face problems with recognition of civil status, birth registration and access to birth certificates, leaving some children in these families either stateless or at risk of statelessness. Such cases have occurred across several countries in Europe and reflect a wider concerning trend within the EU, where LGBTIQ*-related discriminatory laws and practices by Member States impact on the child’s right to a nationality and their access to EU citizenship. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will now have an opportunity to address this issue in a case concerning a child born to same-sex parents in Spain, for which a hearing is due to take place next week.

 

Francesco Luigi Gatta, Between Rule of Law and Reputation Frontex’s withdrawal from Hungary, in verfassungsblog.de, 8 febbraio 2021

At the EU external border a rule of law issue has emerged, involving two actors notoriously struggling with the concept: Hungary, whose disregard for EU law and human rights has been certified by the Court of Justice, and Frontex, which has been at the centre of an escalating row of scandals and allegations concerning maladministration and human rights violations. On 27 January, the Agency made the unprecedented decision to suspend its activities in Hungary. The choice to withdraw the Agency from Hungary is not a clear, serious, and meditated move in the Commission’s action for the rule of law. Nor is it a sign of a coherent and firm intention to put an end to the Agency’s engagement in human rights violations at EU borders, since it keeps operating in other frontline Member States with equally problematic issues. It rather represents an attempt to remedy the already compromised reputation of Frontex.

 

Romain Lanneau, The Commission’s proposal for a new Independent Monitoring Mechanism at the external border of the EU: a necessary but limited mechanism, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 22 febbraio 2021

The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) urged European States to end and investigate allegations of push backs against migrants at the borders. Those statements come at a time of increased tension at the European level regarding responsibility for fundamental rights violations at the external borders. The latest report of Refugees Rights Europe presents a grim picture of the state of Europe’s borders in 2020. In May, an investigation by journalists concluded that Muhammad Gulzar was killed by Greek border guards during an operation at the border with Turkey in February.  More than a hundred Members of the European Parliament requested the Commission and the Greek authorities to launch an investigation. Some months later, in October, it is the European Border and Coast Guard Agency that is accused of being involved in push back operations by investigative site Light House Reports and large media outlets. It is during this period that Commissioner Johansson proposed in her speech on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum to create “a new independent monitoring mechanism for all Member States [..] to make sure that they are no push backs at the borders.” The new mechanism has been introduced in article 7 of the proposal for a Regulation introducing a screening of third-country nationals at the external borders (hereafter Proposal for a Screening Regulation), analysed by Lyra Jakulevičienė in this collection.

 

Sylvie Sarolea, Legal migration in the “New Pact”: modesty or unease in the Berlaymont?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 11 febbraio 2021

Creating legal avenues to the European Union is undoubtedly a central component of a comprehensive and balanced immigration policy. Although asylum attracts most of the media coverage and the political attention, the vast majority of the 3 million first residence permits issued by the Member States in 2019 were not delivered for the purpose of international protection. This could suggest that the EU legal migration system is working well. To be sure, immigration for family and educational purposes are addressed almost comprehensively by secondary EU legislation. While Directives 2003/86/EC and 2004/38/EC set out the conditions of family reunification, the admission of students and researchers is now spelt out in the recast Directive (EU) 2016/801. However, when it comes to labour migration, the EU policy is relatively underdeveloped. Harmonisation in this field is limited both in scope and intensity: EU directives regulate the admission and stay of a few categories of workers only and the flexibility provided by the existing EU legislation protects rather than challenges the autonomy of national authorities. As a result, it should not come as a surprise that the recent “fitness check” concluded that “the current legal migration framework had a limited impact vis-à-vis the overall migration challenges that Europe is facing”. Given the limited added value of EU directives on labour migration, it wasn’t unreasonable to expect a new look, or even a “fresh start”, on this issue. While the European Commission timidly tries to design new schemes, it fails to convince. Unlike other issues addressed in the “New Pact”, no legislative proposal is put forward and a number of core dilemmas remain unresolved. Written in evasive terms, the Communication on a New Pact on Migration and Asylum raises more questions than it provides answers to.

 

Violeta Moreno-Lax, A New Common European Approach to Search and Rescue? Entrenching Proactive Containment, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 3 febbraio 2021

The ambition of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum is to ‘build a system that manages and normalises migration for the long term and which is fully grounded in European values and international law’ (p. 1, New Pact), avoiding the kind of piecemeal ad hoc-ism that may degenerate in Moria-like fiascos (pp. 3 and 13, New Pact). This requires a ‘comprehensive approach’ (cf. Moreno-Lax and Papastavridis) that recognises ‘collective responsibilities … and tackles the implementation gap’ of the relevant standards (p. 3, New Pact), while ensuring solidarity (p. 5, New Pact), including in the maritime domain (p. 6, New Pact). Search and rescue (SAR) is acknowledged by the European Commission not only as ‘a moral duty and a [binding legal] obligation under international law’, but also as ‘a key element of the European integrated border management’ and as ‘a shared responsibility’ of both the Union and its Member States (p. 13, New Pact).

 

Chris Nash, The EU Migration and Asylum Pact’s Blind Spot on Statelessness Must be Remedied: Here’s How, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 1° febbraio 2021

Last week the European Network on Statelessness launched its detailed analysis of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. Our commentary focuses on the impact the proposals set out by the European Commission in September (discussed here and here on this blog) would have on the fundamental rights of stateless migrants and refugees, and makes concrete recommendations on how these should be addressed as an integral part of negotiations on, and implementation of the Pact. As it was presented, the Pact makes no mention of the rights of stateless people, nor does it provide any clarity on how to respond to the specific protection challenges faced by stateless refugees and migrants. The existing EU asylum and migration acquis contains no reference to the rights due to stateless people under international law, so perhaps we should not have been surprised by the Pact’s blind spot in this area, despite previous dedicated European Council Conclusions on Statelessness, and research clearly showing that whether someone is stateless impacts on their migration journey in innumerable ways.

 

Vuk Raičević, On illegal push-backs into the EU, in verfassungsblog.de, 18 febbraio 2021

On 29 December 2020, the Constitutional Court of Serbia (CCS) adopted a decision (Už-1823/2017) upholding the constitutional appeal filed on behalf of 17 Afghani migrants, who were expelled into Bulgaria although they had expressed the intention to seek asylum in the Republic of Serbia (RS) in 2017. It found that the Ministry of the Interior (Police Directorate – Gradina Border Police Station (BPS)) violated the prohibition of expulsion and inhuman treatment – both guaranteed in the Serbian Constitution. According to the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights’ (BCHR) legal team, it is the first decision to finally recognize what has become a reality – for many years numerous violations on the prohibition of expulsion and inhuman treatment do happen on the borders of RS.  This reality inter alia has its origins in July 2016 when the Serbian Government adopted a Decision on the Establishment of Joint Police-Army Forces to combat illegal migration and human trafficking along the border with North Macedonia and Bulgaria. This decision facilitated pushbacks of foreigners, who were denied the opportunity to access the asylum procedure in Serbia. In March 2017, the Ministry of Defense said that 20,000 people had been “prevented from crossing the border illegally”. In such a climate, it was inevitable that some incidents of illegal collective expulsion would occur, depriving the rights of persons who want to seek asylum in RS.

 

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Shadow Opinion of Advocate-General Eleanor Sharpston QC – Case C-194/19 HA, on appeal rights of asylum seekers in the Dublin system, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 12 febbraio 2021

Case C‑194/19 H.A. v État belge is a Grand Chamber case which was allocated to me as Advocate General in 2019. As usual, my team and I worked on it thereafter in order to prepare an Opinion. The case was however delayed and was reallocated to my successor Advocate General Rantos after my departure from office on 10 September 2020. By that stage, the EU taxpayer had already funded a significant amount of initial ‘team Sharpston’ work and thought on the problems highlighted by this reference. For that reason, I have since done what was required to complete this ‘Shadow Opinion’. I offer it as a public contribution to the debate that needs to take place, both inside and outside the Court, on an important and sensitive topic.

Libri

 

 

Elena Baracani, EU–Turkey Relations. A New Direction for EU Foreign Policy?, Elgar Publishing, 2021

This insightful book analyses EU foreign policy vis-à-vis Turkey over the last institutional cycle, uncovering how its internal functioning and structural context affects the decisions made by the EU, in both day-to-day and crisis situations. It reconstructs and interprets EU–Turkey relations since 2014, arguing that Turkey has, overall, become a key strategic partner to the EU. Acknowledging that EU enlargement policy is part of a broader foreign policy framework, which also includes other domains such as the external dimension of migration and CFSP, Elena Baracani adopts a unique approach, combining more actor-oriented factors with structural factors to analyse EU–Turkey relations. Special features include the use of first-hand empirical material, an introduction to the concept of different shades of EU foreign policy, and a new, comprehensive evaluation of EU foreign policy actorness. Original and perceptive, EU–Turkey Relations will be of special interest to scholars and students in the field of EU studies and foreign policy, who are looking to further their understanding of the foreign policy contributions of different institutions and bureaucratic actors.

 

Anthony A. Peguero, Jennifer M. Bondy, Immigration and School Safety, Routledge, 2021

Immigration and School Safety utilizes a multidisciplinary approach to expose the complex relationship between immigration and school safety in the United States. It addresses not only individual, intrapersonal, and environmental factors but also distant-level conditions that are relevant to the experiences of immigrant children and connected to school safety. Twenty-five percent of all youth in U.S. schools have at least one immigrant parent, and that percentage is expected to increase to 33 percent by 2040. A wide array of factors, including but not limited to laws, public and political discourses, educational policies, interpersonal relationships, socioeconomic status, English language proficiency, citizenship, legal status, family characteristics, race and ethnicity, generational status, nationality, religion, and gender, contribute to the marginalizing experiences of children of immigrants at school. With the rapid growth of students in immigrant families in U.S. schools, any effort to address school violence and implement school safety policies must consider barriers associated with the unique educational experiences of that segment. This book highlights the often overlooked importance of immigration as a mediating factor in explaining both violence and victimization and provides a blueprint for integrating immigration and criminology theories into evidence-based efforts toward ensuring safety for all students. The authors demonstrate that immigration matters significantly in school violence and safety concerns and illustrate why research that integrates immigration with criminology theories is needed to understand the causes and correlates of school violence. The book will appeal to a wide array of individuals, including academics, educators, policymakers, practitioners, social workers, parents, and stakeholders who are committed to addressing educational disparities and inequities associated with immigration and school safety.

 

Mohammad Shahabuddin, Minorities and the Making of Postcolonial States in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2021

The ideological function of the postcolonial ‘national’, ‘liberal’, and ‘developmental’ state inflicts various forms of marginalisation on minorities, but simultaneously justifies oppression in the name of national unity, equality and non-discrimination, and economic development. International law plays a central role in the ideological making of the postcolonial state in relation to postcolonial boundaries, the liberal-individualist architecture of rights, and the neoliberal economic vision of development. In this process, international law subjugates minority interests and in turn aggravates the problem of ethno-nationalism. Analysing the geneses of ethno-nationalism in postcolonial states, Mohammad Shahabuddin substantiates these arguments with in-depth case studies on the Rohingya and the hill people of the Chittagong Hill Tracts, against the historical backdrop of the minority question in Indian nationalist and constitutional discourse. Shahabuddin also proposes alternative international law frameworks for minorities.

 

Articoli

Laura Affolter, Trained to Disbelieve: The Normalisation of Suspicion in a Swiss Asylum Administration Office, in Geopolitics, 2021, n. 2

In Switzerland, as in many other countries of the Global North, most asylum applicants are rejected because they are not believed. This has led many scholars to criticise the so-called ‘culture of disbelief’ in asylum administrations. On the basis of ethnographic fieldwork conducted in the Swiss Secretariat for Migration (SEM), this article explores what this ‘culture of disbelief’ consists of, how it plays out in everyday decision-making and how, at the same time, it is constituted by these practices. Drawing on a practice-theoretical approach to administrative work, the article proposes conceptualising disbelief as practice rather than a state of mind. It brings to light several aspects which either form part of this practice itself – decision-maker’s implicit knowledge and routinised strategies for questioning applicants in asylum interviews, for example – or which shape this practice of disbelief – such as organisational socialisation and decision-makers’ role as state agents and ‘guardians of a restricted good’. The article reveals how suspicion does not unilaterally shape decision-makers’ practices, but how it  salso reaffirmed through everyday decision-making. Building on this, it argues that decision-makers’ practices are both constituted by and constitutive of public political discourse and migration governance.

 

Mohamed Berriane, Hein de Haas and Katharina Natter, Social Transformations and Migrations in Morocco, in IMI Working Papers, 2021, vol. 171

This paper analyses how fundamental transformations of Moroccan society over the past century have shaped Morocco’s mobility complex and how migration has affected and accelerated these transformation processes in its own right. Economic transitions and the concomitant demise of subsistence-based agrarian livelihoods, urbanization processes and demographic transitions, increasing education and rapid cultural change have increased all forms of migratory and non-migratory mobility within and from Morocco, particularly through large-scale rural-to-urban migration as well as rapidly increasing emigration to Europe. While earlier patterns seem largely consistent with mobility transition theory, the predicted decrease in emigration levels has not occurred, as, since the 1990s, Morocco has entered a migration plateau of persistently high emigration despite significant increases in living standards, a slowing down of internal migration and increasing immigration. Continuously high levels of emigration can be explained by a growing disjuncture between sluggish and uneven economic development that has mainly benefitted certain regions and economic elites on the one hand, and fast sociocultural change across all social classes and regions on the other. This disjuncture has rapidly increased youth’s aspirations for lifestyles and freedoms that they find difficult to imagine in Morocco, but at the same time reshapes Morocco’s internal mobility patterns and attracts growing numbers of immigrants.

 

Eugenio Carli, Trattenimento di migranti a bordo di navi, divieto di detenzione arbitraria e responsabilità internazionale dell’Italia, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 3

The recent practice adopted by Italy to prevent disembarkation from ships carrying migrants rescued in Mediterranean waters raises several legal issues. Prolonged and forced detention of such individuals on board of ships for several days, often in extreme psycho-physical health conditions, may in fact give rise to Italy’s international responsibility for the violation of the right to liberty recognized in all the main international human rights treaties. In particular, the circumstances analyzed may qualify as arbitrary – and often illegal – de facto detentions. The referral of these cases to international tribunals, such as the European Court of Human Rights, could lead to the issuing of a ‘pilot judgment’ which, ascertaining the responsibility of Italy for violation of the right in question, may require the State to modify its legislation on pre-admittance of migrants.

 

Antonio Marchesi, Finanziare i rimpatri forzati in Libia è legittimo? Sulla sentenza del Consiglio di Stato n. 4569 del 15 luglio 2020, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2020, n. 3

The Italian Consiglio di Stato has recently rejected a complaint submitted by ASGI and supported by other organizations against decree No. 4110/47 of the Italian Foreign Ministry authorizing the use of the ‘Africa Fund’ for the purposes of reinforcing operations by Libyan agencies involved in the patrolling of the Mediterranean. In doing so it has taken the Italian Government’s stated intentions into account while totally ignoring the actual consequences of the adopted measures. To consider whether Government acts are in fact apt to achieve the intended objectives would involve, according to the judges, trespassing administrative discretion. The result, however, is that it is practically impossible to successfully argue that, in these circumstances, an administrative act is illegitimate. The decision also rejects the complainants’ claim that decree No. 4110/47 is in violation of human rights obligations under constitutional and international law. This conclusion is based on the argument that Italy has no effective control over Libyan territory, which is where the violations have taken place. The complaint, however, does not attribute direct violations of the right of asylum, the right not to be arbitrarily detained and the right not to be subjected to torture to Italy. Rather, it refers to aid or assistance by Italy to Libya in committing the above-mentioned (internationally wrongful) acts … aid or assistance which does not require effective control of Libyan territory. Finally, the decision also rejects the claim that Law No. 232 of 2016, on which the decree is based, is unconstitutional. This conclusion relies, interalia, on a restrictive understanding of the right of asylum which, according to the judges, applies only to those foreign citizens who are already present on Italian territory (or at the Italian frontier).

 

Hester Kroeze, Peter Van Elsuwege (ed.), Revisiting Ruiz Zambrano: A Never Ending Story?, in European Journal of Migration and Law, Special Issue, 2021, n. 1

The ECJ’s ruling in Ruiz Zambrano sparked a lot of academic debate. On the one hand, the more constitutional interpretation of EU citizenship has been welcomed as ‘a new route into the promised land’ of a true, supranational citizenship. The new doctrine tackles the most problematic examples of reverse discrimination in the EU legal order, and potentially provides an answer to the heavily criticised and often artificial distinction between ‘cross-border’ and ‘purely internal’ situations. On the other hand, it has been pointed out that the Court’s poorly motivated decision only reinforced the legal uncertainty about the precise scope of application of EU law, leading to numerous new problems of interpretation and delimitation. Despite their differences, most authors agreed that the judgment was opaque and extremely concise in its reasoning – limited to seven short paragraphs. As observed by Thym and Hailbronner in their comments to the Ruiz Zambrano judgment, ‘it is left to national judges and academic observers to reconstruct the Court’s reasoning by themselves’. The present special issue contributes to this exercise. It looks back at the discussions and questions raised at the time of the Ruiz Zambrano judgment and deals with the outstanding questions regarding its implications for the understanding of EU citizenship and family reunification.

 

Noora Lori, Kaija Schilde, A Political Economy of Global Security Approach to Migration and Border Control, in Journal of Global Security Studies, 2021, n. 1

Population movements have causes and consequences for both global security and the economic and security considerations of states. Migration itself is inexorably intertwined with global security outcomes, in the form of instability, state fragility, transnational terrorism and crime, and the radicalization (or perceived radicalization) of migrants and host societies. While modern states may have monopolized the authority over legitimate movement, they have never fully captured the management and enforcement of migration flows. Instead, market actors play key roles in determining migration outcomes—including the scale, direction, and violence associated with migration flows. Migration outcomes are, thus, critically constituted by two key forces—the security priorities of states and the complementary and competing forces of privatization and profit-making. While market forces undermine state control over migration, states have buffered and further consolidated their power over mobility by harnessing private actors and markets toward migration management and border control. We situate migration management and border control as a political economy of security issue, arguing that migration outcomes cannot be explained without examining the interaction between state security imperatives, private actors, and market forces.

 

Evie Papada, Engaging the Geopolitics of Asylum Seeking: The Care/control Function of Vulnerability Assessments in the Context of the EU–Turkey Agreement, in Geopolitcs, 2021, n. 2

This article explores vulnerability assessments as practices of filtering, caring and border enforcement. Following the EU-Turkish Agreement which came to force March 2016, migrants crossing from the Turkish coast onto the Greek Aegean islands are subject to a set of administrative procedures which assess the country responsible for processing their asylum claim. As I demonstrate their chances of accessing the asylum process or risk being returned to Turkey are shaped by the outcome of vulnerability assessments. Drawing together feminist approaches on vulnerability and geopolitics with recent work that addresses hotspots and the humanitarian border, the article suggest that vulnerability assessments are is crucial for understanding the ways in which state strategies to discourage mobility are woven into protection practices and the ways in which exclusions are authorised through the strategic deployment of vulnerability. The study is based on fieldwork and interviews conducted on the island of Lesbos during three separate periods between the summer of 2017 and December 2018. By interrogating processes of documentation and the role of state and non-state actors in the operationalising vulnerability, I demonstrate how mobile bodies are governed through vulnerability, medical knowledge and trauma. As a result, vulnerability assessments privilege certain, often gendered mobilities as opposed to others while in parallel contribute to enhancing a mode of care and control at the border that justifies the perpetuation of forms of violence.

 

Sunyoung Park, Lasse Gerrits, How migrants manifest their transnational identity through online social networks: comparative findings from a case of Koreans in Germany, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Although migration has long been an imperative topic in social sciences, there are still needs of study on migrants’ unique and dynamic transnational identity, which heavily influences the social integration in the host society. In Online Social Network (OSN), where the contemporary migrants actively communicate and share their stories the most, different challenges against migrants’ belonging and identity and how they cope or reconcile may evidently exist. This paper aims to scrutinise how migrants are manifesting their belonging and identity via different technological types of online social networks, to understand the relations between online social networks and migrants’ multi-faceted transnational identity. The research introduces a comparative case study on an online social movement led by Koreans in Germany via their online communities, triggered by a German TV advertisement considered as stereotyping East Asians given by white supremacy’s point of view. Starting with virtual ethnography on three OSNs representing each of internet generations (Web 1.0 ~ Web 3.0), two-step Qualitative Data Analysis is carried out to examine how Korean migrants manifest their belonging and identity via their views on “who we are” and “who are others”. The analysis reveals how Korean migrants’ transnational identities differ by their expectation on the audience and the members in each online social network, which indicates that the distinctive features of the online platform may encourage or discourage them in shaping transnational identity as a group identity. The paper concludes with the two main emphases: first, current OSNs comprising different generational technologies play a significant role in understanding the migrants’ dynamic social values, and particularly, transnational identities. Second, the dynamics of migrants’ transnational identity engages diverse social and situational contexts. (keywords: transnational identity, migrants’ online social networks, stereotyping migrants, technological evolution of online social network).

 

Miguel Bustos Rubio, Aporofobia, motivos discriminatorios y obligaciones positivas del Estado: el art. 22.4a CP entre la prohibición de infraprotección y la subinclusión desigualitaria, in Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, 2021

La aporofobia aparece hoy definida como el odio o rechazo contra la persona en situación de pobreza. No solo las personas pueden ser aporófobas: también puede serlo el sistema jurídico. El Código Penal regula en su art. 22.4a la circunstancia agra- vante de odio discriminatorio, en la que no se contem- plan motivos de odio contra otra persona por su situa- ción socioeconómica. Sin embargo, los datos indican que esta forma de odio aparece hoy como una moti- vación delictiva frecuente, por encima incluso de otras circunstancias que sí contempla el precepto. En este trabajo, además de esquematizar otras razones que avalarían la introducción de la aporofobia en el art. 22.4a CP, se aporta una razón adicional imbricada con la Doctrina de las Obligaciones Positivas que, al albur de la jurisprudencia del TEDH, desarrolla una Teoría que exige hoy a los Estados actuaciones posi- tivas legiferantes en pro de la tutela de ciertos Dere- chos e intereses de los ciudadanos, dilucidándose fi- nalmente si el actual vacío legal responde a la idea de infraprotección por falta de proporcionalidad o real- mente a una subinclusión desigualitaria.

 

Simona Vezzoli, How do borders influence migration? Insights from open and closed border regimes in the three Guianas, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

The ways border regimes affect migration patterns remain ambiguous. Closed borders may constrain migration but also encourage migrants to pursue alternative migration channels and destinations. While open borders may be associated with higher migration, oftentimes they promote circulation and return. To clarify how different border regimes influence migration patterns, this article examines the impact of open and closed border regimes on migration outcomes in Guyana, Suriname and French Guiana in the 1950s–1980s period, when all three gained independence or non-sovereign status and colonial ties were strong. The article proposes a conceptual schematic model that can accommodate varied post-colonial political and border regime transitions and explains changes in the timing, destination and composition of migration. The analysis finds that, counterintuitively, closed borders can lead to high emigration while open borders can encourage people to stay. The proposed model also illustrates the relevance of three dimensions of time: the historical juncture, the sequence of change and the time span. In sum, rather than preventing migration, border regimes yield important effects that lead to migration diversification.

 

Felix-Christopher von Nostitz, Party expats? Mapping transnational party branches of French, German and UK parties, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Today many parties interact with members and supporters outside their national borders. One way parties do so is by establishing transnational party branches. However so far, there is a lack of theoretical and empirical research exploring this transnational aspect of party activity. This paper provides a first insight into why parties develop transnational branches, and how it affects their organization. It argues that the development of party branches abroad differs across countries due to the incentives provided by the national legal framework on voting and donations from abroad. In turn, the role and functions of the transnational branches vary depending on this legal framework. Looking at the two transnational branches of the two mainstream parties in France, Germany and the United Kingdom, this paper first briefly outlines the different national legal frameworks and the scope and size of transnational party branches. It then focuses on how they are organized, their role and function, and how this shapes their relationship to their homeland party. This explorative research is mainly based on legal and secondary data. The paper finds that the parties studied differ substantially in location, number and membership size for their transnational branches. Furthermore, the organizational links and the control by the national party over transnational party branches is the highest where parties have the most to gain in terms of votes in national elections and donations.

 

Post

Pernille Boye Koch, Harsh immigration policy leads to a historic impeachment trial in Denmark, in verfassungsblog.de, 3 marzo 2021

In early February 2021, the Danish Parliament took the extraordinary step of initiating an impeachment trial against Inger Støjberg, Minister of Immigration between 2015 and 2019. The trial is the last chapter in a controversial and complex case on the treatment of asylum-seeking couples, where one partner is under 18. In 2016, the Minister issued a directive about the separation of all such couples, without exception, and the administration carried it into effect. This directive was later declared clearly illegal according to both Danish administrative law and the European Convention on Human Rights. The case is an illustration of an ongoing tension between constitutional law and human rights on the one hand, and Danish immigration policy, on the other.

  

Jorrit J. Rijpma, Let’s not forget about Schengen, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 12 marzo 2021

In 2011, the closure of the French-Italian border by France in response to the arrival of Tunisian migrants who had been given an Italian temporary residence, was but a glimpse of things to come. In 2015, the ‘refugee crisis’ led one Member State after the other to reinstate checks at its internal border. Many of these checks have remained in place until this very day, despite clear time limits laid down in secondary law, with Member States invoking both the situation at the external borders and so-called ‘secondary movements’ of asylum applicants as justification. The absence of border controls in Europe remains closely linked to common rules on migration and asylum, many of which find their origin in the Schengen flanking measures. The New Pact on Migration and Asylum has hailed the Schengen area as one the most important successes in European integration, but given the continued disruption of borderless travel, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, one would have expected a ‘comprehensive’ approach to have included concrete proposals for the governance of the Schengen area. Yet, the Commission merely announced a Strategy on the Future of Schengen, to be presented in the first half of 2021.

 

Ed Robinson, Pragmatic reconciliation and pragmatic avoidance: The UK Supreme Court faces the norm conflict on abducted (refugee?) children in G v G, in EJIL:Talk!, 25 marzo 2021

The topic of this post is a Supreme Court ruling from Friday 19 March, ‘G v G’, and specifically its approach to the potentially conflicting treaties respectively governing (a) the protection of refugees and (b) the return of abducted children to their previous state of residence. The Court demonstrated a commendable refusal to inflict undue violence on either of the regimes at issue; there was no (to borrow from Milanovic) ‘creative’ or ‘forced’ avoidance or ‘reading down’ of their requirements. There were instead extensive efforts to find practical measures to meet the requirements of both; however in the most intractable areas the Court effectively delegated the ‘dirty’ work of reconciling the potentially irreconcilable to other actors in the UK’s domestic law system. This post summarises those aspects of the judgment, examining the case from the international law perspective. Citations to the ruling of the Supreme Court (or ‘the Court’) are included in square brackets below.

 

Eleanor Sharpston QC, Shadow Opinion of former Advocate-General Sharpston: headscarves at work (Cases C-804/18 and C-341/19), in eulawanalysis.blogspot, 23 marzo 2021

I set out below my ‘Shadow Opinion’ [1] in two Grand Chamber cases which were allocated to me as Advocate General in 2019. As usual, my team and I worked on them thereafter in order to prepare an Opinion. They were however delayed and were reallocated to my successor Advocate General Rantos after my departure from office on 10 September 2020. By that stage, the EU taxpayer had already funded a significant amount of initial ‘team Sharpston’ work and thought on the problems highlighted by these two references. More fundamentally, the issues that they raise about the wearing of the Islamic headscarf – the ‘hijab’ – are ones that go to the heart of the question, ‘what kind of a European Union should we be building for the future?’ I have therefore since done what was required to complete this ‘Shadow Opinion’. [2] I offer it as a public contribution to the debate that needs to take place, both inside and outside the Court, on an important and sensitive topic.

 

Lieneke Slingenberg, Political Compromise on a Recast Asylum Reception Conditions Directive: Dignity Without Autonomy?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 3 marzo 2021

In 2016, as part of the European Agenda on Migration, the European Commission published a proposal for a recast of the Asylum Reception Conditions Directive. This proposal aimed to further harmonise reception conditions in the EU; reduce incentives for secondary movements; and increase applicants’ self-reliance and possible integration prospects. In 2018, the Council of the EU and the European Parliament reached provisional agreement on the proposal. However, the political representatives of the member states (in Coreper) could not agree with the compromise text andit was concluded that ‘further attempts at the technical level should be made to gain further support from delegations’. Subsequently, the presidency presented some amendments to the compromise text, on the basis of whichnegotiations had to be reopened. The proposal has, to date, not yet been adopted.

Libri

 

Emma Carmel, Katharina Lenner, Regine Paul, Handbook on the Governance and Politics of Migration, Edward Elgar, 2021

This innovative Handbook sets out a conceptual and analytical framework for the critical appraisal of migration governance. Global and interdisciplinary in scope, the chapters are organised across six key themes: conceptual debates; categorisations of migration; governance regimes; processes; spaces of migration governance; and mobilisations around it. Leading international contributors critically assess categorisations and conceptualisations of migration to address theoretical concerns including transnationalism and de-colonisation, climate change, development, humanitarianism, bordering, technologies and the role of time. They closely examine practices of migration governance and politics, and their effects, across diverse spaces, processes and forms of mobilisation. They draw on up-to-date examples from across the globe in order to examine how migrants, whether forced or voluntary, are governed. Reviewing the latest developments in migration governance research through empirically rich and conceptually concise appraisals, the Handbook problematises orthodox perspectives and discusses how a critical reading can add to our understanding of the governance and politics of migration. This Handbook is an invaluable resource for scholars and students of migration, human rights and public policy. Its interdisciplinary approach and wide range of empirical examples will also be useful for policy makers in these fields.

 

Catherine Dauvergne, Simon Fraser, Research Handbook on the Law and Politics of Migration, Edward Elgar, 2021

As the law and politics of migration become increasingly intertwined, this thought-provoking Research Handbook addresses the challenge of analysing their relationship. Discussing the evolving theoretical approaches to migration, it explores the growing attention given to the legal frameworks for migration and the expansion of regulation, as migration moves to the centre of the global political agenda. The Research Handbook demonstrates that the overlap between law and politics puts the rule of law at risk in matters of migration as advocates around the globe increasingly turn to law to address the challenges of new migration politics. Presenting a fresh mapping of current issues in the field, it focusses on institutions of migration and analyses the securitization of migration management and the strengths and weaknesses of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Written by leading scholars specialising in a range of disciplines, the Research Handbook on the Law and Politics of Migration will be an illuminating read for academics and students of migration studies with backgrounds in law, politics, criminology, sociology, history, geography and beyond.

 

Anna Ginty, Climate Change Solutions and Environmental Migration. The Injustice of Maladaptation and the Gendered ‘Silent Offset’ Economy, Routledge, 2021

This book lifts the taboo on maladaptation, a different driver of environmentally induced migration, which shines a light on the negative consequences arising from the solutions to climate change, adaptation and mitigation policies. Through a systematic analysis and critique of existing mitigation and adaptation polices under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and international development community, and supplemented by a small empirical study in Indonesia, this book catalogues how maladaptation is manufactured under existing climate change solutions. It posits that customary communities in general- and women in particular- are disproportionately affected by the dominant market-driven logics that underscore current climate change solutions adopted by the UNFCCC. The injustice of maladaptation is highlighted as multi-faceted and explored using political, economic, social and ecological lenses, and the concept of environmental reintegration is also explored as a possible solution to this issue. Further possibilities are then presented in the Afterword, as a combination of what the new (post-neoliberalism) conjuncture could potentially look like. This volume will be of great interest to students, scholars and practitioners of climate change, environmental policy, environmental migration and displacement, development studies, I/NGOs and civil society actors and activists more broadly.

 

Emre Eren Korkmaz, Digital Identity, Virtual Borders and Social Media. A Panacea for Migration Governance?, Edward Elgar, 2021

This insightful book discusses how states deploy frontier and digital technologies to manage and control migratory movements. Assessing the development of blockchain technologies for digital identities and cash transfer; artificial intelligence for smart borders, resettlement of refugees and assessing asylum applications; social media and mobile phone applications to track and surveil migrants, it critically examines the consequences of new technological developments and evaluates their impact on the rights of migrants and refugees. Chapters evaluate the technology-based public-private projects that govern migration globally and illustrate the political implications of these virtual borders. International contributors compare and contrast different forms of political expression, in both personal technologies, such as social media for refugees and smugglers, and automated decision-making algorithms used by states to enable migration governance. This timely book challenges hegemonic approach to migration governance and provides cases demonstrating the dangers of employing frontier technologies denying basic rights, liberties and agencies of migrants and refugees. Stepping into a contentious political climate for migrants and refugees, this provocative book is ideal reading for scholars and researchers of political science and public policy, particularly those focusing on migration and refugee studies. It will also benefit policymakers and practitioners dealing with migration, such as humanitarian NGOs, UN agencies and local authorities.

 

Tamás Molnár, The Interplay between the EU’s Return Acquis and International Law, Edward Elgar, 2021

This insightful book thoroughly examines how the EU’s return acquis is inspired by, and integrates, international migration and human rights law. It also explores how this body of EU law has shaped international law-making relating to the removal of non-nationals. Set against the background of the classic doctrine on the ‘autonomy of EU law’ and the EU’s objective to ‘develop international law’, Tamás Molnár depicts a legally sound and elaborate picture of the EU’s return acquis vis-à-vis international law, both internally and externally. From the perspective of the EU legal order, it offers important insights into this field from both a constitutional perspective and from the point of view of the substantive area of migration law. Chapters provide in-depth analysis of the EU’s return-related legislative developments reflecting international law and the expanding return-related jurisprudence of the EU Court of Justice. Bridging the gap between EU and international law, which both have unique characteristics and are often studied in different spheres, this book will appeal to academics and practising lawyers dealing with the expulsion of migrants in irregular situations. It will also be a useful read for law scholars, practitioners and postgraduate students who wish to further their understanding of the interactions between these two legal orders.

 

Colin G. Pooley, Ian D. Whyte, Migrants, Emigrants and Immigrants.A Social History of Migration, Routledge, 2021

Originally published in 1991, this book covers an usually long time – from the 17th to the 20th Century – and considers the impact of internal migration and immigration (primarily in Britain) as well as emigration to North America, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. Population movements are now recognized to be an integral part of structural change within society and this book brings together a variety of approaches. Drawing on the findings of historians, geographers and sociologists, the essays highlight areas of concern and illustrate some of the directions research on migration was taking in the early 1990s.

 

Ugur Yildiz, Tracing Asylum Journeys.Transnational Mobility of Non-European Refugees to Canada via Turkey, Routledge, 2021

This book explores the asylum journey of non-European asylum applicants who seek asylum in Turkey before resettling in Canada with the aid of the Canadian government’s assisted resettlement programme. Based on ethnographic research among Syrian, Afghan, Eritrean, Ethiopian, Iraqi, Iranian, Somali, Sudanese and Congolese nationals it considers the interactions of asylum seekers with both UNHCR’s refugee status determination and Canada’s refugee resettlement programme. With attention to the practices of migrants, the author shows how the asylum journey contains both mobility and stasis and constitutes a micro-political image of the fluidity and relativity of attributed identities and labels on the part of state migration systems. A multi-sited ethnography that shows how the migration journey is linked to the production and reproduction of knowledge, as well as the diffusion of produced knowledge among past, present, and future asylum seekers who form trans-local social networks in the course of their route, in Turkey, and in Canada. Tracing Asylum Journeys will appeal to sociologists and political scientists with interests in migration and transnational studies, and refugee and asylum settlement.

 

Articoli

Daniele Archibugi, Marco Cellini, Mattia Vitiello, Refugees in the European Union: from emergency alarmism to common management, in Journal of Contemporary European Studies, 2021, n. 1

The flows of refugees have ignited the European political debate, thereby boosting nationalistic forces in almost all countries. The aim of this paper is to counterbalance a widespread view about their overall impact and show that the number of asylum seekers did not represent a ‘refugee crises’. It argues, however, that the current European Union institutions and procedures are highly insufficient to successfully manage refugee inflows and asylum requests. It is often forgotten that large number of refugees are created from conflicts initiated or not prevented by EU members themselves. Once the problem comes into existence, as the procedures based on the Dublin Convention are widely recognised as inadequate, the paper provides a few suggestions for implementing radical changes to manage refugees and asylum seekers in the EU.

 

Linn Biorklund Belliveau, Rhonda Ferguson, Normalising the Exceptional: The Use of Temporary Protection in Transit Countries to Externalise Borders and Responsibilities, in Geopolitics, 2021, n. 3

Temporary protection is increasingly presented as a ‘novel approach’ to displaced people that have crossed an international border as it can provide a level of protection and access to basic social services for a defined time period. This paper calls into question the objectives of such measures by highlighting the geopolitical context in which they operate. We argue that while temporary arrangements, particularly in so-called ‘transit’ countries, may address humanitarian needs of displaced people, they also embed precarity and temporality into protection norms. Combined with polices that externalise migration management, they risk normalising the exclusion of individuals from avenues to permanent protection in a country that they feel safe. By analysing the potential implications of holding temporary status, with recipients’ well-being and permanent status application in mind, an alternative lens is provided. Using examples of temporary protection mechanisms in Turkey and Mexico, we argue that a deeper critical assessment is needed to understand their impact for people.

 

William Chiaromonte, Madia D’Onghia, Migranti, lavoro e pandemia: nuovi problemi, vecchie risposte?, in Rivista giuridica del lavoro e della previdenza sociale, 2021, n. 1

L’emergenza Coronavirus ha colpito tutti, ma ancor di più gli emarginati, i deboli, gli ultimi, i precari, gli invisibili e, fra questi, i migranti irregolari. Uomini e donne stranieri, già prima dell’emergenza in una condizione di particolare vulnerabilità, si sono ritrovati drammatica-mente privi di ogni forma di tutela, specie ove si consideri la loro presenza in insediamenti informali rurali dove è praticamente impossibile garantire il tanto invocato «distanziamento sociale»; mancano qui del tutto i servizi minimi per l’igiene personale, a partire dall’acqua corrente e dai servizi igienici fino ai dispositivi di protezione individuale, quali mascherine, guanti, detergenti specifici ecc. Basti pensare ai ghetti agricoli, vere e proprie baraccopoli, o anche ai ricoveri per persone senza fissa dimora dove si tro-vano tanti stranieri rimasti privi di accoglienza e di permesso di soggiorno a seguito dell’abrogazione della protezione umanitaria. E lo stesso può dir-si per i luoghi di lavoro, campi e molte fabbriche, dove i lavoratori sono a stretto contatto tra di loro senza misure di protezione.

 

Marianne Garvik & Marko Valenta, Seeking asylum in Scandinavia: a comparative analysis of recent restrictive policy responses towards unaccompanied afghan minors in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

This article investigates recently imposed restrictions in the asylum regimes in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The purpose of the paper is twofold. First, we aim to identify general changes in asylum policies and asylum legislation. Second, we discuss and compare the policy tools, practices and legislation that have undermined the rights of unaccompanied Afghan minors. We also observe new tools of internal and external deterrence and restrictive asylum policies, combined with tighter border controls. In the case of adult asylum seekers from Afghanistan, high rejection rates and deportations were used for years as an important tool of deterrence. However, these tools were seldom used against unaccompanied Afghan minors before the large influx of asylum seekers in 2015. Since 2015, increased use of rejections, combined with temporary protections, have emerged as the major tools for restriction. We identify similarities and differences in the policy restrictions targeting unaccompanied minors between the countries. Although we identify some recent diverging trends in Scandinavian asylum policies regarding unaccompanied minors from Afghanistan, the general trend of policy restrictions still prevails in all three countries.

 

Hein de Haas, A theory of migration: the aspirations- capabilities framework, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

This paper elaborates an aspirations–capabilities framework to advance our understanding of human mobility as an intrinsic part of broader processes of social change. In order to achieve a more meaningful understanding of agency and structure in migration processes, this framework conceptualises migration as a function of aspirations and capabilities to migrate within given sets of perceived geographical opportunity structures. It distinguishes between the instrumental (means-to-an-end) and intrinsic (directly wellbeing-affecting) dimensions of human mobility. This yields a vision in which moving and staying are seen as complementary manifestations of migratory agency and in which human mobility is defined as people’s capability to choose where to live, including the option to stay, rather than as the act of moving or migrating itself. Drawing on Berlin’s concepts of positive and negative liberty (as manifestations of the widely varying structural conditions under which migration occurs) this paper conceptualises how macro- structural change shapes people’s migratory aspirations and capabilities. The resulting framework helps to understand the complex and often counter-intuitive ways in which processes of social transformation and ‘development’ shape patterns of migration and enable us to integrate the analysis of almost all forms of migratory mobility within one meta-conceptual framework.

 

Lena Kainz, Alexander Betts, Power and proliferation: Explaining the fragmentation of global migration governance, in Migration Studies, 2021, n. 1

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).

 

Anna Liguori (a cura di), Il nuovo Patto europeo sulla migrazione e l’asilo: novità e continuità, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2021, n. 1

 

Thomas Kolnberger, Harlan Koff, Addressing seeming paradoxes by embracing them: small state theory and the integration of migrants, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

This article examines the integration of migrants in Luxembourg within the framework of small state theory. Within the comparative scholarship on migration, small states are often presented as “success stories.” This research questions this assumption and empirical data presented here indicates that many contradictions exist within Luxembourg’s migrant integration model. The country’s “success” in fact does not reflect the levels of integration of migrants nationally as significant inequalities are present in Luxembourg. However, the analysis of Luxembourg presented here illustrates how small states have coherently embraced many paradoxes that are inherent to integration strategies throughout Europe with the goal of promoting peaceful coexistence.

 

Simone Innico, Enacting Statehood in Places of Exception: The Structural Effect of Statehood on Greek Migration Management, in Ethnopolitics, 2021, n. 2

The aim of this paper is to outline an analytic perspective on the notion of statehood, state authorities’ performance in situations of exceptionality, and to present some insights from ethnographic research in the context of migration in contemporary Greece. Following Timothy Mitchell’s thesis on the ‘effect of state’, taking into account Giorgio Agamben’s and Michel Foucault’s theories regarding the ‘state of exception’ and ‘exceptionalised institutions’, as well as Erving Goffman’s ‘dramaturgical perspective’ on the studies of social interactions, it is argued that 1. the ongoing cases of illegal and unsanctioned practices carried out by police and army officers in the Greek migration context should be interpreted, first and foremost, as mere practices of statehood enactment; 2. the ‘state of exception’ is not merely a useful spatialised device used by state authorities for mobility-control purposes, but rather an essential trait of statehood enactment itself. In order to reconcile the internal ambiguities inherent in the convoluted ensemble of perceived notions about what ‘a state’ is and how ‘a state’ does what it is supposed to do, it will be argued that, statehood enactment, by its very definition and constitution, frequently requires recurring to an ‘institutionalised state of exception’. From a broader viewpoint, these arguments question some supposedly non-problematic assumptions about the (concrete or abstract) nature of the state, while at the same time proposing an examination of the epistemological status of migranthood.

 

Anna Lindley, What are we afraid of? Exploring risk and immigration detention, in Migration Studies, 2021, n. 1

Risk assessment is a prominent feature of managed migration regimes. How risk is conceptualised and operationalised, however, is highly contested terrain. The extent to which immigration detention represents an appropriate response to specific risks posed by people with contingent or no legal status is particularly hotly debated. In the UK, an early adopter and until recently an eager developer of detention , the policy is that immigration officers carry out individualised risk assessments on each person detained, considering removal prospects, risk of flight, and offending as well as the risk of harm to the individual. Drawing on published reports, government statistics, and interviews with close observers, this article explores the premises, policy, practice, and outcomes of these processes. The analysis flags multiple issues, suggesting that risk evaluation in relation to immigration detention is far from a well-oiled and reliable machine, causes unnecessary human harm, operates in a way that generates unforeseen risks for wider society, and points to other logics shaping detention.

 

Ricardo Nogales, Christian Oldiges, International labour migration and the many forms of poverty, in Migration Studies, 2021, n. 1

The discourse on migration and poverty has largely shown that international labour migration reduces monetary poverty for the migrant-sending households. With the international consensus that poverty is multidimensional and goes beyond income alone, many studies evaluate the nexus between migration and non-monetary aspects of life, such as education and health. These show mixed evidence. Far fewer studies assess whether suffering from simultaneous deprivations in multiple indicators of well-being is affected by migration—which would be a full multidimensional poverty analysis at the household level. To assess the value-added of the latter, we empirically compare three approaches to measure poverty and the effect of migration on the three. These are (1) a solely monetary approach, (2) a dashboard approach that considers several non-monetary well-being deprivations, and (3) a counting approach that evaluates whether the multiple deprivations manifest themselves jointly. Using household panel data for rural Bangladesh, we assess how the association between international labour migration and poverty among the stay-behind household members changes in light of the three approaches. The endogenous nature of migration in this connection is explicitly addressed by applying a Hausman–Taylor estimation procedure. We corroborate that poverty is related to a lower likelihood of being monetary poor, but we do not find that it is associated with an increased likelihood of exiting multidimensional poverty altogether. However, we do find that it is associated with a lower likelihood of facing simultaneous deprivations in terms of sanitation, electricity, and asset-ownership among those who live in multidimensional poverty.

 

Roberta Perna, Street-level workers, managers and institutional tensions: a comparative ethnography of healthcare practices of in/exclusion in three Italian public organisations, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Public organisations are fundamental actors in migrant incorporation processes, as they are in charge of assessing migrants’ entitlement and providing access to welfare services. While a lot has been written on the individual determinants of street-level decisions, the role of organisational and institutional factors in shaping implementation practices has received little attention so far. By linking the street-level bureaucracy approach and the neo-institutionalist perspective in organisational analysis, this article investigates how public organisations mediate migrant incorporation processes in the field of healthcare. Drawing on a comparative ethnographic study of three public health organisations in an Italian region, the paper suggests that, in times of institutional tensions, managers’ priorities and framings of the issue, the ways they respond to decision-makers’ goals and allocate resources for implementing them, orient – and lead to variation in – street-level healthcare practices of in/exclusion for migrants with irregular status.

 

Post

Elspeth Guild, The Frontex Push-Back Controversy: What Oversight for Frontex?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, Part. I, Par. II, 19 e 22 aprile 2021

Revelations about Frontex’s potential unlawful actions in the Eastern Mediterranean began to appear first as the result of a joint investigation by Bellingcat, Lighthouse Reports, Der Spiegel, ARD and TV Asah published on 23 October 2020 and then picked up by the New York Times, on 26 November 2020. The essence of the allegations are that Frontex has been involved in forcing little boats with potential refugees on board away from Greek islands and back to Turkish waters contrary to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which found such collective expulsion unlawful. […] Although a report by a special working group set up by the Management Board of the Agency (consisting of representatives of seven Member States and the Commission) set up to investigate media allegations that staff, ships or aircraft working with or financially supported by Frontex had been engaged in violations, did not find sufficient evidence to establish responsibility in respect of the five specific events published in March 2021, this has not calmed the controversy.

 

Marko Milanovic, Drowning Migrants in the Mediterranean and the ICCPR, Again, in ejiltalk.org, 26 aprile 2021

Last week 130 migrants perished off the coast of Libya, as their rubber boat capsized in the stormy Mediterranean. Some 750 migrants have died this year in trying to make the crossing. (See here for the IOM report, and here and here for the recent posts we had on this topic by Guy Goodwin-Gill, and Niamh Keady-Tabbal and Itamar Mann). There is little I can usefully add here in discussing a human tragedy such as this one – again, again and again. But I was particularly struck by the following passage from the Guardian’s report on the incident, in light of the Human Rights Committee’s recent decisions regarding Italy and Malta and the extraterritorial application of the duty to protect life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

Rebecca O’Donnell, Spotlight on the Best Interests of the Child in Returns of Unaccompained Children & Reflections for the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 13 aprile 2021

On January 14, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a landmark judgment concerning the interpretation of the provisions of the EU Return Directive in cases involving unaccompanied children whose claim for international protection has been rejected (Case C-441/19 TQ v Staatssecretariis van Justitie en Veiligheid). The interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Return Directive, in particular Articles 5 and 10, has been explored extensively in policy discussions since its adoption over 10 years ago.  The centrality of the principle of the best interests of the child has been increasingly emphasised in asylum and migration policy; however authorities still struggle with its operationalisation.  The Court’s ruling is valuable in its concrete demonstration of how EU law, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights, requires the principle to be applied in this context.

 

Calla Randall, The Weekly Round-Up: are immigrants and asylum seekers getting their day in court?, in ukhumanrightsblog.com, 19 aprile 2021

The rights of immigrants and asylum seekers have been at the forefront of the news this week, with the Home Secretary coming under fire both in the courts and in the political arena. On Wednesday, a landmark court ruling held Ms Patel accountable for failures properly to investigate deaths among asylum seekers at detention centres. The case concerned two Nigerian nationals, one of whom was found dead in Harmondsworth immigration centre in 2019. His friend, Mr Lawal, was a key witness in the investigation of the death, but the Home Office sought to deport him before he could give evidence. The court held that the Home Secretary’s initial policy, which sought to remove Mr Lawal, its replacement, applied from August 2020, and the current policy, were unlawful and breached human rights because they failed to ensure that those who had relevant information would be able to give evidence before removal proceedings were commenced, thus frustrating inquiries into immigration centre deaths. Days later it was reported that this may be a widespread problem, with suggestions that scores of people had been prevented from giving key evidence to police investigations as a result of early deportation. While Ms Patel was warned that this practice must be curbed by a coroner in August, it is suggested that her response did little to address the problem.

 

Laura Salzano, Frontex accountability: an impervious path, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 19 aprile 2021

Since its creation in 2004, Frontex’ role and responsibilities have been some of the most debated issues among EU and human rights observers. Reasons for such attention are many: misuse of power, lack of transparency and non-cooperative behavior are just some of the allegations addressed to the Agency by professionals as policy experts and lawyers, academia, activists and NGOs. Such criticisms are not only exogenous to the EU: the Frontex Consultative Forum (established in 2012, it assists the Executive Director and the Management Board in fundamental rights matters) expressed serious concerns in its annual reports for many consecutive years. It disclosed that the Management Board undermined the Fundamental Right Officer’s independence by appointing a former Adviser of the Executive Director as Fundamental Rights Officer ad interim; more seriously, it denounced the Agency’s reluctance to provide the needed human resources to the Fundamental Rights Office and to limit the Forum’s access of information. Also, it brought the ineffectiveness of the Individual Complaint Mechanism to the public’s attention: in 2018 only 3 incidents for alleged violations and 10 complaints were reported: an incredibly low number considering the 1500 officers deployed along the EU’s external borders.

 

Niamh Keady-Tabbal, Itamar Mann, “Pushbacks” as Euphemism, in ejiltalk.org, 14 aprile 2021

Late in March, the UN Refugee Agency, UNHCR, declared that it identified “hundreds” of migrant pushbacks from Greece. These have allegedly occurred in the Aegean and in the Evros region – the Northern land border between Greece and Turkey. While Greece continues to deny these allegations, it has now become abundantly clear that this is mere gaslighting. Aegean Boat Report, one of the most persistent documenters of these events, holds an enormous trove of photographic and other evidence of these actions. Leading media sites, as well as politicians in Brussels, have acknowledged these actions. In our own work with migrants and refugees, as scholars and advocates, we have often heard first-hand accounts of these violations. The term “pushback” has emerged from the discourse of refugee advocates. It is a non-technical term to refer to a violation of the basic prohibition of refugee law – that of non-refoulement: no one should be returned to where they may suffer well-founded fear of persecution or ill-treatment. It is also a procedural safeguard ensuring that anyone with an asylum claim will be heard; and shorthand for the prohibition of collective expulsion. In the context of the pushbacks now flagged by UNHCR, the policy’s victims are “pushed back” to Turkey.

Libri

David Miller, Christine Straehle, The Political Philosophy of Refuge, Cambridge, 2021

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.

 

Articoli

Benjamin Boudou, Hans Leaman, Maximilian Miguel Scholz, Sacred Welcomes. How Religious Reasons, Structures, and Interactions Shape Refugee Advocacy and Settlement, in Migration and Society, 2021, n. 1

This special section explores the role of religious ideas and religious associations in shaping the response of states and non-state actors to asylum-seekers and refugees. It brings together insights from anthropology, law, history, and political theory to enrich our understanding of how religious values and resources are mobilized to respond to refugees and to circumvent usual narratives of secularization. Examining these questions within multicultural African, European, and North American contexts, the special section argues that religion provides moral reasons and structural support to welcome and resettle refugees, and constitutes a framework of analysis to better understand the social, legal, and political dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in contexts of migration.

 

Laurent Faret, María Eugenia Anguiano Téllez, Luz Helena Rodríguez-Tapia, Migration Management and Changes in Mobility Patterns in the North and Central American Region, in Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2021, n. 3.

Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, changes have occurred in the regional dynamics of international migration and in the ways governments manage human mobility. This article argues that the migratory system connecting the three northern countries of Central America (Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras) with Mexico and the United States has not been accompanied by regional management of migratory flows. Instead, a succession of government plans and projects reveals a perspective marked by the effects of the “externalization” of US borders, leading to more complex migration routes and increased vulnerability of migrants. The article discusses how externalized control policies influence migratory spaces, routes, and timelines, and leave many stranded in transit countries before they eventually arrive at their intended destinations. Reconsidering the process of mobility in light of migration management policies would appropriately enlarge the traditional economic, social, cultural, and environmental factors that affect migration strategies.

 

Helena Hof, Simon Pemberton, Emilia Pietka-Nykaza, EU migrant retention and the temporalities of migrant staying: a new conceptual framework, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Challenges of weak economic growth, population decline, and labour shortages led many countries across the world to introduce immigration policy changes in order to attract foreign migrants. This paper focuses on Japan (Tokyo) and the UK (Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow) given common concerns over long term demographic trends and the burgeoning lack of labour supply in particular sectors of the economy through use of foreign labour. The paper shifts the focus from efforts focused on attracting and selecting foreign labour to the retention of such individuals. Drawing on research with EU migrants in Japan and the UK, the paper highlights how staying may occur after a period of mobility, rather than only being of relevance to those who never left their home region. The paper develops a new conceptual framework, which helps to identify different dimensions that shape migrant staying as a temporal process. It is highlighted how staying is shaped incrementally and facilitated or undermined over time in relation to the reciprocal importance of diverse assets, anchors and the changing biographies of migrants and the places in which they live – as well as the relational aspects of migrants’ ‘linked lives’.

 

Federico Lenzerini, The Management of Refugee Flows in Times of Pandemic: COVID-19 and Beyond, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2021, n. 1

Restrictive immigration measures adopted by governments in the first months of 2020 to contain the COVID-19 pandemic have determined a drastic decrement of asylum applications in countries of destination of asylum seekers. However, these kinds of restrictive policies, when taken in times of pandemic, are likely to reverberate on reception countries as boomerangs taking the form of illegal immigration and smuggling of migrants, causing an increment of asylum applications in contexts where the risks attached to the pandemic would make it very hard for States to comply with their legal obligations pursuant to international asylum and human rights law. However, the adoption of appropriate measures with the purpose of guaranteeing both compliance with pertinent international obligations and protection of public health against the spread of a pandemic appears possible, especially if accompanied by the development of ad hoc schemes of international cooperation, which would certainly represent the best possible approach to adequately reconcile all the different needs involved.

 

Anna Liguori (a cura di), Il nuovo Patto europeo sulla migrazione e l’asilo: novità e continuità, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2021, n. 1

On 23 September 2020, the European Commission presented ‘A new pact on migration and asylum’, a policy document accompanied by a package of legislative proposals. After some general comments on the Pact, this contribution intends to focus on cooperation with third countries, in particular on the question whether the Pact is able to overcome the current shortcomings of EU external policies, or rather risks consolidating them.

 

Virginia Passalacqua, Legal mobilization via preliminary reference: Insights from the case of migrant rights, in Common Market Law Review, 2021, n. 3

Over the years, many theories have tried to explain the puzzle of cross-national variation in preliminary reference rates before the ECJ. Most of the contributions focused on the role of national judges, examining their legal education, policy preferences, workload, and attitude towards higher courts. This article adopts, instead, a legal mobilization perspective that decentralizes the role of courts and redirects the focus to the litigants and their political context. Relying on empirical research and on a comparison of three country case studies in the field of migration, the article argues that national patterns of mobilization influence the emergence of preliminary references. Moreover, it identifies three factors at the national level that help understand when legal mobilization occurs via preliminary reference: altruism, Euro-expertise, and EU legal opportunity structure. The article makes both an empirical and a theoretical contribution by bridging the scholarship on legal mobilization and EU judicial politics.

 

Luca Pressacco, Immigrazione irregolare via mare e limiti della giurisdizione penale italiana, in Jus-Online, 2021, n. 2

A livello teorico, in tutte le ipotesi in cui si riscontrano elementi di estraneità del reato, sorge il problema relativo all’ambito di applicazione della norma penale e ai limiti della connessa potestà giurisdizionale. Tuttavia, una volta che sia stata riconosciuta l’ispirazione tendenzialmente universalistica dell’ordinamento penale sostanziale – se non dal punto di vista strettamente dogmatico, almeno per le esigenze applicative – rimane essenzialmente da determinare l’estensione della giurisdizione penale: tale operazione, infatti, si pone «in rapporto di autonomia con la sfera della vigenza della legge penale sostanziale». Non stupisce, dunque, che negli ultimi anni tale questione abbia assunto un rilievo centrale nell’ambito della prassi giurisprudenziale concernente l’immigrazione irregolare lungo le rotte del Mar Mediterraneo, trattandosi di illeciti propriamente transfrontalieri.

 

Giulia Santomauro, Sicurezza e frontiere: le politiche migratorie nell’emergenza europea e italiana, in federalismi.it, 2021, n. 13

L’intento del contributo è esplorare l’impatto delle accresciute istanze securitarie derivanti da situazioni emergenziali sulla disciplina delle frontiere, con particolare riferimento alle ripercussioni sui diritti dei migranti e dei richiedenti asilo. A tal fine, la questione sarà analizzata in considerazione della “crisi migratoria europea” e, soprattutto, dell’emergenza pandemica da Covid-19, prestando maggiore attenzione all’esperienza dell’Italia.

 

Sarah Spencer, Katharine Charsley, Reframing ‘integration’: acknowledging and addressing five core critiques, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Empirical and theoretical insights from the rich body of research on ‘integration’ in migration studies have led to increasing recognition of its complexity. Among European scholars, however, there remains no consensus on how integration should be defined nor what the processes entail. Integration has, moreover, been the subject of powerful academic critiques, some decrying any further use of the concept. In this paper we argue that it is both necessary and possible to address each of the five core critiques on which recent criticism has focused: normativity; negative objectification of migrants as ‘other’; outdated imaginary of society; methodological nationalism; and a narrow focus on migrants in the factors shaping integration processes. We provide a definition of integration, and a revised heuristic model of integration processes and the ‘effectors’ that have been shown to shape them, as a contribution to a constructive debate on the ways in which these challenges for empirical research can be overcome.

 

Adrian J. Shin, Exchange rates and immigration policy, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

What explains cross-national and temporal variations in migrant rights? This article argues that policymakers implement more exclusionary or inclusive policies toward migrants in response to exchange-rate fluctuations. Since exchange rates affect the real value of remittances, exchange-rate depreciation of the host state’s currency makes migration less valuable for existing and potential migrants, while exchange-rate appreciation increases the degree of migrant pressure on the host state by doing the opposite. This well-documented relationship between exchange rate valuation and migration movements affects how host country governments craft immigration policy. Under exchange-rate depreciation, policymakers will implement more inclusive policies to deter the “exit” of migrants and maintain a stable supply of labor. Under exchange-rate appreciation, increased migration pressures heighten public anxiety over immigration in the host country, in turn causing policymakers to restrict further immigration by implementing more exclusionary policies. Consistent with the argument, the empirical results show that the purchasing-power-parity (PPP) currency values of migrants’ home countries are positively correlated with more pro-migrant policies in host countries.

 

Niovi Vavoula, Information Sharing in the Dublin System: Remedies for Asylum Seekers In-Between Gaps in Judicial Protection and Interstate Trust, in German Law Journal, 2021, n. 3

In most EU policy areas, procedural cooperation between national administrations takes place through the shared implementation of “composite” decision-making procedures, facilitated by the operation of multijurisdictional networks or horizontal or vertical information exchange. In the context of asylum policy, such administrative cooperation has been necessary in the distribution of asylum seekers—in accordance with the Dublin III Regulation, which allocates responsibility among Member States to examine an asylum application. In addition to rules in the Regulation itself—Article 34—information sharing also takes place through Eurodac, an EU-wide centralized information system. This Article examines whether the Dublin system ensures effective judicial and administrative remedies in the operationalization of multijurisdictional information networks. It analyzes the relevant Eurodac and Dublin-related legislation, national implementation, and national case law through the lens of administrative cooperation. The assumption that the data exchanged has been acquired and processed lawfully, due to interstate trust, and the extent to which that assumption is rebuttable, are central themes throughout this Article. It is argued that administrative cooperation through information sharing takes precedence over the right to an effective remedy, and that, in practice, judicial and extrajudicial remedies are insufficient to protect asylum seekers.

 

Post

Raluca Bejan, Manuela Boatcă, Migrant Workers’ Safety Concerns Should be a Pandemic Priority, in verfassungsblog.de, 28 aprile 2021

The Hensgens family’s asparagus farm in the German district of Heinsberg made headlines on Deutsche Welle a couple of weeks ago. The Hensgens employ up to 150 people yearly on their farm, mostly Eastern European workers, specifically Romanians. In the news story, the Hensgens are portrayed as martyrs for having to face another difficult harvest season during the pandemic. As Heinsberg was a coronavirus hotspot last year, the Hensgens’ family business was deeply affected: some workers suddenly left as they were too afraid to work, and the family had to spend around 10,000 euros to purchase tickets for charter flights to bring new workers in. The Hensgens had to go through a lot to farm their 250 hectares of land.

 

Steve Peers, The revised Blue Card Directive: the EU’s search for more highly skilled non-EU migrants, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 20 maggio 2021

One sign of the difficulty in resolving differences of opinion within the EU on immigration and asylum issues (other than visas and border controls) is that no new legislation on these issues has been agreed since 2016 (that was the revised Directive on admission of students, researchers and trainees, discussed here). This five-year drought may soon to come to an end, with the recent agreement on revision of the Blue Card Directive on highly-qualified non-EU workers. (Note that the recent deal must still be formally approved by the Council and the European Parliament. This blog post is based on the full legal text of the agreed revised Directive. UPDATE, May 21 2021: the full text of the agreed Directive has  now been made public by Statewatch).

 

Aristi Volou, Feilazoo v. Malta: Immigration detention in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and beyond and the right of individual petition, in strasbourgobservers.com, 12 maggio 2021

On 11 March 2021, the First Section of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter the ‘Court’) delivered a highly anticipated judgment which concerned issues related to the Covid-19 pandemic. More precisely, in Feilazoo v. Malta, the Court was called upon to decide on the applicant’s immigration detention next to new arrivals in Covid-19 quarantine, as well as on the conditions and the lawfulness of his immigration detention and on issues related to the right of petition before the Court. Although we can praise the Court for its balanced approach to the question of access to medical treatment, other aspects of its decision on the conditions of detention are disappointing. First, the Court did not seize the opportunity to develop clear and adequate standards in the context of the deprivation of liberty during the Covid-19 pandemic and thus clearly failed to live up to expectations that it would play an active role in safeguarding the rights of those most affected by the pandemic such as detainees and prisoners. Second, the Court failed to consider all available evidence which would enable it to hold the respondent State accountable for overcrowding in detention.

Libri

Emma Carmel, Katharina Lenner, Regine Paul, Handbook on the Governance and Politics of Migration, Edward Elgar, 2021

This innovative Handbook sets out a conceptual and analytical framework for the critical appraisal of migration governance. Global and interdisciplinary in scope, the chapters are organised across six key themes: conceptual debates; categorisations of migration; governance regimes; processes; spaces of migration governance; and mobilisations around it. Leading international contributors critically assess categorisations and conceptualisations of migration to address theoretical concerns including transnationalism and de-colonisation, climate change, development, humanitarianism, bordering, technologies and the role of time. They closely examine practices of migration governance and politics, and their effects, across diverse spaces, processes and forms of mobilisation. They draw on up-to-date examples from across the globe in order to examine how migrants, whether forced or voluntary, are governed. Reviewing the latest developments in migration governance research through empirically rich and conceptually concise appraisals, the Handbook problematises orthodox perspectives and discusses how a critical reading can add to our understanding of the governance and politics of migration. This Handbook is an invaluable resource for scholars and students of migration, human rights and public policy. Its interdisciplinary approach and wide range of empirical examples will also be useful for policy makers in these fields.

 

Cathryn Costello, Michelle Foster, Jane McAdam, The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law, Oxford, 2021

The Oxford Handbook of International Refugee Law is a comprehensive, critical work, which analyses the state of research across the refugee law regime as a whole. Drawing together leading and emerging scholars, the Handbook provides both doctrinal and theoretical analyses of international refugee law and practice. It critiques existing law from a variety of normative positions, with several chapters identifying foundational flaws that open up space for radical rethinking. Many authors work directly in the field, and their contributions demonstrate how scholarship and practice can mutually inform each other.  Contributions assess a wide range of international legal instruments relevant to refugee protection, including from international human rights law, international humanitarian law, international migration law, the law of the sea, and international and transnational criminal law. Geographically, contributors examine regional and domestic laws and practices from around the world, with 10 chapters focused on specific regions. This Handbook provides an account, as well as a critique, of the status quo, and in so doing it sets the agenda for future academic research in international refugee law.

 

Rasika Ramburuth Jayasuriya, Children, Human Rights and Temporary Labour Migration Protecting the Child-Parent Relationship, Routledge, 2021

This book focuses on the neglected yet critical issue of how the global migration of millions of parents as low-waged migrant workers impacts the rights of their children under international human rights law. The work provides a systematic analysis and critique of how the restrictive features of policies governing temporary labour migration interfere with provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child that protect the child-parent relationship and parental role in children’s lives. Combining social and legal research, it identifies both potential harms to children’s well-being caused by prolonged child-parent separation and State duties to protect this relationship, which is deliberately disrupted by temporary labour migration policies. The book boldly argues that States benefitting from the labour of migrant workers share responsibility under international human rights law to mitigate harms to the children of these workers, including by supporting effective measures to maintain transnational child-parent relationships. It identifies measures to incorporate children’s best interests into temporary labour migration policies, offering ways to reduce interferences with children’s family rights. This book fills a gap that emerges at the intersection of child rights studies, migration research and existing literature on the purported nexus between labour migration and international development. It will be a valuable resource for academics, researchers and policymakers working in these areas.

 

Ulrike Krause, Difficult Life in a Refugee Camp. Gender, Violence, and Coping in Uganda, Oxford, 2021

Although refugee camps are established to accommodate, protect, and assist those fleeing from violent conflict and persecution, life often remains difficult there. Building on empirical research with refugees in a Ugandan camp, Ulrike Krause offers nuanced insights into violence, humanitarian protection, gender relations, and coping of refugees who mainly escaped the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This book explores how risks of gender-based violence against women, in particular, but also against men, persist despite and partly due to their settlement in the camp and the system established there. It reflects on modes and shortcomings of humanitarian protection, changes in gender relations, as well as strategies that the women and men use to cope with insecurities, everyday struggles, and structural problems occurring across different levels and temporalities.

 

Gil Loescher, Refugees: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford, 2021

Refugees and other forced migrants are one of the great contemporary challenges the world is confronting. Throughout the world people leave their home countries to escape war, natural disasters, and cultural and political oppression. Unfortunately, even today, the international community struggles to provide an adequate response to this vast population in need. This Very Short Introduction covers a broad range of issues around the causes and impact of the contemporary refugee crisis for both receiving states and societies, for global order, and for refugees and other forced migrants themselves. Gil Loescher discusses the identity of refugees, asylum seekers, and internally displaced persons and how they differ from other forced migrants. He also investigates the long history of the refugee phenomenon and how refugees became a central concern of the international community during the twentieth and twenty first centuries, as well as considering the responses provided by governments and international aid organisations to refugee needs. Loescher concludes by focussing on the necessity of these bodies to understand the realities of the contemporary refugee situation in order to best respond to its current and future challenges.

 

Articoli

Franca Attoh & Ebenezer Ishola, Migration and regional cooperation for development: ECOWAS in perspective, in Africa Review, 2021, vol. 14.

The phenomenon of migration involves the movement of people from one milieu to another. Different reasons underscore this movement by people such as escape from conflict, quest for greener pasture, search for employment, and coercion from criminal syndicates. This paper focuses on the dynamics of intra-regional migration in West Africa. The importance of migration within West Africa is emphasized in the region’s development agenda, Vision 2020, which places importance on regional resource development. Ease of migration is central to harnessing the region’s human resource potential for development ends. At inception, migration within West Africa was governed by the ECOWAS protocol on free movement of persons, residence, and establishment adopted in 1979. Within this framework, migration is considered as an integral element in the economic integration of the region. Hence, the protocol provides the right of entry for 90 days, residence and establishment for citizens of ECOWAS member countries. The ECOWAS Common Approach on Migration adopted in 2008 currently governs the migration process in the region. In interrogating migration governance in West Africa, this paper identifies challenges, such as, defective state capacities and continued underdevelopment, protectionist policies, language, colonial vestiges, such as, currency, among others, as factors militating against the successful exploitation of the region’s productive population for development ends.

 

Eugenio Cusumano, Flora Bell, Guilt by association? The criminalisation of sea rescue NGOs in Italian media, in Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 13.

The non-governmental organizations (NGOs) rescuing migrants off the coast of Libya have been increasingly criminalised. We investigate the discursive underpinnings of this process by analyzing all the articles on sea rescue NGOs published between 2014 and 2019 by two major Italian newspapers located at opposite sides of the political spectrum: Il Giornale and La Repubblica. Our discourse analysis shows that the media salience of non-governmental sea rescue increased enormously following the first public allegations against humanitarians and peaked in 2019 after some standoffs between some NGOs and the Italian government, when the number of migrants rescued at sea had already dropped to a minimum. This inflated and heavily politicised media coverage contains both direct and indirect criminalisation discourses. Though sometimes directly accused of colluding with human smugglers and profiting from irregular migration, sea rescue NGOs have more often been indirectly criminalised through the same framing devices typically used to stigmatise irregular mobility at large, namely associational links, metaphors, frame-jacking, and othering. 

 

Akira Igarashi, James Laurence, How does immigration affect anti-immigrant sentiment, and who is affected most? A longitudinal analysis of the UK and Japan cases, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Does increasing immigration affect natives’ attitudes towards immigrants? A significant volume of research has been conducted in Western contexts to explore this question. However, we know little about whether findings observed in Western societies translate to non-Western contexts. At the same time, there is a paucity of research into whether increasing immigration exerts differential-effects among different groups of individuals. Using Japanese and British longitudinal data, this study firstly compares and contrasts how immigrant-share in an environment affects anti-immigrant sentiment in Japan and Great Britain. Secondly, it explores two potential drivers of heterogeneity in the impact of immigration across individuals: (a) perceived financial situation, and (b) views towards the role government should play in issues of support for the vulnerable. Applying fixed-effects panel data modelling, the results show increasing immigration harms attitudes towards immigrants. Furthermore, these negative effects are stronger for those who perceive their financial situation is worse, and among those who lean further to the left on the role of government. Interestingly, these results are highly similar in Japan and the UK. Thus, these findings support similar mechanisms of the group-threat theory operating among natives in two distinct contexts.

 

Abdullah Khoso, Ahmad Hilmi Mohamad Noor, Migrant Workers in Malaysia: covid-19’s Impact on the Rights of their Children and Siblings in Pakistan, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 2021, vol. 29, n. 2

With the help of narratives of migrant workers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, this article seeks to understands the impacts of the covid-19 (known as the 2019 novel coronavirus) pandemic on the rights of their children and children’s siblings in Pakistan. The pandemic impacted the flow of remittances to their families, which further impacted children’s right to education, livelihoods and food. They also revealed that the pandemic had impacted their children’s right to protection, play and development. Children had lost the freedom to play and go outside, socialise and learn. Migrant workers’ children and siblings with limited financial support should have been provided with adequate financial and social security support by Pakistan, but they were not. They also revealed that during the pandemic, children were also regular victims of harsh treatment and physical abuse by adult family members, reflecting the exacerbation of issues of breaches of their fundamental right to protection and emotional integrity. 

 

Elizabeth Kiester, Jennifer Vasquez-Merino, A Virus Without Papers: Understanding COVID-19 and the Impact on Immigrant Communities, in Journal on Migration and Human Security, 2021, vol. 9, n. 2

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the inequalities facing vulnerable populations: those living in economically precarious situations and lacking adequate health care. In addition, frontline workers deemed essential to meet our basic needs have faced enormous personal risk to keep earning their paychecks and the economy running. Immigrant communities face an intersection of all three vulnerabilities (e.g., economic precarity, health care barriers, essential workforce), making them one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States. We conducted 26 interviews via Zoom with immigrant service providers in Pennsylvania and New York, including lawyers, case workers, religious leaders, advocates, doctors, and educators in order to gain a better understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on immigrant communities. These interviews affirmed that immigrants are concentrated in essential industries, which increases their exposure to the virus. In addition, they lack access to social safety nets when trying to access health care or facing job/income loss. Last, COVID-19 did not adequately slow the detention and deportation machine in the United States, which led to increased transmission of the virus among not only detainees but also others in the detention system, surrounding communities, and the countries to which people were deported, countries that often lacked an adequate infrastructure for dealing with the pandemic. Based on our interviews, we have a series of specific policy recommendations to diminish the vulnerability of immigrants and create social safety nets that will include them and protect them when the market fails to do so. Immigrants of all types have made indispensable contributions to the US economy during the pandemic and before it. First, Congress and states should pass legislation to provide COVID-19 relief payments to all essential workers, regardless of their status, as compensation for putting their lives on the line to keep the economy running. Second, as a public health imperative, federal and state governments should expand coverage of Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP) to include immigrant essential workers and their children, regardless of their status. Third, DHS should not refer essential workers to removal proceedings, and immigration courts should terminate all removal proceedings for essential workers without criminal records. When it comes to issues of health care affordability and access, Congress must continue to revise the Affordable Healthcare Act to expand coverage for those who do not qualify for Medicaid but earn too little to afford insurance on their own. Finally, there must be a review and rigorous enforcement of workplace health and safety standards, particularly when it comes to farming, meatpacking, food production, and food service industries. Our final recommendations are specific to DHS and two of the primary agencies they oversee: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Border Patrol. First, there needs to be a review of ICE policies and practices, leading to a shift in policy that keeps mixed-status families intact and minor children out of detention centers and that streamlines and expands the asylum process. Second, both Congress and the administration must create additional paths to legal status where none now exist, including for recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and for children who have arrived since June 2007.

 

Marcin Kromczyk, Nabil Khattab, Tahir Abbas, The limits of tolerance: before and after Brexit and the German Refugee Crisis, in Ethnic and Racial Studies, 2021, vol. 44, n. 16

This comparative statistical analysis is of tolerance and how it was perceived and experienced by minorities and majorities in the UK and Germany before and after two defining national events that both focused on immigration and national identity. Based on combined sweeps of the European Social Survey (2012–2018), this study applied logistic regression modelling to determine that during the Brexit vote in 2016 and the German Refugee Crisis in 2015, majorities from lower socioeconomic backgrounds were more likely to be intolerant towards minorities, who were more likely to experience discrimination. Majority intolerance and minority perceptions of discrimination increased after both events among less well-off groups. However, majorities from higher socioeconomic backgrounds were less likely to exhibit intolerance towards minorities before these national events and after. This study offers an original perspective on race and ethnic relations at times of national crises over identity and belonging.

 

Christine Lang, Accessing the public workforce: Organisational recruitment practices and the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of immigrant origin, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Organisations are important gatekeepers in the labour market inclusion of immigrants and their children. Research has regularly documented ethnic discrimination in hiring decisions. Aiming to further our understanding of the role of organisations in influencing the professional trajectories of individuals of immigrant origin, this paper investigates the recruitment practices of public administrations. Drawing on approaches from organisational sociology and a qualitative case study of public administrations in the German state of Berlin, the article identifies three crucial elements of organisational decision-making affecting the recruitment of staff of immigrant origin: decisions regarding advertisement strategies, formal criteria, and individual candidates. Further, the article shows the underlying decision-making rationalities and the role of organisational contexts and ethnic stereotypes for recruitment-related decisions.

 

Paul Linden-Retek, The Refugees We Are: Solidarity, Asylum, and Critique in the European Constitutional Imagination, in German Law Journal, 2021, vol. 22, n. 4

This Article aims to reimagine post-national legal solidarity. It does so by bringing debates over Habermasian constitutional theory to bear on the evolving use of mutual recognition and mutual trust in the EU’s Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice (AFSJ), particularly in the context of European asylum law and reforms to the Dublin Regulation. Insofar as critiques of Habermasian “constitutional patriotism” apply to the principle of mutual trust, the Article suggests why post-national solidarity requires fallibilism and dynamic responsiveness that exceed formalized rules of forbearance and respect. On this revised view, legal solidarity guarantees a particular form of adjudication through which individual litigants in a particular case challenge the transnational structural conditions that give rise to individual harm. Because it acknowledges that violations of individual rights are always potentially or in part the result of a collective systemic failure, this conception of solidarity restores meaning to the transformative “transfer” of sovereignty that post-national law had promised. In the field of asylum law, I detail how this application of solidarity would offer a much-needed corrective to structural imbalances in the existing Dublin regime. I conclude with reflections on the principle’s application in additional fields of EU law, as well.

 

Martina Maletzky de García, Bridging the state and market logics of refugee labour market inclusion – a comparative study on the inclusion activities of German professional chambers, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, n. 9

Due to their high numbers, refugees’ labour market inclusion has become an important topic for Germany in recent years. Because of a lack of research on meso-level actors’ influences on labour market inclusion and the transcendent role of organizations in modern societies, the article focuses on the German professional chambers’ role in the process of refugee inclusion. The study shows that professional chambers are intermediaries between economic actors, the government and refugees, which all follow their own logics and ideas of labour market inclusion (the state, the market and the community logic). The measures taken by professional chambers mainly reflect a governmental logic (to reduce refugee unemployment) combined with a market logic (to provide human resources to economic actors). A community logic (altruism) only comes into play as a rather unintended consequence of measures addressing the other two logics. The measures of two types of professional chambers are compared. Close similarities between them reveal that the organization type is of theoretical relevance to explain the type of measures organizations opt for. 

 

Derya Ozkul, Rita Jarrous, How do refugees navigate the UNHCR’s bureaucracy? The role of rumours in accessing humanitarian aid and resettlement, in Third World Quarterly, 2021, n. 7

In conflict situations, rapid changes can occur in the conditions in both host and home countries. In the context of such uncertainty, how do refugees navigate the bureaucratic apparatus of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to obtain humanitarian aid and resettlement? We carried out fieldwork in 2019 in Lebanon and found the UNHCR’s bureaucracy to be a ‘black box’ for refugees in relation to the provision of information on humanitarian aid and resettlement. In this context of limited information, we found that rumours – widely considered to be uncertain truths – contributed to shaping participants’ understanding of the UNHCR’s decisions on the provision of aid and resettlement. In this article, we highlight the interpretive aspect of rumours and argue that refugees engage in interpretive labour as a result of the unequal relationship between themselves and the UNHCR’s opaque bureaucracy and provision of information. While refugees have to provide the UNHCR with detailed and highly personal information in interviews and household inspections, officers provide refugees with only generic responses, leading refugees to make their own interpretations of the bureaucratic decision-making processes. We conceptualise this interpretive labour as a collective process that contributes to generating rumours among refugee groups.

 

Bas Schotel, EU Operational Powers and Legal Protection: A Legal Theory Perspective on the Operational Powers of the European Border and Coast Guard, in German Law Journal, 2021, vol. 22, n. 4

For the first time in its history, the EU is in the process of acquiring significant and genuine permanent operational powers. A new Regulation on the European Border and Coast Guard provides Frontex with a permanent corps of 10,000 border guards—3,000 of which will be EU agents—its own equipment, and its own competences to intervene along the EU borders and beyond. The operational powers will allow the EU to directly and physically intervene in tangible reality. This Article argues that the conferral of operational powers on the EU poses a risk to individual legal protection. This is because once authorities have acquired operational powers of a certain extent and quality, they can afford to act against or without the law by simply overpowering or eluding the legal mechanisms that normally constrain the exercise of public power. So far, Members of the European Parliament and academics critical of Frontex and the new Regulation have overlooked this issue and concentrated exclusively on how to legally constrain the exercise of operational powers. This Article addresses this blind spot by examining whether and how public law should place legal constraints not only on the exercise but also on the build-up of operational powers.

 

Post

Alex Aleinikoff, Can Refugee Scholars Hold the Line? Why the theoretical line that separates forced migrants from other persons on the move may not be sustainable, in Public Seminar, 21 giugno 2021

My title doesn’t refer to whether refugee scholars should help others fend off attacks from governments and populist parties that are intent on destroying the international protection regimes we study. Most of us are already so engaged. Rather, I am asking a conceptual question about the nature of refugee scholarship: does the line that separates forced migrants from other persons on the move continue to be theoretically sustainable?

 

Pola Cebulak, Marta Morvillo, The Guardian is Absent. Legality of Border Controls within Schengen before the European Court of Justice, in Verfassungsblog, 25 giugno 2021

What limits does European Union (EU) law impose on Member States invoking national security to temporarily re-introduce border controls within the Schengen Area? This question will be answered soon by the European court of Justice (ECJ) in the joined cases C-368/20 NW v Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark and C-369/20 NW v Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz.

 

Anna Fazzini, “Diritti fantastici e dove trovarli”. La crisi di Ceuta e l’insostenibilità delle politiche migratorie europee, in SIDIblog, 16 giugno 2021

Ci perdonerà J.K. Rowling se prendiamo in prestito il titolo del celebre testo di magia di sua inventiva, “Animali fantastici e dove trovarli”, per descrivere lo stato dei diritti alle frontiere europee, sempre più labile, sacrificabile di fronte agli interessi nazionali di controllo e securizzazione del confine, assoggettato spesso al rispetto di mere garanzie formali e svuotato dei caratteri dell’effettività e della concretezza. E se ci si chiede dove trovarli, questi diritti evanescenti, vi è in particolare quel limbo giuridico, posto al confine ispano-marocchino, denominato la “frontiera delle frontiera”(così Ferrer-Gallardo, p. 2) – o anche zona di non-diritto (v. Frasca) –  dove risiedono Ceuta e la sua sorella Melilla. La recente crisi umanitaria, che ha visto l’arrivo improvviso di 8.000-10.000 migranti nei giorni compresi tra il 17 e il 19 maggio sulle coste di Ceuta, la maggior parte dei quali sommariamente respinti in Marocco, riporta alta l’attenzione sulla profonda inadeguatezza delle politiche migratorie europee e, in particolare, sulle conseguenze, sul piano politico e giuridico, delle strategie di esternalizzazione dei controlli alle frontiere (per le denunce relative ai respingimenti “a caldo”, v., inter alia, la dichiarazione di Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor e il comunicato congiunto di diverse associazioni locali). Secondo buona parte dei commentatori, infatti, all’origine della crisi, vi sarebbe un intento ricattatorio da parte del Marocco, che volutamente ha permesso l’attraversamento del confine, nel tentativo di condizionare (o punire) il governo spagnolo (e l’Unione europea) per ottenere benefici sul piano geo-politico o economico(per un’analisi v. Lopez Belloso e Fernandez Rojo). Come non ricordare, in proposito, il “ricatto” di Erdogan all’Europa nel febbraio 2020, quando la Turchia ha permesso il transito di centomila potenziali richiedenti asilo, oggetto poi di violenti respingimenti dalle autorità greche? (v. sul caso Spagnolo).

 

Nikolas Feith Tan, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, From Denmark to Damascus. Human rights and refugee law dimensions of Denmark’s cessation push, in Verfassungsblog, 3 giugno 2021

In recent weeks, Denmark made international headlines with its refusal to extend residence permits for Syrian subsidiary protection holders in Denmark from the Damascus province. Denmark’s emergence as the first state in Europe to end the protection of Syrians on the basis of improved conditions in the wider Damascus area is the result of a self-described ‘paradigm shift’ in Danish refugee policy dating back to 2015. This contribution is a brief account of the emergence of Danish temporary protection and cessation practice with respect to Syrians and points to some outstanding human rights and refugee law questions raised by the Danish example. The law of cessation is generally considered underdeveloped. Article 1C of the Refugee Convention exhaustively sets out those circumstances in which refugee status ends, either by virtue of the actions of the refugee or through the decision of the asylum state that the circumstances on which refugee status was based have ceased to exist. In contrast to the inclusion criteria laid down in Article 1A(2) of the Convention, and even the exclusion criteria under Article 1F, Article 1C has been sparingly applied by asylum states in practice. This is changing and Denmark is at the forefront of recent efforts to end protection for refugees and other protection holders.

 

Eleonora Frasca, Quando la prevenzione dell’immigrazione si arresta: l’incerta natura e la debole tenuta degli impegni tra Marocco e Unione europea, in SIDIblog, 3 giugno 2021

Dal 18 al 20 maggio 2021, circa 8.000 persone, tra cui più di un quarto minori di età, hanno attraversato la frontiera iberico-marocchina di Ceuta, una delle due enclaves spagnole nel continente africano (per una rassegna stampa v. qui, qui e qui). Questi numeri – lungi dall’essere solo numeri – sono rivelatori della grande impasse giuridica che riguarda il funzionamento delle zone di frontiera tra Unione europea e Paesi terzi. Nell’ambito della cooperazione a fini di controllo delle migrazioni, è evidente lo scollamento tra il discorso ufficiale delle Istituzioni e dei Governi europei e la realtà geopolitica delle relazioni internazionali con i Paesi terzi. Lo spazio del diritto, e con esso gli spazi di tutela delle persone migranti nelle zone di confine, è apertamente sacrificato in nome dell’efficacia delle misure di contrasto all’immigrazione irregolare; come domandano Jean-Yves Carlier e François Crépeau, «la gestion des migrations ne laisse-t-elle pas ouvertes des zones trop larges de non-droit?» (p. 462). La maggior parte delle persone arrivate a Ceuta sono già state respinte dalle autorità spagnole, anche tramite rimpatrio immediato in mancanza di una procedura di identificazione e valutazione delle situazioni individuali, e dunque in violazione dell’obbligo di non refoulement e del divieto di espulsioni collettive (per una recente analisi sulla dubbia legalità dei controlli alle frontiere di Ceuta e Melilla v. López-Sala). Le persone che non sono state respinte si trovano oggi in condizioni di accoglienza precarie a causa del sovraffollamento nel piccolo territorio di Ceuta e del perdurare della crisi sanitaria. In particolare, come sottolinea ECRE, risulta preoccupante la situazione dei minori non accompagnati lì presenti.

 

Virginia Passalacqua, Discriminating against families: Italian family benefits before the ECJ, in EU Law Analysis, 5 giugno 2021

n Italy, if you are a multimillionaire and you just had a baby, the State gives you 960 euros. However, if you are, say, the non-EU domestic employee of such a millionaire and you also just had a baby, the State gives you zero. How is this possible? Thanks to Italian legislation that for 20 years has discriminated systematically against foreign families. No wonder, these families are also poorer compared to Italian ones: 25% of them were in absolute poverty in 2020, against 6% of Italian ones. In July 2020, the issue of discriminatory criteria for access to family benefits arrived before the ECJ, thanks to a reference by the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC), currently pending (O.D. and others, C-350/20). This is the fourth time that the ECJ is asked to assess Italian discriminatory criteria to access family benefits (after Martinez Silva, VR, and WS). But this time, the ECJ is called to interpret a new legal parameter: Art. 34.2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (the Charter). Can this be a game-changer? The relevance of Art. 34.2 of the Charter has been questioned by commentators: admittedly, secondary norms are sufficient to declare the Italian law incompatible with EU law. Yet, it is argued that the ECJ should not miss this opportunity to clarify that migrants’ equal access to benefits is a fundamental right in the EU, providing guidance both to the Italian top Court and to the lawmaker.

 

Steve Peers, The revised Blue Card Directive: the EU’s search for more highly skilled non-EU migrants, in EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, 4 giugno 2021

One sign of the difficulty in resolving differences of opinion within the EU on immigration and asylum issues (other than visas and border controls) is that no new legislation on these issues has been agreed since 2016 (that was the revised Directive on admission of students, researchers and trainees, discussed here). This five-year drought may soon to come to an end, with the recent agreement on revision of the Blue Card Directive on highly-qualified non-EU workers. (Note that the recent deal must still be formally approved by the Council and the European Parliament. This blog post is based on the full legal text of the agreed revised Directive. UPDATE, May 21 2021: the full text of the agreed Directive has  now been made public by Statewatch).

Libri

Marco Giugni, Maria Grasso, Handbook of Citizenship and Migration, Edward Elgar, 2021

Taking an integrated approach, this unique Handbook places the terms ‘citizenship’ and ‘migration’ on an equal footing, examining how they are related to each other, both conceptually and empirically. Expert contributors explore how citizenship and migration intersect in contemporary thinking, going beyond accounts that often treat the terms separately or simply point out the implications of one term for the other. Organised into five parts, chapters address the basic theoretical perspectives on citizenship and migration, including normative approaches, cross-national differences in citizenship regimes, and methodological issues. The Handbook then moves on to look at the three fundamental dimensions of citizenship: membership, rights, and participation. The final part discusses key contemporary challenges and future perspectives for the study of citizenship and migration. This Handbook will be a valuable resource for scholars and students engaged in the study of citizenship, migration, public policy, human rights, sociology and political science, more broadly. Its interdisciplinary perspective and use of empirical studies will also be beneficial for practitioners and policy makers in these fields.

 

Javier S. Hidalgo, Unjust Borders. Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration, Routledge, 2021

States restrict immigration on a massive scale. Governments fortify their borders with walls and fences, authorize border patrols, imprison migrants in detention centers, and deport large numbers of foreigners. Unjust Borders: Individuals and the Ethics of Immigration argues that immigration restrictions are systematically unjust and examines how individual actors should respond to this injustice. Javier Hidalgo maintains that individuals can rightfully resist immigration restrictions and often have strong moral reasons to subvert these laws. This book makes the case that unauthorized migrants can permissibly evade, deceive, and use defensive force against immigration agents, that smugglers can aid migrants in crossing borders, and that citizens should disobey laws that compel them to harm immigrants. Unjust Borders is a meditation on how individuals should act in the midst of pervasive injustice.

 

Annick Pijnenburg, At the Frontiers of State Responsibility, Intersentia, 2021

States cooperate to stem irregular migration flows, yet migration control agreements often result in widespread violations of the socio-economic rights of people on the move contained in the Global South. This book examines the States that are responsible for these violations.

 

Sara Iglesias Sánchez, Maribel González Pascual (ed.), Fundamental Rights in the EU Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Cambridge, 2021

The development of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice has transformed the European Union and placed fundamental rights at the core of EU integration and its principles of mutual recognition and trust. The impact of the AFSJ in the development of an EU standard of fundamental rights, which has come to the fore since the Treaty of Lisbon, is a topic of great theoretical and practical importance. This is the first systematic academic study of the AFSJ and its implications from the point of view of fundamental rights. The contributions to this collection examine the normative and jurisprudential development of the AFSJ in order to assess its effects on the overall construction of the scope and standards of protection of EU fundamental rights in this particularly complex and sensitive field of integration. The expert contributors systematically map and critically assess this area of EU law, together with the relevant case-law.

 

Cecilia Siccardi, I diritti costituzionali dei migranti in viaggio, Editoriale Scientifica, 2021

 

Articoli

Milena Chimienti, Eduardo Guichard, Claudio Bolzman & Jean-Marie Le Goff, How can we categorise ‘nationality’ and ‘second generation’ in surveys without (re)producing stigmatisation?, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9

Whilst reflexive migration studies have criticised the use of categories such as ‘nationality’ and ‘second generation’ in quantitative research, several gaps on how to develop such reflexivity remain. In qualitative data, the co-construction of knowledge seems feasible during fieldwork, whereas the deductive process of quantitative research limits such interactions and is more at risk of reproducing a ‘state thought’. Through a longitudinal database, the LIVES-FORS cohort survey of the National Center of Competence in Research LIVES – Overcoming Vulnerability: Life Course Perspectives and FORS – the Swiss Centre of Expertise in Social Sciences (herafter LCS), we engage in this discussion and provide some answers. The LCS is an annual longitudinal survey that, in 2013, started following a cohort of young adults born between 1988 and 1997 who grew up in Switzerland. The underlying hypothesis of the LCS is that migrants’ descendants have access to different resources (and often a lack thereof) to Swiss natives. In this paper, we discuss both the theoretical and empirical challenges to using the categories ‘nationality’ and ‘second generation’. We show the fluidity and subjectivity of these categories. By changing the definition of the category ‘second generation’, we increased the proportion of ‘second-generation’ participants from 43 to almost 62% of the sample. Looking across the five waves of the survey, we notice a 2% unexplained variation in the first nationality mentioned by the participants and 31% missing values regarding the nationality at birth – which are both indicators that nationality is a subjective category as well as a legal one. We illustrate that the static and neutral conceptions of these categories reproduce a false and stigmatised image of migrant descendants. To avoid these pitfalls we suggest developing multilevel geographical comparisons to consider the effects of time (age and historical), to use a wider range of information in order to be more precise, to examine different nationalities instead of focusing on the traditional nationalities of labour immigrants in a given country and to explore the reasons for the lack of answers to certain questions. Thus the questionnaires should include both more flexibility in the possibilities for answers and details and more-open questions regarding sensitive issues about the definition of the self. They should be developed through a participative and bottom-up process fostering mixed methods

 

Susan Collard, Tudi Kernalegenn, The membership of parties abroad: a case study of the UK, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9

Against a long trend decline in the membership of political parties in Western democracies, there has been an unexpected surge in the UK since 2015. Interestingly, this phenomenon has also been observed amongst British expatriates, despite their historically very low levels of engagement. Our paper explores this development using a multi-methods approach to investigate its impact across the three main parties, comparing the relative importance of supply-side and demand-side factors in each case. We show that the creation and development of British parties abroad are the result of two contrasting dynamics: a top-down one, which gives legitimacy and structure and in some cases, resources, and a bottom-up one, which gives purpose but also networks. Our survey of British expatriate party members reveals a diversity of triggers and motivations for membership, making an original contribution to the wider literature on party membership and on the political engagement of emigrants.

 

Francesco Luigi Gatta, Politica dei visti e stato di diritto: il difficile equilibrio tra sovranità e garanzie procedurali nella giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia, in European Papers, 2021, vol. 6, n. 1

Third country nationals are in a “weak” position when it comes to issuing a uniform Schengen short-term visa. The EU acquis on visas, and most notably the Visa Code, is still a domain strongly marked by State sovereignty, wide margin of appreciation and scarce transparency in the decision-making process. The EU Court of Justice has tried to rebalance the situation of third country nationals who apply for a Schengen visa, by ensuring that essential guarantees are in place when such a visa is denied. Even if granting a visa entails a clear manifestation of sovereignty, the decision to refuse a visa application cannot evade basic principles of the Rule of law, such as the duty to state reasons and the right to an effective remedy. Following a contextualization of the EU visa policy, with an overview of the evolution and the main features of the visa regime, this Insight the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to the interpretation of the Visa Code, in light of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and namely, its art. 47.

 

Matthias Leese, Simon Noori, Stephan Scheel, Data Matters: The Politics and Practices of Digital Border and Migration Management, in Geopolitics, 2021

Data matter more than ever in the regulation of borders and migration. An apt illustration of how movement is enabled or restricted by data collection and analytics was recently reported by Eyal Weizman, founding director of the London-based research agency Forensic Architecture that specialises in the production and analysis of evidence about human rights violations by state and corporate actors. Prior to a business trip to Miami where he was supposed to open Forensic Architecture’s first major exhibition in the US that, among other things, displayed investigations into a CIA drone strike in Pakistan and police killings of black US citizens, Weizmann was notified that his visa waiver request had been denied and that he would not be allowed to enter the United States.

 

Emilie van Haute, Tudi Kernalegenn, Political parties abroad as actors of transnational politics, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9

This paper argues that parties abroad are the actors of a new arena for citizenship and party politics. The proliferation of overseas voting and the development of representative institutions for emigrants has transformed and reinforced the civic and political links between sending-states and their diaspora. This has also created new opportunities for political entrepreneurs and political parties tasked with reaching out to citizens living abroad. Yet research on political parties and on transnationalism has almost never crossed paths. This has created a gap in our knowledge on political parties abroad, demonstrating the timeliness of a special issue on political parties abroad. This paper introduces this special issue and presents an overview of the main theoretical questions and debates addressed in the articles. We emphasize existing gaps in the literature and stress the importance of a better understanding of the growing phenomenon of political parties abroad. We also explain why a comparative approach is necessary to tackle the issue of political parties abroad, offering a theoretically-minded framework. Our summaries of the papers in this special issue highlight how they relate to the more general questions discussed in our introduction.

 

Susanne Wessendorf & James Farrer, Commonplace and out-of-place diversities in London and Tokyo: migrant-run eateries as intercultural third places, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9

In global cities such as London and Tokyo, there are neighbourhoods where ethnic, religious, cultural and other forms of diversity associated with migration are commonplace and others where migrants are regarded as unusual or even out-of-place. In both types of contexts, migrant-run eateries are spaces in which people of various backgrounds interact. In some contexts, eateries may serve as ‘third places’ in which regular forms of intercultural conviviality occur, yet in others, interactions are civil but fleeting. This comparative paper is based on findings from two ethnographic neighbourhood studies in West Tokyo and East London. The Tokyo neighbourhood of Nishi-Ogikubo is one of emerging diversity, in which migrant entrepreneurship is rather new and uncommon, whereas East London has seen immigration for decades and migrant-run businesses are so common as to be taken-for-granted. In Tokyo the Japanese norms of ‘drinking communication’ in small eating and drinking spots inevitably involve migrant proprietors and their customers more deeply in social interactions. In East London, in contrast, intercultural interactions are much more commonplace in public and semi-public spaces, but in the case of migrant-run eateries, they are characterized by somewhat superficial encounters. This paper contributes to scholarship on the role of third places for intercultural relations, highlighting the importance of established cultural norms of interaction in specific third places. By comparing two vastly different contexts regarding the extent of immigration-related diversity, it demonstrates how encounters between residents of different backgrounds are deeply embedded in cultural norms of interaction in these places, and how migrant entrepreneurs in each context adapt to these established norms.

 

Špela Drnovšek Zorko & Miloš Debnár, Comparing the racialization of Central-East European migrants in Japan and the UK, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9

The article deploys the lens of the race-migration nexus (Erel et al., Ethnic and Racial Studies 39:1339–1360, 2016) to compare the racialization of migrants in the UK and Japan. It draws on qualitative data on the experiences of Central-East European (CEE) migrants in the two countries to unpack how whiteness is constructed in relation to different histories and patterns of immigration in each national context. While CEE migrants in Japan benefit from being perceived as implicitly white and Western ‘foreigners’, their whiteness represents a form of enduring exclusion from the ethno-nationalist Japanese society. In the UK, changing political contexts and internal European hierarchies of whiteness contribute to CEE migrants’ ambiguous position in an increasingly anti-migrant society. By comparing the mechanisms of racialization in each country through the analytics of visibility and exclusion, the article furthers ongoing debates about the intersections of race and migration. It furthermore extends the comparative analysis of whiteness to a non-Western setting, making a significant contribution to the study of local/global articulations of race.

 

Post

Sofia Galani, The First Parliamentary Debate on Human Rights at Sea: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back?, in EJIL:Talk!, 10 luglio 2021

On Tuesday, 22 June 2021, the House of Lords debated for the first time the steps the UK has taken to protect human rights at sea. The debate was initiated by an oral question raised by Lord Teverson of Tregony who has been acting as Patron of the UK-based charity Human Rights at Sea. The founder and CEO of the charity, David Hammond, characterised the debate as ‘historic’ and underlined that “the public conversation has begun to mainstream ‘human rights at sea’”. Undoubtedly, the debate gave prominence to the protection of human rights at sea, a topic that continues to gather momentum in the scholarly debate (Papanicolopulu, 2018; Galani, 2020; Haines, 2021) and in practice (UNODC, The Geneva Declaration of Human Rights at Sea). Indeed, the time was ripe for such a debate in the UK, but a closer look at the responses of the UK Government could leave one wonder whether it has realised the complexities of enforcing human rights at sea and whether it is moving to the right direction to comply with its human rights obligations. Without belittling the significance of the debate, this post aims to highlight some of its weaknesses with a view to reflecting on the current position of the UK Government in protecting human rights at sea and on what it needs to consider going forward.

 

Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Mikael Rask Madsen, Henrik Palmer Olsen, The Limits of Indirect Deterrence of Asylum Seekers, in verfassungsblog.de, 12 luglio 2021

On 9 July 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) handed down its decision in M.A. v. Denmark (Application no. 6697/18), a case testing the limits of one aspect of Denmark’s asylum and immigration policy. The case concerns a Syrian refugee who requested asylum in Denmark in April 2015, and who was granted “temporary protection status” – a legal status introduced that same year. Refugees afforded temporary protection status in accordance with section 7(3) of the Danish Aliens Act are afforded a more limited rights package than refugees granted Refugee Convention status or the Danish equivalent to subsidiary protection (termed “protection status”). The new status is one of several initiatives introduced to make Denmark a less attractive target country for asylum seekers. Most significantly, applications for family reunification can only be submitted after a three-year waiting period. Following a careful and nuanced deliberation, a near unanimous Grand Chamber (Judge Mourou-Vikström as the sole dissenter) concluded that this three-year period did not strike “a fair balance between, on the one hand, the applicant’s interest in being reunited with his wife in Denmark and, on the other, the interest of the community as a whole to control immigration” (para. 194). The judgment is significant for several reasons. Firstly, because it adds to an already growing international criticism of Denmark’s asylum and immigration policy. Secondly, because the judgment helps clarify the Court’s position on an issue, family reunification for refugees, where case law has hitherto been somewhat ambiguous, and where several European States have introduced new restrictions since 2015. Third, and finally, the judgment represents – to paraphrase Harold Koh – another “way station … in the complex enforcement” of migrant and refugee rights by international human rights institutions.

 

Marco Mariano, Biden e l’immigrazione, tra polarizzazione e fantasmi centroamericani, in Aspenia Online, 12 luglio 2021

Sono già lontani i giorni in cui Joe Biden sembrava procedere rapido allo smantellamento delle politiche dell’amministrazione Trump in tema di immigrazione, che più di altre avevano simboleggiato il suo discorso nazionalista. A inizio febbraio tre executive orders presidenziali disponevano rispettivamente la fine della separazione dei minori dalle loro famiglie alla frontiera con il Messico, la creazione di una task force sui “nuovi americani” per facilitare l’integrazione, e una revisione sistematica delle politiche che nei quattro anni precedenti avevano fortemente ridotto i canali a disposizione dei richiedenti asilo. La firma di quelle misure, con la presenza della vice-presidente Kamala Harris e del segretario alla Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, il primo ispanico a ricoprire quella carica, raffigurava plasticamente un’America che vuole riprendere il proprio posto nel mondo e nella storia.

 

Annick Pijnenburg, Socio-economic Rights and Migration deals: Obligations and Responsibility of EU Member States, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 16 luglio 2021

This blog post examines the human rights obligations of EU Member States towards people on the move contained in neighbouring third countries like Libya and Turkey as a result of migration deals, as well as the question whether EU Member States incur international responsibility for violations of their socio-economic rights. The analysis first describes migration deals and their impact on people on the move (Section 1), before turning to EU Member States’ obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) (Section 2). This post argues that EU Member States can have two types of obligations under the ICESCR: direct obligations that apply when there is a jurisdictional link; and global obligations of international assistance and cooperation. Section 3, in turn, demonstrates that EU Member States can incur direct responsibility for breaching their direct and/or global obligations as well as derived responsibility for complicity in human rights violations abroad. This post is based on my recently published PhD thesis to which the reader is referred for a detailed analysis: At the Frontiers of State Responsibility: Socio-economic Rights and Cooperation on Migration.

 

Juan Ruiz Ramos, The Strasbourg Reversal after the ‘Refugee Crisis’: ECtHR Deference to State Sovereignty in Asylum Detention Cases, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 12 luglio 2021

The ‘Strasbourg reversal’ is an intriguing concept in European human rights law. According to this theory, developed by Marie Dembour in When Humans Become Migrants, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) always begins its analysis of a migration-related case with the statement that States have a ‘right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory’. By doing this, the Court grants States greater leeway to enact potentially rights-violating policies than in cases in which the applicant is a national of the defendant state. Having been taught that human rights are universal, the idea that some individuals are more entitled to human rights than others (paraphrasing George Orwell) fractures one’s idealistic conception of human rights law. The most plausible explanation for the existence of the Strasbourg reversal is the fact that the Court reacts to political pressures coming from States who do not wish to see a supranational institution intervene in sensitive political issues such as migration (see here and here). In this vein, I  analysed in an article last year whether the political tensions deriving from the 2015 ‘refugee crisis’ led the Court to become even more deferential to States’ practices in an area which is particularly troublesome in terms of human rights protection: the detention of asylum-seekers. To this end, the article carries out a systematic review of the judgments on the matter rendered between 2015 and the first months of 2020. The focus of the analysis is on the Court’s case law under Article 5(1)(f) (the exception to the right to liberty for purposes of migration control) and Article 3 ECHR (prohibition of degrading treatment in relation to detention conditions).

 

Daniel Thym, Muddy Waters: A Guide to the Legal Questions surrounding ‘Pushbacks’ at the External Borders at Sea and at Land, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 6 luglio 2021

15 years ago, the term ‘Aegean Sea’ was shorthand for crystalline beaches. Nowadays, we associate it with a different set of images. Islands such as Lesvos stand for the partial failure of the EU asylum policy at ensuring adequate reception conditions and fair and efficient asylum procedures. Frontex is under fire for having tolerated or supported pushbacks practices of the Greek coastguard. More recently, the Spanish exclave of Ceuta entered the limelight once again when border guards returned several thousand migrants to Morocco, seemingly without even rudimentary procedural guarantees. These ‘pushbacks’ at land and sea borders raise important challenges of institutional governance, operational reporting, and external monitoring. Moreover, it can be difficult to identify the correct legal standards, which shall be at the heart of this blog post.

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

Europea

Nazionale

Europea

Nazionale

Europea

Nazionale

Europea

Nazionale

Europea

RASSEGNE DELLA GIURISPRUDENZA - ADiM

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

Obbligo di soccorso in mareComitato per i diritti umani dell’Onu, decisione del 27 gennaio 2021, A.S., D.I., O.I. e G.D. c. Italia, CCPR/C/130/D/3042/2017

Il Comitato per i diritti umani dell’Onu ha stabilito la responsabilità dell’Italia per il naufragio che nel 2013 causò la morte di oltre 200 persone nella zona SAR di Malta. In particolare, il Comitato ha condannato l’Italia per violazione dell’articolo 6 (diritto alla vita) e dell’articolo 2 (obbligo di garantire effettivi mezzi di ricorso giurisdizionale) del Patto sui diritti civili e politici del 16 dicembre 1966, ratificato con legge n. 881/1977, ritenendo che l’obbligo di soccorso in mare e di salvare vite di esseri umani si estenda alle acque internazionali e alle zone SAR di competenza di altri Paesi. La condanna deriva dal fatto che in quell’occasione l’Italia, venendo meno ai suoi doveri di due diligence, non aveva provveduto a rispondere tempestivamente alle istanze di soccorso lanciate dal barcone in distress, con oltre 400 persone a bordo, tra le quali molti bambini.

 

 

Accesso al mercato del lavoro – CGUE, Judgment of 14 January 2021, K.S., M.H.K. v The International Protection Appeals Tribunal et al., and R.A.T., D.S. v Minister for Justice and Equality, Joined Cases C-322/19 and C-385/19

The preliminary questions were submitted in two cases (C-385/19 and C-322/19) that concerned the legality of Irish decisions to refuse the permission for applicants for international protection to access the labour market on the basis that they were subject to transfer proceedings under the Dublin III Regulation (Regulation 604/2013). The CJEU highlighted, inter alia, the EU legislator’s intention for the transfer not to constitute a final decision on an application for international protection and the interpretation of Article 15(1) in Cimade and GISTI. Furthermore, it underlined that while access to the labour market does not, strictly speaking, constitute a material reception condition under the Reception Conditions Directive, it must nonetheless be understood as a right and benefit for applicants whose application has not been finally determined. For these reasons, the CJEU concluded that Article 15 precludes national legislation that excludes an applicant from accessing the labour market, solely because a Dublin-transfer decision has been taken in his or her regard.  Secondly, the CJEU, being asked which acts may constitute a delay attributable to the applicant for international protection within the meaning of Article 15(1) of the Reception Conditions Directive, took into consideration Article 13 and 31(3) of the Asylum Procedures Directive, which is not applicable to Ireland, but, according to the CJEU, must be taken into account to interpret the Reception Conditions Directive where the uniform interpretation and application of EU law warrants it. Under that Directive applicants have an obligation to cooperate with the competent authorities with a view to establishing their identity and other elements, such as their age, background and nationality. Therefore, the CJEU concluded that a delay in the adoption of a decision at first instance concerning an application for international protection, which results from a lack of cooperation by the applicant with the competent authorities, may be attributed to that applicant. However, the CJEU further concluded that a Member State may not attribute to the applicant such delay because an applicant did not lodge his or her application with the first Member State of entry. Furthermore, and referring to Article 27(1) and (3), recital 19 Dublin III and Article 47 of the Charter, the CJEU underlined, inter alia, that the EU legislature did not intend for judicial protection enjoyed by applicants for international protection to be sacrificed for the requirement of expedition in the processing of their application and, consequently, concluded that a Member State may not attribute a delay to an applicant for the bringing, by that applicant, of legal proceedings with suspensory effect against the transfer decision taken in his or her regard under Dublin III.

 

Rimpatrio di minori CGUE, sentenza del 14 gennaio 2021, TQ c. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C- 441/19

L’articolo 6, 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, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 5, lettera a), di tale direttiva, e con l’articolo 24, paragrafo 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, deve essere interpretato nel senso che, prima di adottare una decisione di rimpatrio nei confronti di un minore non accompagnato, lo Stato membro interessato deve effettuare una valutazione generale ed approfondita della situazione di tale minore, tenendo nella debita considerazione l’interesse superiore del bambino. In tale contesto, detto Stato membro deve accertarsi che nello Stato di rimpatrio sia disponibile un’accoglienza adeguata per il minore non accompagnato di cui trattasi. Il medesimo articolo, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 5, lettera a), di tale direttiva e alla luce dell’articolo 24, paragrafo 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, deve essere interpretato nel senso che uno Stato membro non può operare una distinzione tra i minori non accompagnati in base al solo criterio della loro età, al fine di verificare l’esistenza di un’accoglienza adeguata nello Stato di rimpatrio. L’articolo 8, paragrafo 1, della direttiva deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta a che uno Stato membro, dopo aver adottato una decisione di rimpatrio nei confronti di un minore non accompagnato ed essersi accertato, conformemente all’articolo 10, paragrafo 2, che questi sarà ricondotto ad un membro della sua famiglia, a un tutore designato o presso adeguate strutture di accoglienza nello Stato di rimpatrio, si astenga dal procedere successivamente al suo allontanamento fino a quando egli abbia raggiunto l’età di diciotto anni.

 

Status di rifugiato CGUE, sentenza del 20 gennaio 2021, Secretary of State for the Home Department c. OA, C-255/19

L’articolo 11, paragrafo 1, lettera e), della direttiva 2004/83/CE, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 7, paragrafo 2, di quest’ultima, dev’essere interpretato nel senso che un eventuale sostegno sociale ed economico garantito da soggetti privati, quali la famiglia o il clan del cittadino di un paese terzo interessato, non risponde ai requisiti di protezione risultanti da tali disposizioni e risulta perciò irrilevante al fine di valutare l’effettività o la disponibilità della protezione offerta dallo Stato ai sensi dell’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, lettera a), di detta direttiva, né al fine di determinare, a norma dell’articolo 11, paragrafo 1, lettera e), di tale direttiva, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 2, lettera c), della medesima, il persistere di un timore fondato di essere perseguitato.

 

Riammissioni a catena Trib. Roma, Sez. diritti della persona e immigrazione, ordinanza del 18 gennaio 2021

Il Tribunale di Roma ha accolto il ricorso urgente presentato da un cittadino pakistano, richiedente asilo, riammesso nel luglio del 2020 dall’Italia alla Slovenia, da qui in Croazia e quindi in Bosnia, secondo un meccanismo consolidato di riammissioni a catena. Con tale decisione, il Tribunale ha sancito l’illegittimità della procedura di riammissione attuata al confine orientale italiano sulla base di un accordo siglato tra Italia e Slovenia nel 1996, mai ratificato dal Parlamento italiano.  Tale procedura appare infatti condotta in palese violazione delle norme internazionali, europee e interne che regolano l’accesso alla procedura di asilo: essa non solo è eseguita senza la consegna agli interessati di alcun provvedimento e senza alcun esame delle situazioni individuali, dunque con chiara lesione del diritto di difesa e del diritto alla presentazione di un ricorso effettivo, ma è anche realizzata mediante un trattenimento esperito senza alcun ordine dell’autorità giudiziaria. Non da ultimo, essa si presenta in palese contrasto con l’obbligo di non refoulement il quale vieta di esporre lo straniero a rischi di trattamenti inumani e degradanti (i quali, come documentato da numerose ONG e dalle testimonianze raccolte dal Border Violence  Monitoring network, rappresentano una drammatica costante al confine croato). In diretta applicazione dell’art. 10, co. 3, della Costituzione Italiana, il Tribunale ha dunque riconosciuto il diritto del ricorrente a fare immediato ingresso in Italia per avere accesso alla procedura di esame della protezione internazionale, accesso che gli era stato precluso a causa del comportamento illegittimo delle autorità italiane.

 

Permesso di soggiorno Sweden Migration Court of Appeal (Migrationsöverdomstolen), Judgment of 22 December 2020,  A, B, and C v. the Swedish Migration Agency, MIG 24:2020

The case concerns two Lebanese nationals, B and C, who arrived in Sweden in 2004 and applied for asylum. B and C also applied for asylum on behalf of A, their child, who was born in Sweden in March 2006. Their asylum applications were rejected and statute-barred after four years. The family re-applied for asylum and their applications were once again rejected and statute-barred. The family then applied for asylum a third time in August 2016. In its most recent decision, the Swedish Migration Agency (SMA) found that the family members did not meet the criteria for neither international protection nor a residence permit. As such, the SMA decided once more to deport A, B and C to Lebanon. The Migration Court in Gothenburg upheld the decision. The family appealed the judgment and by which time, A had spent approximately 14 years in Sweden. The Migration Court of Appeal confirmed that A, B and C did not meet the criteria for international protection.  In its assessment of whether a residence permit could be granted to the family, the best interests of the child were the primary consideration of the Court. The Court also examined whether there were such strong reasons in the case that would constitute “particularly distressing circumstances” required by national legislation. As A had lived in Sweden for over 14 years, speaks fluent Swedish, attends school and is at an identity creating age with social relationships outside her family, the Court considered her to have a strong connection with Sweden. Additionally, the Court took into account A’s lack of network outside of her family in Lebanon and her negative perception of both the country and of her potential deportation there, given that her parents left because they believed they were at risk of persecution. In that regard, the Court concluded that it was in the best interests of A to remain in Sweden. However, the Court noted that the best interest of the child cannot be the only and decisive factor for whether a residence permit should be granted. It highlighted that the CRC requires a balance of interests when assessing the proportionality of refusing the right to residence. Indeed, the best interest of A needed to be balanced against the State’s interest in controlling immigration. It found that much of A’s time in Sweden had been illegal as result of her families’ non-adherence to previous expulsion decisions. Nevertheless, the Court acknowledged that as a child, she did not have the opportunity to influence her parents’ choice not to conform to an expulsion decision. Further it noted that both the CRC and the preparatory work for the national legislation regarding “particularly distressing circumstances” emphasize that children should be seen as independent rights holders who may have their own reasons for a residence permit and hence, should not only be assessed as part of the parents’ case. In that regard, the Court considered that A’s best interests outweighed the opposing interests of the State. An expulsion of A to Lebanon could therefore not be considered proportionate and would be in violation of the CRC. The Court therefore granted residence permits to A, and her parents, B and C.

 

Cittadinanza – ECtHR, Judgment of 22 December 2020, Usmanov v. Russia, Application no. 43936/18

The case concerned a national of Tajikstan’s complaint about decisions to revoke his Russian citizenship and remove him from Russian territory. Mr Usmanov was granted Russian citizenship in 2008, but it was revoked ten years later when the authorities discovered that he had omitted the names of his brothers and sisters in his application. The decision to expel him had been taken after he refused to leave the country. The European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been: violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights as concerned both the revocation of the applicant’s Russian citizenship and the decision to expel him from Russian territory. Overall, the Court considered that the authorities’ decisions in the applicant’s case had been overly formalistic, failing to duly balance the interests at stake. In particular, they had not shown why the applicant’s failure to submit information about some of his siblings had been so grave that it was justified to deprive him of his Russian citizenship so many years after he had obtained it. Nor had they taken into account the fact that he had been living in Russia for a considerable period of time with a Russian national, with whom he had four children, and that during his stay he had not committed any offences. The Court also decided to continue to indicate to the Russian Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court not to expel the applicant until such time as this judgment became final or until further notice.

 

Procedure di espulsione ECtHR, Judgment of 14 January 2021, E.K v. Greece, Application no. 73700/13

The case concerns E.K., a Turkish national, who was arrested at Tychero by border authorities. He was given a two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment for illegal entry into Greece. On the same day, E.K. was re-arrested with a view to deportation and detained at the Soufli border post. He was later transferred to the premises of border post at Feres and subsequently transferred to the Attica Aliens Sub-Directorate (Petrou Ralli). Finally, he was transferred to the Amygdaleza detention centre. The applicant previously submitted an application for asylum. The applicant complained of the conditions of the detention of the applicant in Souflli, Feres, Petrou Ralli and Amydaleza. The ECtHR referred to several reports by international organisations and in particular, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s report (CPT) on the conditions at the detention centres around the time of the applicant’s detention. On the basis of the reports, the ECtHR concluded that the conditions of detention of the applicant in each of these premises did not exceed the threshold required by Article 3 ECHR. The applicant also complained that his detention was arbitrary, stating that the authorities refused to register his asylum application, his detention was automatically ordered with a view to his deportation, he was re-arrested after his suspended sentence and was detained while he was an asylum seeker. On the facts, the ECtHR considered that applicant’s detention was lawful and fell within the ambit of Article 5(1)(f) ECHR. In relation to the application for asylum, the ECtHR recalled that it followed from domestic law that if an application suspends the enforcement of the deportation order, it does not necessarily suspend the enforcement of a detention order. Accordingly, no violation of Article 5(1) ECHRwas found. Lastly, the applicant complained about the effectiveness of the judicial review of his detention, alleging that the administrative courts had not provided sufficient answers to his objections, and in particular, that his allegations concerning the conditions of his detention were never addressed. The ECtHR held that in E.K.’s case, he did not benefit from a full review of the lawfulness of his detention and given that the ECtHR has found violations in several previous cases relating to the conditions of detention, objections of that nature deserve a full response from the relevant administrative court. In that context, the ECtHR found a violation of Article 5(4) ECHR.

 

Cessazione protezione UNWRACGUE, sentenza del 13 gennaio 2021, Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Statut de réfugié d’un apatride d’origine palestinienne), C-507/19

Al fine di stabilire se la protezione o l’assistenza dell’Agenzia delle Nazioni Unite per il soccorso e l’occupazione dei rifugiati palestinesi nel Vicino Oriente (UNRWA) sia cessata nei confronti del richiedente protezione di origine palestinesi – e quindi egli sia ammesso a beneficare della protezione internazionale ex art. 12, par. 1, lett. a), seconda frase dir. 2011/95/UE – è necessario valutare tutti gli elementi pertinenti della situazione di specie, nonché prendere in considerazione tutti i settori della zona operativa dell’UNRWA cui l’interessato ha la possibilità concreta di accedere e soggiornare in sicurezza.

 

Incentivi occupazionali – Corte Cost., sentenza del 23 dicembre 2020, n. 281

È costituzionalmente illegittimo l’art. 88 della l.r. Friuli Venezia Giulia n. 9/2019 che limita la concessione di incentivi occupazionali alle imprese per le assunzioni, l’inserimento o la stabilizzazioni di lavoratori  solo ai casi in cui i lavoratori assunti siano residenti continuativamente nel territorio regionale da almeno cinque anni. Le legge regionale contrasta infatti con l’art. 3 Cost per l’irragionevolezza del requisito di residenza, in quanto il collegamento con l’ente pubblico territoriale atto a garantire la prestazione viene già soddisfatto dalla sede dell’impresa che assume entro il territorio regionale. Inoltre, la norma regionale finisce per contraddire  la propria ratio del riassorbimento delle eccedenze occupazionali determinate da crisi aziendali, finendo per escludere lavoratori che abbiano svolto attività lavorativa nel FVG, anche se non residenti, e che dunque disporrebbero di quel collegamento con la realtà regionale atto a garantire loro piena parità di trattamento nelle misure di reinserimento lavorativo. La Corte ha modo di affermare che se «la residenza costituisce un requisito ragionevole al fine d’identificare l’ente pubblico competente a erogare una certa prestazione, non è possibile che l’accesso alle prestazioni pubbliche sia escluso solo per il fatto di aver esercitato il proprio diritto di circolazione o di aver dovuto mutare regione di residenza». La Corte riconosce inoltre nel requisito di residenza, una limitazione al diritto alla libera circolazione tra le Regioni e dunque una violazione dell’art. 120 co. 1 della Costituzione.

 

Persecuzione contro le donneCass. civ., sez. lavoro, ordinanza del 4 gennaio 2021, n. 10

Siglando la Convenzione di Istanbul, l’Italia si è impegnata a garantire che la violenza contro le donne, di natura strutturale in quanto basata sul genere, possa essere riconosciuta come forma di persecuzione o di grave pregiudizio agli effetti della Convenzione di Ginevra, oltre a modulare le misure di accoglienza alla specifica vulnerabilità delle vittime di tratta. In tale prospettiva, la valutazione di credibilità – in ogni caso ancorata ai parametri dell’art. 3 d.lgs. n. 251/2007 – va condotta tenendo in considerazione la situazione individuale e personale della richiedente, con riguardo alla sua condizione sociale e all’età, non potendo darsi rilievo a mere discordanze o contraddizioni su aspetti secondari o isolati quando si ritenga sussistere l’accadimento. L’autorità amministrativa e il giudice dell’impugnazione di decisioni negative della Commissione territoriale devono svolgere un ruolo attivo nell’istruzione della domanda, disancorandosi dal principio dispositivo proprio del giudizio civile ordinario, mediante l’esercizio di poteri-doveri d’indagine officiosi e l’acquisizione di informazioni aggiornate sul paese di origine del richiedente, al fine di accertarne la situazione reale, con particolare approfondimento nelle ipotesi di più violenta aggressione della libertà e della dignità della donna, come nel caso in questione, di “vendita” della richiedente, di per sé integrante un trattamento di tipo schiavistico, esigente l’assunzione di specifiche informazioni sulla situazione delle donne nigeriane, anche considerato che spesso le vittime di tratta non denunciano le violenze subite per timore di ritorsioni.

 

Revoca misure di accoglienzaCons. Stato, sez. III, ordinanza del 30 dicembre 2020, n. 8540

Il Consiglio di Stato ha chiesto alla Corte di giustizia di pronunciarsi in via pregiudiziale (art. 267 TFUE) sul se i par. 4 e 5 dell’art. 20 della Direttiva Accoglienza (dir. 2013/33/UE) ostino a una normativa nazionale che dispone la revoca delle misure di accoglienza nei confronti del richiedente protezione maggiorenne e non ascrivibile alla categoria dei soggetti vulnerabili, nel caso in cui gli sia addebitato un comportamento particolarmente violento posto in essere fuori dal centro di accoglienza, cagionando lesioni a pubblici ufficiali e/o incaricati di pubblico.

 

Falsificazioni documentali Consiglio di Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 7 gennaio 2021, n. 167

La frode o la falsificazione documentale di cui all’art. 22, co. 5 ter, TUI devono riferirsi al rapporto di lavoro, denotandone la simulazione al fine di far entrare in Italia lo straniero che non ne aveva titolo, mentre la disposizione non comprende la documentazione accessoria ed estranea al rapporto di lavoro da instaurare. Ne segue che il nulla osta al lavoro non può essere revocato ex art. 22, co. 5 ter quando la falsità documentale è riferibile alla delega al ritiro dello stesso presso lo Sportello immigrazione rilasciata dal datore di lavoro a un terzo soggetto.

 

Permesso di soggiornoConsiglio di giustizia amministrativa per la Regione Siciliana, sentenza dell’11 gennaio 2021, n. 18

Gli artt. 5, par. 2, TUI e 9 d.p.r. 394/1999 individuano l’ufficio competente al rilascio o al rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno in base alla situazione del richiedente al momento della presentazione dell’istanza, consentendo così di evitare alla PA gli aggravi connessi a eventuali trasferimenti dello straniero e senza che ciò ostacoli la tutela della posizione di quest’ultimo (potendo adempiere i propri oneri istruttori anche da un luogo diverso). Ne segue che il trasferimento dell’istante in un diverso comune nel corso del procedimento non determina l’incompetenza dell’ufficio di prima istanza.

 

Diritto all’unità familiareTAR Lombardia, sez. I, sentenza dell’8 gennaio 2021, n. 44 

La tutela rafforzata dello straniero ex art. 5, co. 5, TUI, riguarda esclusivamente le categorie di familiari indicate nell’articolo 29, anche ove non vi sia stata una formale richiesta di ricongiungimento familiare. Tra tali parenti non rientrano i collaterali o la persona con cui lo straniero ha instaurato una relazione affettiva senza convivenza: la tutela del diritto all’unità familiare, imposta dall’articolo 8 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e dalla giurisprudenza della Corte EDU, riguarda infatti rapporti qualificati ed effettivi.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Piemonte, sez. I, sentenza del 5 gennaio 2021, n. 7

L’art. 39-bis TUI consente agli stranieri che hanno conseguito in Italia la laurea o un diploma accademico o tecnico di continuare a permanere sul territorio nazionale per cercare un’occupazione o avviare un’attività e non limita, pertanto, i titoli rilevanti solo a quelli con valenza universitaria. Ne segue che è illegittimo il diniego di conversione del permesso da motivi di studio ad attesa occupazione opposto alla straniera in possesso di un diploma, valido anche a livello europeo, di tecnico qualificato in restauro dipinti ottenuto in un Istituto accreditato dalla Regione Toscana.

 

Accesso ai CPRTAR Sardegna, ordinanza del 13 gennaio 2021, n. 4

La Prefettura di Nuoro aveva negato l’accesso al CPR di Macomer di una delegazione di ASGI. Il TAR Sardegna ha accolto l’istanza cautelare presentata da ASGI obiettando le argomentazioni della pubblica amministrazione secondo cui l’Associazione non rientrerebbe, per i propri scopi statutari, tra i soggetti ammessi all’accesso presso i Centri di Permanenza per il Rimpatrio (CPR).

 

Assegni familiari Trib. Alessandria, ordinanza del 20 gennaio 2021

Costituisce discriminazione la condotta dell’INPS consistita nell’aver negato al ricorrente, cittadino extra UE soggiornante di lungo periodo, l’assegno per il nucleo familiare di cui al’’art. 2 del d.l. n. 69/1988 conv. in l. n. 153/1988 dovendosi computare nel nucleo familiare il coniuge e i figli residenti all’estero. Questo alla luce della recente sentenza della Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione Europea C-303/19 del 25 novembre 2020, secondo cui l’art. 11 della Direttiva 109/2003/CE deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta a una normativa di uno Stato membro in forza della quale, ai fini della determinazione dei diritti a una prestazione di sicurezza sociale, non vengano presi in considerazione i familiari del cittadino di detto Stato membro residenti all’estero, qualora detto Stato membro non abbia espresso in sede di recepimento della suddetta direttiva la deroga ivi prevista.

 

Permesso di soggiorno e fattore ambientaleCour administrative d’appel de Bordeaux, 2ème chambre, arrêt du 18 décembre 2020

La Corte amministrativa d’appello di Bordeaux, sulla base dell’art. 313-11, co. 11, del codice sull’ingresso e soggiorno degli stranieri e sul diritto di asilo, ha annullato il decreto di espulsione emesso dal prefetto nei confronti di un cittadino del Bangladesh affetto da una grave patologia respiratoria. La sentenza conferma le conclusioni della sentenza del Tribunale di primo grado che aveva a sua volta annullato il provvedimento prefettizio sulla base del rischio per la salute del ricorrente determinato dall’assenza, nel paese di origine, dei farmaci necessari alle cure. La Corte di Appello ha considerato, in aggiunta, anche il fattore ambientale connesso al grave inquinamento atmosferico rilevato in quel paese, tale da esporre il ricorrente al deterioramento del suo stato di salute e a morte prematura.

Trattenimento per il trasferimento in altro Stato membro – CGUE, sentenza del 24 febbraio 2021, M e A c. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid e T, C-673/19

Gli articoli 3, 4, 6 e 15 della direttiva 2008/115/CE del 16 dicembre 2008 (c.d. direttiva “Rimpatri”) non ostano a che uno Stato membro sottoponga a trattenimento amministrativo un cittadino di un paese terzo, il cui soggiorno nel suo territorio è irregolare, al fine di procedere al trasferimento forzato di tale cittadino verso un altro Stato membro nel quale il medesimo gode dello status di rifugiato, qualora questo stesso cittadino si sia rifiutato di ottemperare all’ordine impartitogli di recarsi in tale altro Stato membro e non sia possibile adottare una decisione di rimpatrio nei suoi confronti.

 

Tratta di esseri umaniECtHR, Judgment of 16 February 2021, V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom, Applications nos. 77587/12 and 74603/12

The case concerns the arrest of two Vietnamese nationals charged and convicted with drug production; they were later confirmed to be minors. Despite concerns raised by social services and assessments made by the competent authorities regarding their potential status as victims of trafficking they were prosecuted and convicted for the offences. Further appeals were also dismissed on the basis of prosecutorial discretion with the Court of Appeal finding that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was not bound by the findings of anti-trafficking authorities.
The European Court of Human Rights reiterated the procedural guarantees under Article 4, clarifying that the positive obligations of victim protection and investigation do not depend on a motion filed by a victim. Such obligations are triggered as soon as there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is credible suspicion of trafficking. Consequently, although prosecution of victims of trafficking is not prohibited per se, a decision on whether to prosecute should only be taken following an assessment made by qualified personnel; even more so in cases concerning children. Any prosecutorial decision will then have to take account this assessment and, although not bound by it, a prosecutor would have to clearly state any reasons to continue with the prosecution. In the present case, the CPS failed to consider available information around the subtle and particular psychological aspects of a trafficked child’s experience despite existing guidance and domestic jurisprudence.  The Court further examined the Article 6 aspects of the case and found that the lack of proper investigation and assessment of the potential situation of trafficking deprived the applicants of important information regarding their status that could affect their prosecution, a deprivation that directly affected their right to defence.Lastly, it was noted that during their appeals, the subsequent findings that they had been trafficked were also disregarded by the authorities; such a narrow approach in accepting subsequent arguments in the context of judicial review punishes victims of trafficking for not identifying and presenting themselves as such from the beginning. The Court found a violation of Article 4 and Article 6, § 1.

 

Protezione internazionaleDutch Council of State, Judgment of 28 January 2021, 202006266/1/V3

On 28 January 2021, the Dutch Council of State annulled the State Secretary’s decision to return a vulnerable Syrian national, who had obtained international protection in Greece, back to Greece. The applicant lost his wife and daughter in Yemen. Even though Greece granted him international protection, the applicant also submitted a new application for international protection in the Netherlands. The medical advice of the Dutch Medical Advice Office (BMA) showed, inter alia, that the applicant suffered serious psychological problems and tried to commit suicide on two occasions. The BMA concluded that without treatment, the applicant would face a medical emergency in the short term and attempt suicide again. Nonetheless, the State Secretary declared his application for a temporary asylum residence permit inadmissible. Subsequently, the Court of the Hague confirmed this decision and concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that his return to Greece would expose him to a situation contrary to Article 3 ECHR. Before the Council of State, the applicant claimed that the Court and State Secretary had, erroneously, not identified him as a ‘particularly vulnerable person, and relied on the CJEU case of Ibrahim.  He underlined that due to the limited access to Greek medical care and social services, he could end up, involuntarily, in a situation of extreme material poverty in Greece. The Council agreed that the applicant is ‘extremely vulnerable’ and, as he would be wholly dependent on State support, his vulnerability would reach the threshold set out in §§ 89-91 of the Ibrahim-judgment. More specifically, the Council underlined that it is hard for foreigners to find housing and generate an income and further referred to difficulties that the applicant might encounter in accessing medical and psychological care, even though he would need this care in the short term.  In conclusion, the Council quashed the Court’s judgment, annulled the State Secretary’s decision and ordered him to adopt a new decision assessing why, after arriving in Greece, the applicant would not, because of his particular vulnerability, and for reasons beyond his own will and choices, end up in a state of extreme material poverty.

 

Diritto all’abitazione Corte Cost., sentenza del 29 gennaio 2021, n. 9

È dichiarata l’illegittimità costituzionale dell’art. 2, co. 1, della legge reg. Abruzzo n. 34/2019 nella parte in cui introduce oneri aggiuntivi in capo ai cittadini extra-UE rispetto ai cittadini italiani ed europei, richiedendo loro di presentare anche la documentazione che attesti che tutti i componenti del nucleo familiare non posseggono alloggi adeguati nel Paese di origine o provenienza. La previsione risulta infatti discriminatoria, oltre che radicalmente irragionevole per la palese irrilevanza del requisito che mira a dimostrare: se,  infatti,  lo  scopo  della  normativa  nella  quale  la  disposizione  impugnata  si  colloca  è  di garantire un alloggio adeguato nel luogo di residenza in Regione a chi si trovi nelle condizioni di bisogno individuate dalla legge, il possesso da parte di uno dei componenti del nucleo familiare del richiedente di un alloggio adeguato nel Paese di origine o provenienza non appare sotto alcun profilo rilevante.

 

Misure di accoglienza – Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza del 8 febbraio 2021, n. 1138

Lo spaccio di sostanze stupefacenti è in quanto tale incompatibile con la permanenza del richiedente protezione internazionale all’interno della struttura ospitante e determina pertanto la revoca delle misure di accoglienza ex art. 23, co. 1, lett. e), d.lgs. n. 142/2015.

 

Divieto di discriminazioneCass. civ., sez. I, sentenza del 15 febbraio 2021, n. 3842

In considerazione del quadro normativo costituzionale (art. 3 Cost), sovranazionale (direttiva 2000/43/CE) e interno (artt. 3 e 4 d.lgs. 21572003 e 44 d.lgs. 286/98) di rifermento, il diritto a non essere discriminati si configura come un diritto soggettivo assoluto da far valere davanti al giudice ordinario, a nulla rilevando che il dedotto comportamento discriminatorio consista nell’emanazione di un atto amministrativo.

 

Protezione internazionaleHigher Administrative Court of North Rhine Westphalia, Judgment of 21 January 2021, 11 A 1564 / 20.A

The applicant made an application for international protection in Germany in July 2018. A EURODAC search revealed that the applicant had previously received international protection in Greece in January 2015. The Federal Office for Migration and Refugees subsequently rejected the applicant’s asylum application as inadmissible and issued a deportation order against him to Greece. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed to the Administrative Court. The applicant further appealed to the Higher Administrative Court.   Referring to, inter alia, the CJEU’s judgment in Ibrahim, the Higher Administrative Court, stated that Art. 33(2)(a) of the Procedures Directive (Directive 2013/3/EU) is transposed into domestic law in such a way as to prohibit the rejection of an application for international protection as inadmissible when an applicant has already received refugee status or subsidiary protection in another Member State, if the living conditions in that Member State would expose him to a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 4 of the Charter or the corresponding Article 3 ECHR. It further recalled that the CJEU assumes a violation of Article 4 of th Charter if the indifference of the authorities of a Member State would have the effect of placing a person wholly dependent on public assistance, irrespective of their will or personal choices, in a situation of extreme material poverty which would not allow him to satisfy his most basic needs- in particular the ability to feed himself, to wash himself and to find accommodation. On the basis of publicly available information, the Court considered that it would be unlikely for the applicant to find decent accommodation and gainful employment in Greece. Moreover, it also noted that he would not have access to social benefits and therefore would not be a position to reasonably secure the minimum level of subsistence. As such, the Court considered the application for asylum could not be rejected as inadmissible because it had concluded that the applicant faced a serious risk of inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to Greece. The application was remitted to the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees for reconsideration.

 

Protezione dei minori – CRC, Decision of 5 February 2021, communication CRC/C86/D/51/2018

The author’s biological mother, V.B., is a lesbian who lives with both the author and her female partner, A.S. in Russia. They concealed the nature of their relationship out of fear of persecution and discrimination, given the hostile environment against the LGBT community. The family moved to Finland in 2015 and filed requests for international protection and humanitarian residence permits based on persecution and discrimination they had faced and the fear of further infringements on their rights. Their applications were rejected by the Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) on the grounds that the discrimination faced by the V.B. and A.S. and the bullying faced by A.B did not meet the threshold for persecution. The Helsinki Administrative Court confirmed FIS’s decision and a further appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Administrative Court. Consequently, the author, V.B and A.S applied for assisted voluntary return and left Finland in August 2017. Upon their return, V.B and A.S felt compelled to tell A.B. to conceal their relationship. The author claims, inter alia, that Finnish authorities failed to conduct an adequate best interests assessment in the examination of the family’s application for asylum and residence permit in Finland, thereby violating article 3  CRC read in conjunction with article 22 CRC. A.B further submits that the decision to deport the family was contrary to his best interests within the meaning of Article 3 CRC, due to the risk of maltreatment. The Committee recalled that in order to demonstrate that the best interests have been assessed and taken into primary consideration, any decision concerning the child should be motivated, justified and explained. The motivation should clearly state all the factual circumstances including what elements were found relevant in the assessment and how they have been weighted to determine the child’s best interests. The Committee observed that the formal and general reference  to best interests of A.B. by the FIS, without considering his views, reflects a failure to consider specific circumstances surrounding the case and assess the existence of a risk of a violation of the CRC against such specific circumstances. The Committee also noted the failure to properly consider the risk of violence and harassment towards A.B upon his return to Russia. In particular, it noted the lack of consideration of the young age of A.B at the time of the decision and the permanent impact that constant bullying and stigmatization based on his mother’s sexual orientation may have on him. In light of these things, the  Committee concluded that Finland had failed to adequately take into account the best interests of the child as a primary consideration and had failed to protect him against a real risk of irreparable harm in case of his return to Russia.

 

Protezione sussidiaria Cass. civ., sez. III, ordinanza 3 febbraio 2021, n. 2387

A differenza delle altre forme di protezione, quella sussidiaria (art. 14, lett. c, d.lgs. n. 251/2007) non richiede la “personalizzazione del rischio”, sicché il richiedente protezione a tale titolo non ha alcun onere di allegare gli elementi che si riferiscono alla sua storia personale, salvo quelli indispensabili per verificare il Paese o la regione di provenienza. Una volta che l’interessato abbia fornito tali elementi, spetta al giudice, anche d’ufficio, accertare con opportuni strumenti istruttori se nel territorio indicato sussista una situazione di violenza indiscriminata in presenza di conflitto armato, tale da costituire una minaccia grave alla vita o alla persona; valutazione che può svilupparsi a prescindere dalla rappresentazione della vicenda individuale di esposizione al rischio persecutorio.

 

Permesso di soggiorno – Cass. civ, sez. I, ordinanza 8 febbraio 2021, n. 2925

In materia di permesso di soggiorno per motivi familiari, lo straniero coniugato da almeno un anno con la cittadina UE (art. 30, co. 1, lett. b, TUI) non deve dimostrare il requisito della “convivenza effettiva”, in quanto solo l’accertamento che il matrimonio fu contratto esclusivamente per consentire all’interessato di soggiornare in Italia osta al rilascio o al rinnovo del predetto titolo.

  

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lazio, sez. I ter, sentenza del 10 febbraio 2021, n. 1631

È legittimo il provvedimento che dichiara irricevibile l’istanza di rilascio del permesso di soggiorno per motivi familiari/affidamento quando la minore età dell’istante risulta da un passaporto rilasciato dall’autorità consolare del Paese di cittadinanza dopo l’arrivo dell’interessato in Italia, ma è invece esclusa dagli accertamenti medici svolti sul territorio nazionale senza che ne siano mai state impugnate le risultanze.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lombardia, sez. staccata di Brescia, sez. II, sentenza del 5 febbraio 2021, n. 132

Ferma la natura ordinatoria del termine previsto per la richiesta di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, non è illegittimo il diniego del rinnovo opposto al cittadino straniero che ha inoltrato l’istanza quando è già stato raggiunto dal decreto di espulsione. Tale provvedimento osta infatti di per sé alla rivalutazione della posizione dell’interessato, in coerenza con quanto stabilito dall’art. 13, co. 13, TUI che, per il rientro in Italia del destinatario dell’espulsione, richiede la speciale autorizzazione del Ministero dell’interno.

 

Accoglienza TAR Lombardia, sez. IV, sentenza del 2 febbraio 2021, n. 305

L’art. 14, co. 3 e 4, d.lgs. n. 142/2015 assicura l’inserimento in una struttura di accoglienza del richiedente dal momento della proposizione della domanda di protezione internazionale e fino alla relativa decisione nonché, in pendenza del termine d’impugnazione e ove proposta, fino alla definizione della stessa, salvi i casi previsti dall’art. 35 bis, co. 3 e 4, d.lgs. n. 25/2008 e purché l’interessato vanti un reddito inferiore all’importo dell’assegno sociale.

 

Trattenimento Cass. civ., sez. I, sentenza del 3 febbraio 2021, n. 2457

L’art. 6, comma 5, del D. Lgs. 142/2015, prevede la convalida del trattenimento del richiedente protezione internazionale per un periodo iniziale massimo di sessanta giorni, per consentire l’espletamento della procedura di esame della domanda, ma esclusivamente nel caso in cui il cittadino straniero presenti domanda di protezione internazionale mentre è già in condizioni di trattenimento. Mentre, precisa la Corte, nelle ipotesi di trattenimento ex novo del richiedente protezione internazionale deve applicarsi l’art. 14, comma 5, primo periodo, del D. Lgs. 286/1998, il quale prevede che la convalida comporti la permanenza nel centro per un periodo di complessivi trenta giorni. Ciò in quanto l’art. 6, comma 5, relativamente alla procedura di convalida del provvedimento con il quale il questore dispone il trattenimento rimanda esplicitamente alle disposizioni di cui all’art. 14, comma 5.

 

Discriminazione Corte App. Firenze, sentenza del 27 gennaio 2021

La richiesta di documentazione supplementare ai sensi dell’art. 3 DPR 445/2000 per accedere agli alloggi di edilizia residenziale pubblica, rivolta al solo cittadino straniero (che, a differenza del cittadino UE non può presentare autocertificare) è da considerarsi illegittima e irragionevole, costituendo un’ipotesi di discriminazione diretta nel momento in cui pone il cittadino straniero, in ragione della sua condizione di straniero, in una situazione significativamente più svantaggiosa rispetto a quella dell’italiano.

Detenzione in zone di transitoECtHR, Judgment of 2 March 2021, R.R. and others c. Hungary, Application no. 360371/17

The judgment concerned the confinement of an Iranian-Afghan family, including three minor children, to the Röszke transit zone at the border of Hungary and Serbia between 19 April and 15 August 2017. The ECtHR assessed the applicants’ complaints under Article 3 ECHR concerning the conditions of their confinement and acknowledged that the complaint was twofold. Firstly however, the Court distinguished the facts in the present case from that of Ilias and Ahmed by highlighting the particular vulnerability of the applicants in the present case owing to R.R’s repeat asylum seeker status, the children’s young age and S.H’s pregnancy and serious health condition. With regard to R.R.’s lack of access to food and his situation of extreme poverty, the Court emphasised that the applicant could not leave the transit zone and as a result, was fully dependent on the Hungarian authorities for his most basic human needs. In that regard, the living conditions which R.R. had been subjected to were incompatible with Article 3 ECHR.
In reference to S.H. and the applicant children’s complaint under Article 3, the ECtHR pointed to the obligations under the Reception Conditions Directive that require the specific situation of minors and pregnant women to be taken into account, along with any special reception needs linked to their status throughout the duration of the asylum procedure. It observed that no individualised assessment of the special needs of the applicants were carried out by the Hungarian authorities. It found that in view of, inter alia, the physical conditions of the containers in which the applicants were accommodated, the unsuitability of the facilities for children, the lack of professional psychological assistance and the duration of the stay in the transit zone, the threshold of severity required to engage Article 3 had been reached and therefore violated the provision.
The ECtHR reiterated the factors set out in Ilias and Ahmed that should be taken into consideration when determining the distinction between a restriction on liberty of movement and deprivation of liberty in the context of the confinement of individuals in transit zone and reception centres. It considered that owing to, inter alia, the lack of any domestic legal provisions fixing the maximum duration of the applicants’ stay, the excessive duration of the applicants’ stay and the conditions in the transit zone, the applicant’s stay amounted to a de facto deprivation of liberty. The ECtHR reiterated that any deprivation of liberty must be «in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law». It continued to conclude that there was no strictly defined statutory basis for the applicants detention and no formal decision complete with reasons for detention had been issued by the Hungarian authorities. As such, the ECtHR was satisfied that the applicant’s detention could not be considered lawful under Article 5(1) ECHR. Moreover, it considered that the applicants did not have avenue in which the lawfulness of their detention could have been decided promptly by a court, thereby violating Article 5(4) ECHR.

 

Rimpatrio e interesse del minoreCGUE, sentenza 11 marzo 2021, M.A. c. Stato belga, C-112/20

L’art. 5, lett. a) della direttiva 2008/115 è una norma generale che gli Stati membri devono osservare non appena attuano la direttiva e, in particolare, quando adottano una decisione di rimpatrio. Tale disposizione, letta alla luce dell’art. 24 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali, implica che l’interesse superiore del minore deve essere tenuto in debita considerazione non solo quando tale decisione è adottata nei suoi confronti, ma anche quando il destinatario è padre di un minore regolarmente soggiornante nello Stato membro interessato.

 

Segnalazioni nel SIS e permesso di soggiorno CGUE, sentenza 4 marzo 2021, A. c. Migrationsverket, C-193/19

L’articolo 25, paragrafo 1, della Convenzione di applicazione dell’Accordo di Schengen, del 14 giugno 1985, come modificata dal regolamento (UE) n. 265/2010 del 25 marzo 2010, deve essere interpretato nel senso che non osta a una normativa di uno Stato membro che consente il rilascio, la proroga o il rinnovo di un titolo di soggiorno ai fini del ricongiungimento familiare, richiesti da un cittadino di un paese terzo che sia oggetto di una segnalazione nel sistema d’informazione Schengen ai fini della non ammissione nello spazio Schengen e la cui identità non abbia potuto essere comprovata con un documento di viaggio valido, quando gli interessi dello Stato membro che effettua la segnalazione, preventivamente consultato, sono stati presi in considerazione e il titolo di soggiorno è rilasciato, prorogato o rinnovato solo per “motivi seri”, e in particolare, ma non esaustivamente, per ragioni umanitarie o in conseguenza di obblighi internazionali.

Il regolamento (UE) 2016/399, del 9 marzo 2016, che istituisce un codice unionale relativo al regime di attraversamento delle frontiere da parte delle persone (codice frontiere Schengen) e, in particolare, il suo articolo 6, paragrafo 1, lettera a), deve essere interpretato nel senso che non si applica a un cittadino di un paese terzo che si trovi in una situazione del genere.

 

Cittadinanza italianaCons. Stato, sentenza 5 marzo 2021, n. 1893

Ferma l’ampia discrezionalità della PA nel negare il riconoscimento della cittadinanza italiana, il giudizio sull’integrazione sociale dello straniero non può ispirarsi al criterio – antistorico e irrealistico – dell’assoluta irreprensibilità morale del richiedente. Pur dovendosi tener conto della commissione di fatti penalmente rilevanti, tale giudizio non può fondarsi astrattamente sulla tipologia di reato e sulla relativa pericolosità ma, salvi i casi di reati c.d. ostativi (art. 6, l. n. 91/1992), la P.A. deve apprezzare tutte le circostanze del fatto in concreto, delle sue modalità, del suo effettivo disvalore come anche della personalità del soggetto.

 

Condizione dei trattenuti nei CPRTrib. Milano, ordinanza 23 febbraio 2021

Il richiedente asilo trattenuto in un Centro per il Rimpatrio ha il diritto di accedere al proprio telefono cellulare in quanto l’impedimento costituisce una limitazione del diritto alla libertà di comunicazione che non trova fondamento nella nostra costituzione. La limitazione delle comunicazioni con l’esterno, che necessariamente consegue all’impossibilità di accedere al proprio telefono cellulare, è altresì idonea a configurare una violazione del diritto di difesa dei trattenuti. Il Tribunale ordina alla Prefettura, alla Questura di Milano e all’ente gestore di consentire al ricorrente la detenzione e l’utilizzo del proprio telefono cellulare secondo le modalità indicate dall’articolo 7 del Regolamento Unico CIE (Regolamento Ministeriale 20 ottobre 2014) per le visite all’interno del centro, ovvero in base a turni quotidiani, in locali sottoposti a sorveglianza ma nel rispetto della riservatezza della persona e per un tempo sufficiente, che l’ordinanza indica in almeno due ore.

 

Detenzione per il rimpatrioECtHR, Judgment of 11 March 2021, Feilazoo v. Malta, Application no. 6865/19

After serving a sentence of twelve years in relation to drug related offences, the applicant was informed that he would be returned to Nigeria and held in an immigration detention centre until his removal. Following another incident, the applicant was sentenced to a further two year imprisonment, suspended for three years and a fine. His deportation was also ordered and on the same day, the applicant was transferred to a closed detention centre for immigrants. The applicant complained about the conditions of his immigration detention under Article 3 ECHR. The ECtHR reiterated that it had already expressed concerns about the Safi Barracks detention facility. It placed significant emphasis on the 75 days that the applicant spent alone in a container without any access to natural light and with no possibility for exercise during the forty days of his isolation. It stated that although accommodation in a container might not necessarily violate Article 3, the limited light and ventilation are important factors in this assessment. The ECtHR considered that the severity and duration of the isolation measure was excessive and it seemed that the authorities did not consider other alternatives. Moreover, it found it equally concerning that after this period of isolation the applicant was transferred to a different part of the facility where newly arrived asylum seekers were placed in Covid-19 quarantine. It was deemed that this could have posed a risk to the applicant’s health and therefore, could not be considered as complying with basic sanitary requirements. In that regard, the ECtHR considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention violated Article 3 ECHR. In relation to the applicant’s complaint that his detention was unlawful under Article 5 because his deportation was not feasible, the Court noted inter alia that the applicant was detained for fourteen months with a view to his deportation and there were no pending legal proceedings to delay the applicant’s deportation. The only step that the authorities took was to contact the Nigerian authorities for the issue of a passport and only one note verbale was shared in those fourteen months. The Court considered this could not amount to “diligent steps with a view to deportation” and as such, found a violation of Article 5(1) ECHR. The ECtHR also considered that the applicant’s right to a petition before the Court had been hindered due to interference by the prison authorities with his communication, resulting in a violation of Article 34 ECHR.

 

Minori non accompagnatiCRC, Communication of 4 February 2021, R.Y.S. v. Spain, CRC/C/86/D/76/2019

When the author, R.Y.S. a Cameroonian national, arrived in Madrid, the Spanish National Police registered her as an asylum seeking minor. She was admitted to a centre for the reception of minors where she remained for two months. R.Y.S. indicated that she was 16 years old and a medical report confirmed this. The medical report also recorded signs of physical abuse and during her interview, she disclosed that she had been abused sexually by her father. At a later date, R.Y.S. underwent further medical tests, including inter alia, a physical examination and a wrist X-ray, for the purposes of an age determination carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor for Minors. The Prosecution Service later issued a decree finding R.Y.S. to be an adult and expelled her from the reception centre. A few days later an administrative decision was issued refusing to grant her protection. She subsequently appealed against these decisions. It was for the Committee to consider whether the process of determining the age of the author had violated her rights under the CRC. In relation to the medical tests carried out to determine her age, R.Y.S.  underwent, inter alia, a physical examination which required her to undress completely and have her genitalia examined. The Committee noted that R.Y.S. had previously disclosed that she was a victim of sexual abuse and was not provided with information on the purpose of the examination in a language she could understand, nor was a legal representative appointed. The Committee concluded that the examination was carried out without her informed consent, which it considered an unreasonable interference with her right to privacy. Moreover, the Committee took the view that examinations of children involving nudity or examination of genitalia are an infringement upon their right to dignity, privacy and bodily integrity and should be precluded for the purpose of age assessment. As such, the Committee found that R.Y.S.’s rights under article 16 CRC had been violated. The Committee also considered the failure to assign a guardian or representative to defend her interests as a possible unaccompanied child asylum seeker and throughout the age determination procedure a violation of article 3 and 12 CRC. Moreover, by that reasoning, the Committee was of the opinion that the age determination procedure did not have the necessary safeguards needed to protect her rights under the CRC and that her best interests were not of primary consideration during the process. The Committee found that the failure to appoint a guardian for R.Y.S. or to allow her to apply for asylum as a minor had the effect of depriving her of the special protection that should be afforded to unaccompanied minor asylum seekers, in violation of articles 20 (1) and 22 CRC. Lastly, the lack of psychological support provided to R.Y.S., as an asylum-seeking child and victim of abuse violated her rights under articles 27, 29 and 30 CRC.

 

Protezione dei minoriCRC, Communication of 4 February 2021, R.H.M. v. Denmark, CRC/C/86/D/83/2019

The author, R.H.M., a Somali national, submitted the communication on behalf of her daughter Y.A.M.. The author and her daughter are subject to a deportation order from Denmark to Somalia. The author travelled to Denmark in 2013 and applied for asylum. She was later granted a residence permit and gave birth to Y.A.M. in 2016. The Danish Immigration Service subsequently decided to revoke the author and her children’s residence permits. R.H.M. unsuccessfully appealed this decision and in 2017, she filed a separate application for asylum on behalf of Y.A.M. claiming that, if returned to Somalia, Y.A.M. would face a risk of undergoing Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and would be removed from her care. The Refugee Appeals Board held that because R.H.M. was against the practice of FGM, she would be able to oppose the social pressure that would have her daughter undergo this practice and thus, rejected her application. The Committee recalled that the assessment of the risk of or irreparable harm to the child should be conducted in an age and gender sensitive manner and emphasised that States should give the utmost attention to child specific forms and manifestations of persecution as well as gender-based violence in refugee status determination procedures. The Committee noted that while the incidents of FGM in Somalia have declined, the practice is still deeply ingrained in Somali society. The Committee considered that rights of the child under article 19 CRC  could not be made dependent on the mother’s ability to resist family and social pressure. As such, the Committee concluded that Denmark had failed to consider the best interests of the child when assessing the alleged risk of the author’s daughter being subjected to FGM if deported to Somalia. It therefore concluded that the deportation of Y.A.M. to Somalia would amount to a violation of articles 3 and 19 CRC. The Committee also highlighted that Denmark was under the obligation to ensure that Y.A.M. was not separated by her mother or her minor brother.

 

Diritto del minore alla nazionalitàCCPR, Decision of 20 January 2021, D.Z. v. the Netherlands, CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016

The author, D.Z, was born on 18 February 2010 in the Netherlands and his nationality was indicated as ‘unknown’ in the municipal records. He complains that leaving him with no avenue to acquire a nationality the Netherlands have violated his rights under article 24 read alone and in conjunction with article 2(2) and (3) CCPR. D.Z.’s mother was born in China however her birth was not registered on any civil registry. A year later, when her brother was born, her parents abandoned her. In 2004, at the age of 15, she was trafficked to the Netherlands but managed to escape upon her arrival in Amsterdam. She applied for asylum but was rejected. Later when D.Z was born, he was registered as holding “unknown nationality” as his mother had provided no proof of his nationality. D.Z’s mother made several attempts to obtain or confirm her Chinese nationality which were ultimately futile. Despite years of efforts, the local municipality rejected D.Z’s mother’s request to change her son’s registered nationality to “stateless” so that he could avail of the international protections afforded to stateless children. A further administrative appeal was also rejected on the ground that there was no proof of D.Z.’s statelessness, such as official documents. D.Z later appealed to the Council of State which also upheld the decision of the municipality but acknowledged that the lack of a status determination procedure meant that individuals entitled to protection, including children were falling through a gap in legislation. The Council of State nevertheless concluded that it was for the legislature to provide a remedy in that regard. In its assessment, the Committee noted that D.Z.’s mother had contacted the Chinese authorities several times without success to confirm whether she and her son were considered Chinese nationals. It noted that in the decisions of the domestic authorities to reject the author’s mother’s request to register the author as stateless, no further steps that could be taken to obtain official documents concerning D.Z.’s nationality status from the Chinese authorities were outlined to her. It also highlighted that the national authorities made no inquiries of their own in order to attempt to confirm the D.Z.’s nationality status or lack thereof. Moreover, it pointed to the Council of State’s acknowledgment of the consequences of the gaps in legislation. Finally, it pointed to the State party’s declaration acknowledging that D.Z was unable to exercise his rights as a minor to acquire nationality. In that regard, the Committee concluded that the facts before it amounted to a violation of article 24(3) CCPR. Further, it held that the failure to provide the author with an effective remedy amounted to a violation of the author’s rights under article 24 (3) in conjunction with article 2(3) CCPR. Two additional concurring opinions were also issued.

 

Accesso al pubblico impiego TAR Lazio, sentenza 9 marzo 2021, n. 2867

In materia di accesso al pubblico impiego da parte di cittadini extra-UE soggiornanti di lungo periodo (cfr. art. 38, co. 3 bis, d.lgs. n. 165/2001), qualora il posto di lavoro sia uno tra quelli indicati dall’art. 1, co. 1, lett. d), d.p.c.m. n. 174/1994 è necessario esaminare se le funzioni implichino l’esercizio, diretto o indiretto, di pubblici poteri ovvero attengano alla tutela dell’interesse nazionale (cfr. art. 38, co. 1, d.lgs. n. 165/2001). In base alle indicazioni del bando di concorso e del contratto collettivo nazionale di riferimento, deve essere escluso che il posto di pubblico impiego oggetto degli atti impugnati comporti l’esercizio di tali funzioni, non risultando perciò precluso a stranieri in possesso di permesso di soggiorno di lungo periodo.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Lombardia, sentenza 4 marzo 2021, n. 593

È illegittimo il diniego di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoro autonomo se la PA ha considerato ingiustificata l’assenza dell’istante dal territorio nazionale senza tenere in considerazione le oggettive difficoltà nel reperire, legalizzare e tradurre la documentazione giustificativa dovute ad una emergenza sanitaria in atto, né l’esistenza di stabili legami familiari in Italia, dove l’esponente e la propria famiglia vivono e lavorano da anni, come previsto dall’art. 5 comma 5 del d.lgs. 286/1998.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Emilia Romagna, sentenza 3 marzo 2021, n. 196

La conversione in permesso ad altro titolo ex l. n. 132/2018, è possibile solo in corso di validità del titolo di soggiorno per motivi umanitari e non dopo la scadenza. Ne segue che è priva di fondamento la tesi per cui la Questura, nell’impossibilità di rinnovare il permesso per motivi umanitari, dovrebbe rilasciare un diverso titolo di soggiorno (nella fattispecie per motivi di lavoro), pur non essendosi il ricorrente attivato per richiedere la conversione nel periodo di validità del citato permesso.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Veneto, sentenza 1 marzo 2021, n. 284

È illegittimo l’annullamento d’ufficio in autotutela (art. 21.nonies l. n. 241/1990) del permesso di soggiorno che sia motivato esclusivamente sulla condanna per uno dei reati previsti dall’art. 26, co. 7 bis, TUI intervenuta prima del precedente rinnovo del titolo controverso. Infatti, l’annullamento – che determina il venir meno del permesso ex tunc – si distingue dall’ipotesi della revoca disciplinata dall’art. 26 citato, la cui applicazione automatica si giustifica proprio in ragione degli effetti ex nunc sul soggiorno dello straniero.

 

Cittadinanza italianaTAR Lazio, sentenza 1 marzo, n. 2478

Il provvedimento di diniego della cittadinanza italiana è adeguatamente istruito e motivato anche solo in riferimento ai pregiudizi penali dei familiari conviventi dell’istante quando essi, in ragione dell’acquisto della cittadinanza italiana da parte del loro congiunto, potrebbero ottenere un permesso per motivi familiari ovvero non essere soggetti a espulsione. Non si tratta infatti di estendere al ricorrente le conseguenze penali dei reati commessi dai membri del nucleo familiare, ma di non potere escludere che la concessione della cittadinanza possa recare danno alla comunità nazionale, per effetto dell’estensione ai familiari del richiedente delle previsioni relative ai parenti del cittadino italiano, ovvero della verifica della sussistenza della coincidenza dell’interesse pubblico con quello del richiedente.

 

Certificato di idoneità alloggiativaTrib. Bergamo, ordinanza 16 marzo 2021, R.G. 11456/2018

Costituisce discriminazione la delibera del Comune di Covo (BG) n. 63/2014, concernente un aumento da € 50,00 ad € 210,00 dell’importo da corrispondere per ottenere il certificato di idoneità alloggiativa in quanto tale aumento non risulta proporzionale, ragionevole e coerente rispetto allo scopo perseguito ed ai costi sostenuti dal Comune avendo posto in una posizione di particolare svantaggio gli stranieri residenti presso tale  Comune, compromettendone in sostanza l’esercizio, in condizioni di parità, dei diritti attinenti alla sfera personale, familiare e lavorativa, per motivi legati alla nazionalità.

 

Incentivi alle locazioni e discriminazioneTrib. Udine, ordinanza 2 marzo 2021

Costituisce discriminazione la condotta tenuta dalla Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia, consistente nell’aver adottato il Regolamento n. 66/2020 (“Regolamento di esecuzione per la disciplina degli incentivi a sostegno alle locazioni e favore dei conduttori meno abbienti nel pagamento del canone di locazione dovuto ai proprietari degli immobili destinati a prima casa di cui all’art. 19 LR 1/16”) nella parte in cui, ai fini dell’accesso alla prestazione di cui all’art. 19 LR 1/16, il Regolamento prevede, all’art.6, comma 2 lett. d), il requisito della assenza di proprietà di immobili in Italia e all’estero e, all’art. 9, comma 3 che tutti i cittadini extra UE debbano fornire “documentazione attestante che tutti i componenti del nucleo familiare non sono proprietari di altri alloggi nel paese di origine e nel paese di provenienza”, con conseguente esclusione di tutti i richiedenti di cittadinanza extra UE che non forniscano tale documentazione; costituisce altresì discriminazione la condotta del Comune di Udine consistente nell’aver inserito, nel bando di cui alla determina
934/2020, le medesime clausole.

 

Reingresso illegaleCass. pen., sentenza 9 febbraio 2012, n. 5062

La condotta di reingresso nel territorio dello Stato non autorizzato dalle Autorità (art. 13, co. 13, TUI) non è scriminata dal fatto che l’agente, cittadino extra-UE, è padre di minori cittadini italiani residenti in Italia (con cui era già cessata la convivenza al momento dell’espulsione). Esclusa ogni contrapposizione tra la disciplina del d.lgs. n. 30/2007 e quella del TUI, l’eventuale diritto al reingresso dopo l’allontanamento dal territorio dello Stato deve infatti essere esercitato mediante la richiesta di revoca del provvedimento e, quindi, di autorizzazione al rientro.

 

Condizioni di detenzione – ECtHR, Judgment of 18 March 2021, Turdikhojaev v. Ukraine, Application no. 72510/12

In June 2012, the applicant, a national of Uzbekistan, was arrested in Ukraine after being placed on an international “wanted” list at the request of the Uzbek authorities. He was placed in detention for the duration of the extradition proceedings. Following the rejection of his asylum application at first instance, the General Prosecutor’s Office (GPO) decided to extradite the applicant. This was upheld on appeal to the Kyiv City Court of Appeal (CoA) where the applicant was held in a metal cage during the hearing. On 10 April 2013 the applicant was granted refugee status in Sweden. On 12 April 2013, the GPO was informed of this by a letter from UNHCR which included a copy of communication from the Swedish Migration Board confirming the outcome of the applicant’s case. Subsequently, the GPO requested more information from the Swedish Embassy and the applicant appeared before the Kyiv City CoA in a metal cage once again. The applicant was released on 7 June 2013. In relation to the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 ECHR, the ECtHR first considered the conditions of detention. It pointed out that for much of the applicant’s detention, he was placed in cells where he was afforded less than 2 sq.m of personal space. Relying on Muršić v. Croatia, the ECtHR reiterated that where the personal space available to a detainee falls below 3 sq.m, a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 ECHR arises. It further noted that holding a person in a metal cage during a court hearing constituted an affront to human dignity in breach of Article 3 ECHR. The Court emphasised that the practice is inherently degrading in nature and incompatible with the standards of behaviour found in a democratic society. The ECtHR considered that the Ukrainian authorities had been duly informed of the applicant’s refugee status by 16 May 2013, at the latest, and therefore, the applicant’s detention after 16 May 2013 until 7 June 2013 could no longer be justified and violated Article 5(1) ECHR. The ECtHR also pointed to numerous other decisions concerning Ukraine where a right to compensation under Article 5(5) ECHR was not ensured in the domestic legal system. Similarly in this case, the ECtHR found no reasons to reach a different conclusion and found a violation of Article 5(5) ECHR.

Protezione internazionaleCGUE, Grande Camera, sentenza 15 aprile 2021, H.A c. Stato belga, C‑194/19

L’art. 27, par. 1, del regolamento n. 604/2013/UE, del 26 giugno 2013, che stabilisce i criteri e i meccanismi di determinazione dello Stato membro competente per l’esame di una domanda di protezione internazionale presentata in uno degli Stati membri da un cittadino di un paese terzo o da un apolide, letto alla luce del considerando 19 di quest’ultimo, e l’art. 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea devono essere interpretati nel senso che essi ostano a una normativa nazionale che prevede che il giudice investito di un ricorso di annullamento avverso una decisione di trasferimento non possa, nell’ambito dell’esame di tale ricorso, tener conto di circostanze successive all’adozione di tale decisione che siano determinanti ai fini della corretta applicazione di detto regolamento, salvo che la normativa stessa preveda un mezzo di ricorso specifico, implicante un esame ex nunc della situazione dell’interessato, i cui risultati siano vincolanti per le autorità competenti, che sia esperibile a seguito del verificarsi di siffatte circostanze e che, segnatamente, non sia subordinato alla privazione della libertà dell’interessato stesso né al fatto che l’esecuzione della decisione citata sia imminente.

 

Vittime di trattaCEDH, arrêt du 1er avril 2021, A.I. c. Italie, requête no. 70896/17 

L’affaire concerne l’impossibilité pour la requérante – réfugiée nigériane victime de la traite et en situation de vulnérabilité – mère de deux enfants, d’exercer un droit de visite auprès d’eux en raison

d’une interdiction décidée par le tribunal alors que la procédure d’adoption est pendante depuis plus de trois ans. La Cour observe en particulier que la cour d’appel, juridiction spécialisée, composée de deux juges professionnels et deux juges non professionnels, n’a pas tenu compte des conclusions de l’expertise qui préconisait le maintien des liens entre la requérante et les enfants et n’a pas motivé sa décision sur les raisons qui l’ont amenée à ne pas prendre en compte ces conclusions. Au vu de la gravité des intérêts en jeu, il appartenait aux autorités d’apprécier la vulnérabilité de la requérante de manière plus approfondie au cours de la procédure. La Cour considère que, pendant le déroulement de la procédure qui a abouti à l’interruption des contacts entre la requérante et ses enfants, les autorités n’ont pas été accordé suffisamment de poids à l’importance de la vie familiale de la requérante et de ses enfants. La procédure n’a donc pas été entourée de garanties proportionnées à la gravité de l’ingérence et des intérêts en jeu.

 

Espulsione CEDH, arrêt du 15 avril 2021, A.C. c. France, requête no. 5560/19 

L’affaire concerne un ressortissant russe d’origine tchéchène, arrivé en France encore mineur, qui a obtenu le statut de réfugié. En raison de sa condamnation pour des faits de terrorisme et étant donné que sa présence en France constituait une menace grave pour la société française, l’Office français des réfugiés et des apatrides (OFPRA) révoqua en juillet 2020 le statut de réfugié du requérant sur le fondement de l’article L. 711-6 du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (CESEDA). Une mesure d’expulsion à destination de la Russie fut ensuite prise à son encontre. Après avoir relevé qu’en vertu tant de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

que de celle du Conseil d’État français, la révocation du statut de réfugié est sans incidence sur la qualité de réfugié, la Cour rappelle que la question de savoir si l’intéressé a effectivement conservé la qualité de réfugié est un élément qui doit être particulièrement pris en compte par les autorités internes lorsqu’elles examinent, au regard de l’article 3 de la Convention, la réalité du risque que celui-ci allègue subir en cas d’expulsion vers son pays d’origine. Or la Cour constate que, dans le cadre de l’édiction puis du contrôle juridictionnel de la mesure d’éloignement vers la Fédération de Russie, les autorités françaises n’ont pas spécifiquement pris en compte que le requérant est présumé avoir conservé la qualité de réfugié en dépit de la révocation de son statut dans l’évaluation des risques encourus en cas de retour en Russie. La Cour en déduit qu’il y aurait une violation de l’article 3 de la Convention en son volet procédural si le requérant était renvoyé en Russie en l’absence d’une appréciation préalable par les autorités françaises de la réalité et de l’actualité du risque qu’il allègue encourir en cas de mise à exécution de la mesure d’expulsion.

 

Assegni per il nucleo familiareCass. civ., sez. lav., sentenze 8 aprile 2021, nn. 9378 e 9379

È sollevata questione di legittimità costituzionale dell’art. 2, co. 6-bis, d.l. n. 69/1988 con riferimento agli artt. 11 e 117 Cost. in relazione all’art. 2, par.1, lett. a), b) ed e) nonché all’art. 11, par. 1, lett. d) della direttiva 2003/109/CE, nella parte in cui, a differenza dagli altri beneficiari non cittadini stranieri, per i cittadini di Stati non appartenenti all’Unione europea che siano titolari di permesso di soggiorno di lungo periodo esclude dal novero dei membri del nucleo familiare cui è rivolto l’assegno familiare (ANF) il coniuge e i figli ed equiparati che non sono residenti in Italia.

 

Accesso ai CPR TAR Piemonte, sentenza 21 aprile 2021, n. 260

Tenuto conto che l’art. 6, co. 4 del d.m. 20 ottobre 2014 prevede che possano accedere al CPR anche soggetti diversi da quelli indicati al co. 1, che ne facciano richiesta, e previa autorizzazione della Prefettura, anche a voler ritenere che il presupposto legittimante l’accesso ai sensi della normativa di riferimento sia lo svolgimento di attività riconducibili all’assistenza e alla tutela direttamente svolte a beneficio dei soggetti trattenuti, il Collegio ritiene che l’Amministrazione non abbia tenuto in debito conto quanto previsto dallo statuto di A.S.G.I., né dell’attività che in concreto l’Associazione esercita, attività che ben emerge dal curriculum depositato in giudizio. Di conseguenza, è dichiarato illegittimo il provvedimento della Prefettura di Torino e il presupposto parere del Ministero dell’Interno, con cui è stata rigettata la richiesta dell’A.S.G.I. di accedere e visitare il Centro di Permanenza per il Rimpatrio “Brunelleschi” di Torino.

 

Protezione internazionale ECtHR, Decision of 15 April 2021, M.T. v. the Netherlands, Application no. 46595/19

The applicant and her two minor daughters are Eritrean nationals who entered and applied for international protection in the Netherlands in March 2018. After the Italian authorities agreed to take back the applicant and her children, the Dutch authorities decided not to examine her application. In September 2018, the applicant and her children left the Netherlands and the transfer to Italy did not take place. In December 2018, the applicant submitted a second unsuccessful application, arguing that the Netherlands ought to take responsibility for her application in view of recently enacted legislation “Salvini Decree” that stipulated that applicants for international protection in a situation like hers, would not be eligible for access to the second-tier reception facilities.  M.T. complained that the transfer to Italy would expose her and her daughters to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR. The ECtHR considered that the present conditions were decisive and noted that the latest modifications to the Italian system of reception for applicants of international protection took effect in October 2020. These changes entailed that inter alia, applicants for international protection have access to the second-tier reception within the Reception and Integration System (Sistema di accoglienza e integrazione – ‘SAI’) network. Further, given their vulnerability under Italian legislation as a single mother with two minor children, the Court considered that their placement into an SAI reception facility would be prioritised. It noted that even if the applicants and her children were initially placed in first tier reception facilities, pending their placement in SAI facilities, the latest amendments to the legislation, included an extension of a range of services provided in those facilities. The ECtHR further considered that there was no reason to assume the Dutch authorities would not inform Italian counterparts of the scheduled arrival of the applicants and her children, of their family situation and of any medical needs. As such, the Court considered that a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship to fall within the scope of Article 3 ECHR  had not been established and the application was deemed inadmissible.

 

AsiloBelgian Constitutional Court, Judgment of 25 february 2021, n. 23

The Belgian Constitutional Court clarified and annulled a number of provisions of the recently amended asylum legislation. The action was brought by a number of interested organisations and NGOs. It was argued that Article 34 of the legislation did not exclude the criminal prosecution of recognised refugees for their irregular entry into Belgian territory. The Constitutional Court pointed to Article 31 of the Geneva Convention and the former Article 53 of said legislation and clarified that the amending Article 34 also does not allow recognised refugees to be prosecuted on the basis of their irregular entry or stay. The Court considered that Article 48/6 of the Aliens Act, which sets out the obligation for international protection applicants to deposit their original identity documents, constituted an interference in the right to privacy and as such annulled the provision. It was considered that while the  provision pursues a legitimate aim, it was disproportionate for applicants to be deprived of their identity documents for the entire duration of the procedure. The Court stipulated that documents may not be held for longer than the period strictly necessary for an investigation by the Office of the Commissioner General for Aliens and Stateless Persons (CGRS).
In relation to the arguments of unconstitutionality regarding detention at the border, the Court rejected the claims and stated that detention takes place not merely because the applicant for international protection has submitted a request, but also to allow authorities carry out an initial investigation of the application before admission to the territory. In regard to detention if there is a ‘risk of absconding,’ the Court ruled that the definition is sufficiently delimited and as a result, the fear of arbitrary detention cannot be justified. Moreover, the Court confirmed the legality of the shortened appeal period for international protection applicants from fifteen to ten days, noting that applicants can enjoy the assistance of a lawyer from the moment a request is submitted. In relation to a third country national who has received a deportation decision, the Constitutional Court confirmed that the persons in those circumstances can bring an action against the order that has a suspensive effect, in the event of urgent necessity. It noted, however, that Article 39/7 of the Aliens Act will deny a suspensive legal remedy to applicants who submit a subsequent request in the year after the rejection of the first request. On the basis of the complaints before it, the Court provided seven nullifications and seven clarifications on various provisions of the legislation overall.

 

Protezione internazionaleCass. civ., sez. I, sentenza 6 aprile 2021, n. 9262 

Se l’ordinamento del Paese di origine punisce l’omosessualità con una pena detentiva che può arrivare all’ergastolo, il giudice deve accertare la concreta e particolare situazione del richiedente che alleghi la propria omosessualità, valutando se, in ragione dell’orientamento sessuale, reale o percepito che sia, questi rischi di subire atti persecutori e minacce gravi e individuali alla propria vita o alla persona e dunque sia impossibilitato a vivere nel proprio Paese senza rischi effettivi per la propria incolumità psico-fisica.

 

Discriminazione razzialeCass. pen., sez. I, 17 marzo 2021, n. 10335

L’ordinanza del sindaco che vieta a persone di una specifica etnia e senza fissa dimora di stabilirsi nel territorio comunale se non in possesso di certificazione sanitaria attestante l’esenzione da malattie trasmissibili deve ritenersi adottata su pura base razziale in assenza di un concreto pericolo per la salute pubblica connesso alla provenienza della persona da un particolare ambito territoriale e onerando gli interessati di un adempimento inesigibile (posto che nel caso di specie la ASL non avrebbe potuto rilasciare la certificazione richiesta). Si ritiene perciò integrato, tramite l’esercizio del potere provvedimentale espressosi nell’emanazione di una simile ordinanza, il delitto di cui all’art. 3, l. 13 ottobre 1975, n. 654 (oggi art. 604-bis c.p.).

 

Revoca del permesso di soggiornoTAR Friuli Venezia Giulia, sentenza 8 aprile 2021, n. 109

L’ipotesi di revoca del permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo di cui all’art. 9, co. 7, lett. e), TUI ha natura di vera e propria decadenza e opera per il solo fatto che l’assenza del cittadino straniero dall’Italia si protragga oltre il periodo di sei anni fissato dalla legge. Non è perciò necessario che il provvedimento di revoca sia motivato tenendo conto del radicamento sociale, familiare e lavorativo dell’interessato ovvero di altri aspetti legati alle sue condizioni di vita.

 

Domanda di cittadinanzaTAR Lombardia, sez. staccata di Brescia, sentenza 6 aprile 2021, n. 326

Fermo restando che va dichiarata inammissibile la domanda per il conseguimento della cittadinanza italiana corredata da documentazione fraudolenta e fatti salvi i casi in cui è dimostrata la responsabilità penale dell’istante, nessuna disposizione né alcun principio dell’ordinamento preclude all’interessato la possibilità di reiterare l’istanza allegando la documentazione autentica ovvero di produrre tale documentazione nell’ambito dello stesso procedimento, in un’ottica di economicità ed efficienza della PA

 

Respingimento alla frontieraTAR Lazio, sentenza 2 aprile 2021, n. 3974

La giurisdizione sul respingimento dello straniero alla frontiera appartiene al giudice ordinario, atteso che tale provvedimento incide su posizioni giuridiche aventi la natura di diritto soggettivo e annoverabili tra i diritti umani fondamentali (art. 2 Cost.) che non possono dunque essere degradate a interesse legittimo. Inoltre, tale provvedimento rientra, per omogeneità di contenuto e funzioni, nella più ampia categoria dell’espulsione, che l’art. 13 del TUI demanda alla cognizione dell’autorità giudiziaria ordinaria.

 

Permesso di soggiorno TAR Lazio, sentenza 2 aprile 2021, n. 3989

La PA è vincolata a negare il rilascio del permesso di soggiorno se lo straniero è destinatario di un ordine di espulsione ancora efficace e non revocato. Qualora il provvedimento di revoca del permesso di soggiorno si fondi su una sentenza di condanna passata in giudicato che ha irrogato la sanzione sostitutiva dell’espulsione (art. 16 TUI), la legittimità del provvedimento amministrativo non è incisa dal fatto che l’interessato non sia stato avvisato del procedimento di revoca in atto, in quanto l’Amministrazione non avrebbe potuto determinarsi diversamente, non essendo consentita ulteriore o specifica valutazione alla stregua di quanto deciso dal giudice.

 

Procedura di emersioneTAR Marche, sentenza 10 aprile 2021, n. 307

Il termine di cui all’art. 2 della legge n. 241/1990 relativo al silenzio della PA non si applica alla procedura di emersione (art. 103, co. 1, d.l. n. 34/2020) che rientra nella materia dell’immigrazione (cfr. art. 2, co. 4, legge n. 241/1990) e nell’ambito della quale si caratterizza, oltretutto, per connotati di eccezionalità. Peraltro i tempi “dilatati” di conclusione del procedimento amministrativo in causa non arrecano pregiudizi al richiedente, atteso che, come indicato nella Circolare congiunta dei Ministeri dell’Interno e del Lavoro n. 2399 del 24 luglio 2020 e dell’INPS n. 101 del’11 settembre 2020, il datore di lavoro, nelle more della definizione della procedura di regolarizzazione, può in ogni momento inoltrare all’INPS la comunicazione di assunzione, regolarizzando il rapporto di lavoro a livello contributivo, il che consente all’interessato di proseguire l’attività lavorativa. Deve essere dunque respinto il ricorso volto a far valere l’illegittimità del silenzio serbato della PA sulla procedura di emersione e a far dichiarare l’obbligo di provvedere.

Protezione internazionale ECtHR, Judgment of 27 May 2021, case of A.N. and Others v. Finland, application no. 41100/19

The applicants, Mr A.B., his wife G.K., and their five children born in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018, respectively, are Libyan nationals. They arrived in Finland in June 2018 on Schengen visas issued by Italy and later lodged applications for international protection. The Finnish Immigration Service requested that the applicant family be transferred back to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation and Italy accepted by default. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed against the decision to refuse their residence permits before the Administrative Court and Supreme Administrative Court of Finland. In August 2019, the ECtHR indicated to the Finnish authorities that, under Rule 39, the family should not be deported until further notice. They complained before the ECtHR that their removal to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation would breach Article 3 ECHR ad it was likely that they would not be provided with adequate reception facilities for the children or access to medical care. They also complained of a serious risk of the family being deported from Italy to Libya. The ECtHR examined the reception conditions for asylum seekers in Italy and assessed whether the situation there could be regarded as incompatible with Article 3 ECHR, in view of the family’s situation as asylum seekers with young children and serious health problems and, as such, belonging to vulnerable population group in need of special protection. It noted, however, that it already found  that the reception arrangements in Italy cannot act as a bar to all removals of asylum seekers to that country. As regards the applicants’ personal situation, the ECtHR highlighted the similarities between their situation and that of the applicants in Tarakhel. It noted that it was for the Finnish authorities to liaise with their Italian counterparts to arrange how and when the transfer would take place, as well as provide information on the situation of the family including any medical concerns, so that the Italian authorities could made adequate accommodation arrangements.  The Court acknowledged the applicants’ concern that they would not be provided with adequate reception facilities for the children or have medical care, due to the Salvini Decree of October 2018. However, it highlighted the subsequent amendments made by the Decree-Law No. 130 that extends reception services to all asylum seekers instead of limiting them only to persons with refugee status and unaccompanied children. Furthermore, the ECtHR acknowledged that applicants’ concerns that no individual or specific guarantees have yet been given by the Italian authorities but noted that it was not demonstrated that the applicants will have difficulty in obtaining such guarantees before their removal. Lastly, the ECtHR held that a real and imminent risk of hardship severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3 ECHR had not been established. The ECtHR concluded that the application was manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible.

 

Domande di protezione internazionale “successive” CGUE, sentenza 20 maggio 2021, L.R. c. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-8/20

Un cittadino iraniano aveva contestato il rigetto della sua domanda di protezione internazionale da parte dei tribunali tedeschi perché ritenuta inammissibile, in quanto “domanda successiva” ai sensi della c.d. direttiva “procedure” (direttiva 2013/32/UE). Alcuni anni prima, il ricorrente aveva presentato domanda di protezione internazionale in Norvegia, un paese terzo che partecipa al sistema europeo di asilo attuando le disposizioni del regolamento “Dublino III” (regolamento 604/2013/UE).  Secondo la CGUE, l’esistenza di una precedente decisione di rigetto da parte di un paese terzo non consente di considerare come “successiva” la domanda di protezione internazionale presentata dalla persona interessata a uno Stato membro dopo l’adozione della precedente decisione. La Corte aggiunge che l’esistenza di un accordo tra l’Unione europea, l’Islanda e la Norvegia sulle questioni relative alla migrazione è irrilevante. Infatti, mentre la Norvegia applica le disposizioni del regolamento “Dublino III” su base pattizia, lo stesso non vale per le disposizioni della direttiva “procedure” o della direttiva “qualifiche” (direttiva 2011/95/UE) che stabilisce le condizioni per poter beneficiare della protezione internazionale. Pertanto, in una situazione come quella in questione, lo Stato membro a cui un migrante abbia presentato una nuova domanda di protezione internazionale può, se necessario, chiedere allo stato terzo (in questo caso, la Norvegia) di prendere in carico il richiedente. Tuttavia, ove la presa in carico non sia possibile o non abbia luogo, lo Stato membro interessato non ha il diritto di considerare la nuova domanda come una “domanda successiva”, potendola respingere ove non ricorrano i presupposti per la sua ammissione. Da qui, il principio di diritto per cui: l’articolo 33, paragrafo 2, lettera d), della direttiva 2013/32/UE recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di protezione internazionale, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 2, lettera q), di quest’ultima, deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta alla normativa di uno Stato membro che prevede la possibilità di respingere in quanto inammissibile una domanda di protezione internazionale, ai sensi dell’articolo 2, lettera b), di detta direttiva, rivolta a tale Stato membro da un cittadino di un paese terzo o da un apolide la cui precedente domanda diretta al riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato, rivolta a uno Stato terzo che attua il regolamento n. 604/2013/UE sia stata respinta.

 

Trattamenti degradantiECtHR, Judgment of 18 May 2021, case of A.K. and others v. Russia, applications nos. 38042/18, 55546/18 and 20033/19

In 2014 and 2016, respectively, A.K. and S.P were charged by the Uzbek authorities with the crime of religious extremism. A.Y. was charged by the Tajikistani authorities with the crime of political extremism in 2015. Search and arrest warrants were issued by the applicants’ respective national authorities in the applicants’ names. The applicants were detained in Russia pending their extradition. The Russian authorities subsequently took final decisions to remove the applicants for breach of migration rules (in the case of A.K. and A.Y.) and following decision that the applicant’s presence was undesirable in Russia (in the case of S.P.), despite the applicants’ consistent claims that in the event of their removal they would face a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. All the applicants’ requests for the application of an interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court were granted. It was indicated to the Russian Government that the applicants should not be removed to their countries for the duration of the proceedings before the Court. The applicants’ cases were also granted priority (under Rule 41) and confidentiality (under Rule 33), and the applicants were granted anonymity (under Rule 47 § 4).  On 14 November 2019 the Court discontinued the application of the interim measure in respect of A.Y. because his complaint under Article 3 had been declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on 17 October 2019. On 11 February 2019 the interim measure in respect of A.K. was lifted at the request of the applicant which he submitted himself and through his lawyer.

A.K. and S.P. complained under Article 3 of the Convention that they would face a real risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention in the event of their removal to Uzbekistan. The applicant A.K. complained that the conditions of detention in SIZO 77/4 in Moscow between 10 August 2017 and 2 August 2018 and in centre for detention of foreigners (CUVSIG) in the Sakharovo village between 3 August 2018 and at least 11 February 2018 and/or currently, had been inhuman and degrading, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He further complained that he did not an effective domestic remedy in respect of his complaint concerning the poor conditions of detention, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention. A.K. and A.Y. also complained, in substance under Article 5 §§ 1 (f) and 4 of the Convention, about the lack of grounds for his detention pending administrative removal and that there had been no effective procedure by which he could have challenged their continued detention.

The Court held that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of A.K. on account of the conditions of detention in the Sakharovo detention centre between 15 August and 6 September 2018 and that there would be a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of S.P. if his expulsion were to be carried out. In addition, the Court held that there has been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention in respect of A.K. and A.Y.

 

Protezione internazionaleCass. civ., sez. I, 29 aprile 2021, n. 11298

L’esame della domanda di protezione internazionale deve essere svolto alla luce dell’effettiva e attuale area di provenienza del richiedente asilo, non potendo il giudice limitare la sua indagine, ai fini dell’adempimento del dovere di cooperazione ufficiosa e di acquisizione delle fonti informative di cui al d.lg. n. 251 del 2007, art. 8, comma 3 , alla sola area di nascita del richiedente che abbia riferito di essersi successivamente trasferito in altra area del medesimo Paese.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Lombardia, sez. III, ordinanza 7 maggio 2021, n. 1152

In tema di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, poiché nessuna sanzione è prevista a carico dello straniero che, convocato dalla PA, non si presenti senza giustificato motivo, prima di archiviare il procedimento l’Amministrazione deve comunque valutare attentamente la situazione concreta, verificando la sussistenza di un effettivo interesse all’ottenimento del titolo.

 

Trattamenti inumani e degradanti Trib. Roma, Sez. diritti della persona e immigrazione, decreto 2 aprile 2021

Il 2 aprile 2021 il Tribunale di Roma ha annullato una decisione riguardante il trasferimento di un cittadino pakistano in Bulgaria. Il ricorrente si è basato sul rapporto AIDA redatto dal Bulgarian Helsinki Committee, rilevando le carenze sistemiche dell’ordinamento bulgaro in riferimento alle procedure di asilo e alle condizioni di accoglienza. La Corte ha ritenuto che, alla luce delle informazioni contenute nel rapporto AIDA, le condizioni che i richiedenti asilo affrontano in Bulgaria non sono coerenti con i diritti fondamentali e non sono tali da prevenire un rischio di trattamento inumano e degradante come previsto dall’articolo 3, par. 2, del Regolamento Dublino III. La Corte ha ribadito che i giudici nazionali sono tenuti ad annullare le decisioni di trasferimento in uno Stato in cui vi è un ragionevole dubbio che non preveda condizioni adeguate per i ricorrenti. La Corte ha sottolineato che, ai sensi dell’articolo 3, par. 2, e dell’articolo 17 del regolamento Dublino III, nonché dell’articolo 4 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, solo la certezza di condizioni coerenti con la dignità umana in uno Stato di destinazione può garantire l’effettivo rispetto dei diritti fondamentali della persona interessata al trasferimento.

 

Discriminazioni Trib. Trieste, sez. lavoro, ordinanza 30 aprile 2021,

La condotta della Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia e del Comune di Trieste, consistente nell’avere imposto ai cittadini extracomunitari con permesso di lungo periodo di documentare l’insussistenza, per tutti i componenti del nucleo familiare, di un diritto di proprietà su alloggi nei paesi di origine e di provenienza, al fine di essere inseriti nella graduatoria per la concessione dei contributi regionali per i canoni di locazione costituisce discriminazione. In particolare, l’art. 29, co. 1-bis, l.r. n. 1/2016 deve considerarsi in contrasto con l’art. 11 della direttiva 109/2003/CE che tutela la parità di trattamento dei soggiornanti di lungo periodo nelle procedure di accesso all’alloggio. Quanto stabilito in tale disposizione appare altresì illegittimo alla luce della sentenza n. 9/2021 della Corte Costituzionale. Oltre alla condanna al pagamento delle somme dovute a titolo di sostegno alla locazione, la Regione è tenuta a pubblicare la pronuncia sul sito istituzionale per la durata di 30 giorni.

 

Protezione internazionaleHigher Administrative Court of Lower Saxon, Judgment of 19 April 2021, case 10 LB 224/20

The case concerns a Syrian national, whose application for international protection was rejected as inadmissible in March 2018 when the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees was informed that she was a beneficiary of international protection in Greece. An order for her deportation was also issued. The Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s appeals against these decisions. On appeal, the Higher Administrative Court ruled the decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees was unlawful. Referring to the CJEU’s judgments in Jawo and Ibrahim , the Higher Administrative Court indicated that Member States are prohibited from using the power to reject an application for international protection as inadmissible conferred by Article 33(2) of Directive 2013/32/EU,  where there is a serious risk of an infringement of Article 4 of the Charter. The Higher Administrative Court acknowledged recent domestic jurisprudence  and, having examined information relating to the situation of accommodation, employment and social benefits for beneficiaries of international protection in Greece, concluded that the applicant was likely, irrespective of will or personal choices, to find herself in a situation of extreme material distress and be unable to meet her most basic needs of at least ‘bed, bread and soap,’ if returned to Greece. In that regard, the Higher Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees to reject the applicant’s application for international protection as inadmissible. It also indicated that the order for deportation must also be lifted.

 

Protezione internazionale – Cour nationale du droit d’asile, arrêt du 30 avril 2021, n. 19050187

The applicant, Mr. B., who is originally from the Tigray region, claimed that his political stands and ethnic origin led to his arrest and torture and forced him to flee Ethiopia because of the searches and threats he claimed to have been subjected to by the authorities. His refugee claim was rejected in France in October 2019. In examining the applicant’s fear of persecution, the Court considered the deteriorating security and geopolitical situation in the Tigray region since November 2020. The judge was of the view that the circumstances that led Mr. B. to flee Ethiopia and the fears he expressed in his statements to the asylum authorities did not warrant the granting of refugee protection under Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention . Notwithstanding, the judge noted that the benefit of subsidiary protection under Article 15(c) of Directive 2011/95/UE  can exceptionally be granted when a certain threshold of indiscriminate violence characterising an armed conflict is met, as held by the CJEU in the  Elgafaji case. To assess whether this threshold was met in the case of the Tigray conflict, the judge relied on reports of EASO, OHCHR, Amnesty International, the Danish Immigration Service, the U.S. Department of State as well as information collected by various NGOs which described a situation of indiscriminate violence of exceptional gravity in the Tigray region as well as possible violations of international law amounting to war crimes and crimes against humanity. A report by Human Rights Watch notably confirmed the existence of massacres of the population perpetrated by the Eritrean army in the Tigray region during the month of November 2020. The Danish Immigration Service also found proof of ethnic cleansing and profiling of Tigrayans in Ethiopia.

The Court thus found that the applicant would, in the event of his return to Tigray, run a real risk of being subjected to a serious and individual threat to his life or person due to a situation of violence likely to spread to persons regardless of their personal situation and resulting from a situation of internal armed conflict, without being able to avail himself of the effective protection of the country’s authorities. He was therefore granted subsidiary protection by the Court.

 

Diritti fondamentaliHigh Court of Ireland, Judgment of 30 april 2021, Mah v. Minister for Justice, [2021] IEHC 302

The applicant, a Somali national, had qualified as a doctor in Ukraine. Upon her return to Mogadishu she received threats from jihadist groups because of the fact that as a woman, she worked and did not wear a full burqa. She fled to Ukraine after renewing her student visa. After the expiry of her student visa, she was smuggled to Hungary where she was granted refugee status. However, as she did not have any accommodation, she was unable to obtain work without an address. She was placed in a communal homeless shelter where she suffered physical assault, racist abuse and feared sexual assault. She later managed to travel to Ireland where she applied for asylum in February 2016. Because she was already a beneficiary of international protection from an EU Member State, her application was not considered and a deportation order to Hungary was issued against her in February 2020. The applicant sought, by way of judicial review, an order of certiorari of the deportation order. Upon examination of the deportation order, Justice Burns noted that the Minister for Justice was of the view that the Country of Origin Information provided by the applicant was not of relevance in light of her status as a refugee rather than an asylum applicant. The Court found that the COI obviously related to refugees and their treatment by wider society in Hungary and as such, the Minister for Justice had erred in dismissing the COI in this manner. Additionally, Justice Burns found that the Minister for Justice had failed to engage in any assessment of whether the applicant’s fundamental rights would be observed in Hungary. The Court noted that a presumption that an individual’s fundamental rights will be upheld in an EU Member State is rebuttable. In this case, no consideration was given to whether the presumption had been sufficiently rebutted despite the applicant’s account of her experiences in Hungary, the CJEU’s recent judgment in Commission v. Hungary  and the European Parliament’s resolution calling on the European Council to determine the existence of a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the values on which the Union is founded, particularly in relation to concerns of Hungary’s treatment of the fundamental rights of migrants, asylum applicants and refugees. The Court held that the Minister for Justice had erred in failing to at least consider whether the presumption had been rebutted.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Lazio, sez. I ter, sentenza 5 maggio 2021, n. 5264

Ferma l’ineludibilità della condizione reddituale, deve essere annullato, ai fini del nuovo esercizio del potere valutativo da parte della PA, il diniego del permesso di soggiorno per attesa occupazione adottato senza svolgere accertamenti sulla peculiare situazione soggettiva e familiare dell’istante, trattandosi di persona vulnerabile giunta in Italia come vittima di tratta, afflitta da precarie condizioni di salute e madre di due minori per cui pende in Cassazione ricorso contro la dichiarazione di adottabilità.

 

Procedura di emersione TAR Toscana, sez. II, sentenza 4 maggio 2021, n. 633

Deve poter accedere alla procedura di emersione (art. 103, co. 2, d.l. n. 34 del 2020) lo straniero che al 31 ottobre 2019 si trovasse in Italia privo del permesso di soggiorno per lavoro stagionale per cause a lui non imputabili, avendo ottenuto il rilascio del titolo da parte della PA solo dopo la scadenza del medesimo, pur avendo tempestivamente e correttamente inoltrato la richiesta.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Campania, sez. VI, sentenza 3 maggio 2021, n. 2921

Il meccanismo semplificato di cui all’art. 2, co. 1, l. n. 241/1990 può essere adottato in presenza di istanze manifestamente inammissibili e infondate, che non richiedono accertamenti particolari e senza possibilità di sopravvenienze, per cui è possibile omettere il preavviso di diniego. Non integra tali circostanze la situazione di precarietà alloggiativa dello straniero che, trovandosi in difficoltà abitativa, si avvale dell’iscrizione anagrafica “virtuale” messa a disposizione dal Comune. Trattasi infatti di materia dove tipicamente rilevano le sopravvenienze, come testimoniato dalla prassi della questura di non respingere istanze di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno presentate da stranieri con situazione abitativa irregolare, dichiarandole piuttosto improcedibili e invitando l’interessato a ripresentare l’istanza alla questura competente ove in grado di indicare una diversa collocazione abitativa.

 

Mafie straniereCass. pen., sez. VI, sentenza 3 maggio 2021, n. 16810

Il reato di cui all’art. 416-bis c.p. è configurabile anche in relazione ad associazioni per delinquere di origine straniera e a gruppi composti da stranieri operanti nel territorio italiano, i quali, pur senza avere il controllo di tutti coloro che lavorano o vivono in un determinato territorio, mirano a assoggettare al proprio potere criminale un numero indeterminato di persone appartenenti a una determinata comunità, avvalendosi di metodi tipicamente mafiosi e della forza di intimidazione derivante dal vincolo associativo per realizzare la condizione di soggezione e omertà delle vittime.

Domande di asilo reiterateCGUE, sentenza 10 giugno 2021, LH c. Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid, C-921/19

L’articolo 40, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2013/32/UE del 26 giugno 2013 (c.d. direttiva “Procedure”), in combinato disposto con l’articolo 4, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2011/95/UE, del 13 dicembre 2011 (c.d. direttiva “Qualifiche”), osta a una normativa nazionale in forza della quale si considera automaticamente che qualsiasi documento prodotto da un richiedente protezione internazionale a sostegno di una domanda reiterata non costituisce un «elemento o risultanza nuovo», ai sensi di tale disposizione, qualora l’autenticità di tale documento non possa essere accertata o la fonte di un siffatto documento non possa essere oggettivamente verificata. Il medesimo articolo, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 4, paragrafi 1 e 2, della direttiva 2011/95/UE, deve essere interpretato nel senso che, da un lato, la valutazione delle prove addotte a sostegno di una domanda di protezione internazionale non può variare a seconda che si tratti di una prima domanda o di una domanda reiterata e, dall’altro, che uno Stato membro è tenuto a cooperare con un richiedente al fine di valutare gli elementi pertinenti della sua domanda reiterata, qualora quest’ultimo produca, a sostegno di tale domanda, documenti la cui autenticità non può essere accertata. 

 

Protezione sussidiaria CGUE, sentenza 10 giugno 2021, CF e DN c. Bundesrepublik Deutschland, C-901/19

L’articolo 15, lettera c), della direttiva 2011/95/UE, del 13 dicembre 2011 (c.d. direttiva “Procedure”), deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta all’interpretazione di una normativa nazionale secondo la quale l’accertamento dell’esistenza di una «minaccia grave e individuale» alla vita o alla persona di un civile, derivante dalla «violenza indiscriminata in situazioni di conflitto armato», ai sensi di tale disposizione, è subordinato alla condizione che il rapporto tra il numero di vittime nella zona interessata e il numero totale di individui di cui è composta la popolazione di tale zona raggiunga una determinata soglia. Il medesimo articolo deve essere interpretato nel senso che, per stabilire l’esistenza di una «minaccia grave e individuale» è richiesto un esame complessivo di tutte le circostanze del caso di specie, in particolare di quelle che caratterizzano la situazione del paese d’origine del richiedente.

 

Parità di trattamentoCGUE, sentenza 10 giugno 2021, Land Oberösterreich c. KV, C-94/20

L’articolo 11, paragrafo 1, lettera d), della direttiva 2003/109/CE, del 25 novembre 2003, sui soggiornanti di lungo periodo, deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta – anche qualora si sia fatto uso della facoltà di applicare la deroga prevista dall’articolo 11, paragrafo 4, di tale direttiva – a una normativa di uno Stato membro in forza della quale, per quanto riguarda i cittadini di paesi terzi soggiornanti di lungo periodo, la concessione di un’indennità di alloggio sia subordinata alla condizione che essi forniscano la prova, secondo modalità determinate da tale normativa, di possedere conoscenze di base nella lingua di detto Stato membro, se tale indennità di alloggio costituisce una «prestazione essenziale». La verifica di tale requisito spetta comunque al giudice del rinvio. Non rientra nell’ambito di applicazione della direttiva 2000/43/CE, del 29 giugno 2000, che attua il principio della parità di trattamento fra le persone indipendentemente dalla razza e dall’origine etnica, una normativa di uno Stato membro che si applichi indistintamente a tutti i cittadini di paesi terzi e in forza della quale, per quanto riguarda i cittadini di paesi terzi soggiornanti di lungo periodo, la concessione di un’indennità di alloggio è subordinata alla condizione che questi ultimi forniscano la prova, secondo modalità determinate da tale normativa, di possedere conoscenze di base nella lingua di tale Stato membro. Qualora ci si sia avvalsi della facoltà di applicare la deroga di cui all’articolo 11, paragrafo 4, della direttiva 2003/109/CE, l’articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea non è destinato ad applicarsi in presenza di una legislazione di uno Stato membro in forza della quale, per quanto riguarda i cittadini di paesi terzi soggiornanti di lungo periodo, la concessione dell’indennità di alloggio è subordinata alla condizione che essi forniscano la prova, secondo modalità determinate da tale normativa, di possedere conoscenze di base della lingua di tale Stato membro, se tale indennità di alloggio non costituisce una «prestazione essenziale» ai sensi del summenzionato articolo 11, paragrafo 4. Se detta indennità di alloggio costituisce un servizio essenziale di tal sorta, l’articolo 21 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali, nella misura in cui vieta ogni discriminazione per motivi di origine etnica, non osta a tale regolamentazione.

 

Rimpatrio di soggiornanti irregolariCGUE, sentenza 3 giugno 2021, BZ c. Westerwaldkreis, C-546/19

L’articolo 2, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2008/115/CE, del 16 dicembre 2008 (c.d. direttiva “Rimpatri”) deve essere interpretato nel senso che tale direttiva si applica a un divieto di ingresso e di soggiorno, imposto da uno Stato membro, che non si è avvalso della facoltà prevista dall’articolo 2, paragrafo 2, lettera b), di tale direttiva, nei confronti di un cittadino di un paese terzo che si trovi sul suo territorio e sia destinatario di un provvedimento di espulsione, per motivi di pubblica sicurezza e di ordine pubblico, sulla base di una precedente condanna penale. La medesima direttiva deve essere interpretata nel senso che essa osta al mantenimento in vigore di un divieto di ingresso e di soggiorno imposto da uno Stato membro a un cittadino di un paese terzo che si trovi sul suo territorio e sia oggetto di un provvedimento di espulsione, divenuto definitivo, adottato per motivi di pubblica sicurezza e di ordine pubblico sulla base di una precedente condanna penale, qualora la decisione di rimpatrio adottata nei confronti di tale cittadino dal suddetto Stato membro sia stata revocata, sebbene il provvedimento di espulsione sia divenuto definitivo.

 

Meccanismi di denuncia e rispetto dei diritti umani da parte di Frontex  –  European Ombudsman, Decision of 15 June 2021, case OI/5/2020/MHZ

The Ombudsman opened an inquiry on her own initiative to look into how the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) deals with alleged breaches of fundamental rights through its “complaints mechanism”. In particular, the inquiry aimed to assess how Frontex had implemented new rules concerning the complaints mechanism and the Fundamental Rights Officer, which came into force in November 2019. It also sought to assess the overall effectiveness of the complaints mechanism, against a background of public concerns about fundamental rights violations in the context of Frontex operations. The Ombudsman found that, since its creation, the complaints mechanism has dealt with a very low number of complaints, with no complaints as yet concerning the actions of Frontex staff members. The Ombudsman also reviewed complaints dealt with by the complaints mechanism and identified various potential shortcomings that may make it more difficult for individuals to report alleged fundamental rights violations and seek redress. The Ombudsman’s inquiry also identified delays by Frontex in implementing its new obligations introduced by Regulation 2019/21986 concerning the complaints mechanism and the Fundamental Rights Officer. While deeming Frontex’s delay regrettable, the Ombudsman did not find it justified to pursue this matter further, since the situation is in the process of being resolved. The Ombudsman set out a series of suggestions for improvement to Frontex, with a view to improving the accessibility of the complaints mechanism for potential victims of fundamental rights violations and strengthening the accountability of Frontex operations and all those involved therein. These include suggestions on how to make it easier for potential victims of fundamental rights violations to be aware of redress possibilities and to report incidents, as well as suggestions to improve how complaints are handled and followed up on.

 

Protezione internazionale – UK Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber), Judgment of 27 Mat 2021, KK and RS (Sur place activities: risk) Sri Lanka CG [2021] UKUT 130 (IAC)

The appellants are two Sri Lankan nationals of Tamil ethnicity. Their applications for international protection were rejected and their appeals dismissed. In both cases, the Upper Tribunal retained the appeal for a resumed hearing to redetermine the issue on the appellants’ sur place activities. These two appeals were granted by the Tribunal in order to supplement the existing country guidance on Sri Lanka laid down in the 2013 case of GJ and Others (post-civil war: returnees) Sri Lanka, and to address the issue of the risk faced in Sri Lanka by individuals on the basis of sur place activities in the UK which are perceived to be in opposition to the Sri Lankan government. In its judgment, the Upper Tribunal found the Sri Lankan government to be an «authoritarian regime whose core focus is to prevent any potential resurgence of a separatist movement within Sri Lanka». It recalled that the government makes no distinction between, on the one hand, the violent means of the LTTE in furtherance of Tamil Eelam, and on the other, non-violent political advocacy for that result. Regarding sur place activities on behalf of an organization proscribed under the 2012 UN Regulations, the tribunal considered this to be a significant risk factor in the assessment of an individual’s profile, although its existence or absence is not determinative of risk. It also found that the Sri Lankan government operates an extensive intelligence-gathering regime in the UK, which uses information acquired through the infiltration of diaspora organisations, the photographing and videoing of demonstration as well as the monitoring of the internet and social media. The government also operates a general electronic database which stores all relevant information held on an individual, the contents of which will generally determine the immediate or short-term consequences for a returnee. It also operates a stop list and a watch list of individuals on the basis of the database. Regarding individuals returning to Sri Lanka whose profiles are deemed to be of sufficiently strong adverse interest to warrant detention upon arrival, the tribunal deemed that the benchmark introduced in GJ and Others, of whether an individual has played a “significant role” in Tamil separatism to constitute an appropriate test. The tribunal clarified that the term “significant role” does not require an individual to show that they have held a formal position in an organization or that their activities have been “high profile” or “prominent”. The KK and RS decision also broadened the list of activities performed in the UK that put individuals at risk, including attending commemoration events, signing petitions and social media activity. Finally, the tribunal found that there is a reasonable likelihood that those detained by the Sri Lankan authorities will be subjected to persecutory treatment within the meaning of the 1951 Refugee Convention and ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 EHCR. On the facts of the case, the tribunal recognized both appellants as refugees and ruled that the first-tier tribunal made errors on points of law in their appeals.

 

Conversione religiosaSupreme Court of Norway, Judgment of 3 June 2021, case no. HR-2021-1209-A

The Norwegian Immigration Appeals Board (UNE) rejected the applicants’ request for international protection pursuant to section 28 of the Immigration Act. The UNE did not find the story put forward by the applicants credible and believed that their return to Afghanistan did not justify a fear of persecution. The Court of Appeal concluded that the couple had not undergone a real conversion to Christianity. The applicants submitted an appeal to the Supreme Court. The questions posed to the Court were (i) whether the applicants underwent a real conversion to Christianity (ii) whether they are entitled to asylum because of this conversion, and (iii) whether there is risk of persecution if they return to Afghanistan because of the conversion. The Supreme Court first stated that the requirement for proof is not governed by an assessment of the asylum applicant’s general credibility, as UNE argued. The starting point must be whether the individual asylum declaration appears plausible, including whether it is coherent and sufficiently detailed. Thereafter, other factors, including the asylum seeker’s credibility, may be used. However, it is a condition that an applicant cooperates with the authorities and does what they can to provide evidence and to clarify the case, to profit from the lowered threshold of probability. Regarding the conversion, testimonies from religious experts must be given considerable weight in assessing its genuineness. The Supreme Court criticized UNE and the Court of Appeal for not giving importance to the testimonies of priests and pastors in their assessment of evidence, as well as for assuming Afghan asylum seekers’ declarations to be incorrect. The Supreme Court’s majority of three justices found that an overall assessment of the evidence clearly showed that the stories of the couple regarding their flight from Afghanistan to Norway appeared to be ‘learned and coordinated’, while explanations regarding their conversion were inconsistent and not credible. Declarations from religious experts, who claimed that the conversion was genuine, could not render the statements probable either. It found that as the conversion seemed to be one of convenience, they did not face a real risk of persecution upon their return to Afghanistan. The appeal was therefore rejected. A minority of two justices dissented from the majority and found that the religious experts’ testimonies had to be decisive and showed the realness of the applicant’s conversion.

 

Controversie sul riconoscimento della protezione internazionaleCass. civ., Sez. Un., sentenza 1 giugno 2021, n. 15177

In materia di protezione internazionale, il contrasto giurisprudenziale sull’art. 35-bis, comma 13, del d.lgs. n. 25/2008, nella parte in cui prevede che «la procura alle liti per la proposizione del ricorso per cassazione deve essere conferita, a pena di inammissibilità del ricorso, in data successiva alla comunicazione del decreto impugnato; a tal fine il difensore certifica la data di rilascio in suo favore della procura medesima» va risolto nel senso che esso richiede, quale elemento di specialità rispetto alle ordinarie ipotesi di rilascio della procura speciale regolate dagli artt. 83 e 365 c.p.c., il requisito della posteriorità della data rispetto alla comunicazione del provvedimento impugnato, prevedendo una speciale ipotesi di “inammissibilità del ricorso”, nel caso di mancata certificazione della data di rilascio della procura in suo favore da parte del difensore. Nella procura predetta, pertanto, deve essere contenuta in modo esplicito l’indicazione della data successiva alla comunicazione del provvedimento impugnato e il difensore può certificare, anche solo con una unica sottoscrizione, sia la data della procura successiva alla comunicazione che l’autenticità della firma del conferente. Tale interpretazione della portata precettiva della norma citata risulta compatibile con il quadro del diritto dell’Unione europea e con i principi di diritto costituzionale nonché della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo.

 

Cittadinanza italiana Cons. Stato, sentenza 31 maggio 2021, n. 4151

In materia di cittadinanza italiana per naturalizzazione, pur nella sua ampia discrezionalità, l’Amministrazione non può limitarsi a un giudizio sommario, superficiale e incompleto, determinandosi negativamente in base a una risalente condanna per una fattispecie contravvenzionale, senza contestualizzarla all’interno di una più ampia e bilanciata disamina che consideri i legami familiari del cittadino straniero, la sua attività lavorativa, il suo reale radicamento al territorio e la sua condotta complessiva che, per quanto non totalmente irreprensibile sul piano morale, deve comunque mostrare, perlomeno e indefettibilmente, una convinta adesione ai valori fondamentali dell’ordinamento, di cui egli chiede di far parte con il riconoscimento della cittadinanza. 

 

Protezione internazionaleTrib. Brescia, decreto 8 luglio 2020, R.G. n. 484/2019

Il Tribunale di Brescia, accogliendo il ricorso avverso la decisione della Commissione territoriale, ha riconosciuto lo status di rifugiato a un cittadino ivoriano, vittima di persecuzione politica e religiosa nel proprio paese d’origine, in seguito venduto come schiavo in Niger e infine sottoposto ai lavori forzati nei centri di detenzione libici, dove è stato vittima di trattamenti inumani e degradanti di cui riporta gravi ed accertate conseguenze fisiche. I giudici del Tribunale hanno seguito le affermazioni della Corte di Cassazione, in base alle quali l’indagine del rischio persecutorio o del danno grave in caso di rimpatrio deve essere effettuata con riferimento al paese di origine; al tempo stesso, tuttavia, hanno riconosciuto, sempre in accordo con la giurisprudenza di legittimità, che la vulnerabilità del soggetto può essere valutata anche tenendo conto delle violenze subite nel paese di transito e di temporanea permanenza. Nella vicenda di specie, l’esistenza di una condizione di vulnerabilità indotta dalle torture subite risultava ampiamente provata. I giudici riconoscono che il riconoscimento dei presupposti per l’asilo assorbe la domanda subordinata (che, proprio in ragione di quella vulnerabilità, troverebbe ampio fondamento). Tuttavia, per i giudici, la condizione personale del ricorrente non può ritenersi del tutto indifferente neppure in riferimento al riconoscimento della protezione maggiore, rafforzandone la necessità; questo considerando che la fondatezza del timore persecuzioni deve essere vagliata sia nella dimensione soggettiva come in quella oggettiva. L’art. 3 co. 3 lett. c) del d.lgs. n. 251 del 2007 richiede infatti di valutare tale rischio anche alla luce delle “circostanze personali del richiedente”. Proprio le torture inflittegli e le conseguenze anche permanenti che ne sono derivate, oltre a contribuire a confermare la credibilità delle dichiarazione rese in giudizio, incidono sull’intera personale vicenda del richiedente e sulla gravità del rischio cui sarebbe esposto nel caso di rientro nel paese di origine.

 

Iscrizione al SSNTrib. Treviso, ordinanza 9 giugno 2021, R.G. n. 125/2021

Sussiste il diritto dei familiari di cittadini italiani di essere iscritti al SSN ai sensi dell’art. 24 della direttiva 2004/38/CE, sicché la Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 753/2019 nei punti 8.4.2. e 9.1 nelle parti in cui impediscono l’iscrizione obbligatoria al Servizio Sanitario Nazionale per i genitori (di cittadini italiani) ultrasessantacinquenni non aventi la cittadinanza di uno stato membro che hanno fatto ingresso dopo il 5 novembre 2008 va disapplicata, con obbligo di rilascio delle tessere sanitarie ad opera della competente Azienda Sanitaria.

 

Discriminazione Trib. Torino, ordinanza 21 giugno 2021, R.G. n. 5230/2020

Costituisce discriminazione la condotta tenuta dalla Regione Autonoma Valle d’Aosta e per essa dalla sua Giunta Regionale, consistente nell’avere emanato la delibera n. 1580/2018 con la quale è stato indetto il bando di concorso per l’accesso al fondo di sostegno alla locazione per l’anno 2018, nella parte in cui detto bando conteneva le seguenti clausole: permesso di soggiorno CE per soggiornanti di lungo periodo ai sensi dell’art. 9 TUI anziché regolare permesso di soggiorno per qualunque tipo; assenza di proprietà su immobili ad uso abitativo in Italia o all’estero, senza esentare da tale requisito coloro che sono muniti di permesso di soggiorno per protezione internazionale o protezione umanitaria; obbligo (per gli stranieri UE ed extra UE) di dimostrare l’assenza di «proprietà a destinazione abitativa ubicata all’estero» mediante documentazione «riguardante attestazioni o certificati in corso di validità rilasciata dal competente stato estero stesso corredata da traduzioni in lingua italiana autenticata dall’autorità consolare italiana che ne attesti la conformità all’originale», invece che prevedere l’equiparazione tra cittadini italiani e cittadini stranieri, senza oneri documentali aggiuntivi per questi ultimi.

 

Discriminazione Trib. Pescara, ordinanza 4 giugno 2021, R.G. n. 5230/2020

Costituisce discriminazione la condotta tenuta dalla Regione Abruzzo, e per essa dalla Giunta Regionale, consistente nell’avere adottato la DGR n. 193/2020 nella parte in cui, all’allegato A, prevede, per l’erogazione di contributi per l’acquisto di beni di prima necessità di cui all’art. 2, comma 1 lett. d), l.r. 9/2020, per i cittadini extra UE, anche il requisito del permesso di lungo periodo ex art. 9 TUI o in alternativa del permesso almeno biennale unitamente alla regolare attività lavorativa, anziché il solo requisito della residenza nel territorio regionale.

 

Violazione dell’ordine di espulsioneCass. pen., Sez. I, sentenza 3 giugno 2021, n. 21851

La concessione del permesso di soggiorno successiva all’ordine di espulsione ma fondata su circostanze preesistenti equivale a un disconoscimento delle condizioni vincolanti per l’adozione del provvedimento espulsivo che priva di valenza offensiva l’inosservanza dello stesso ordine. Ne segue che non è punibile per essersi trattenuta sul territorio nazionale in violazione dell’ordine di espulsione (art. 14, co. 5-ter, TUI) la straniera che, successivamente a tale provvedimento, è stata autorizzata a permanere in Italia per due anni nell’interesse della figlia minore.

 

Revoca delle misure di accoglienzaTAR Piemonte, sentenza 8 giugno 2021, n. 599

In materia di revoca delle misure di accoglienza ex art. 23, co.1, lett. e), d.lgs. n. 142/2015, la notifica all’interessato dell’avvio del relativo procedimento può essere omessa per esigenze di celerità, in particolare quando la gravità della condotta, potendo minare la serena convivenza all’interno della struttura, ne rende necessario l’immediato allontanamento. Inoltre, in tale contesto, il precedente invio di una diffida da parte della Prefettura contenente la contestazione delle condotte e l’avvertenza che la loro reiterazione sarebbe stata valutata ai fini della revoca di cui all’art. 23, decreto legislativo n. 142 del 2015, garantiscono il requisito del contraddittorio.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Campania, sentenza 3 giugno 2021, n. 3711

Nel caso in cui il cittadino straniero abbia prodotto documentazione falsa attestante i redditi relativi all’attività lavorativa dichiarata, la legittimità del provvedimento di rigetto dell’istanza di rilascio del permesso di soggiorno non può essere inficiata dal decreto di archiviazione del corrispondente procedimento penale che si fondi (non sulla riconducibilità del fatto materiale al suo autore, ma) sulla inidoneità della condotta da questi posta in essere a ledere il bene giuridico protetto dalla norma incriminatrice.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Puglia, sentenza 4 giugno 2021, n. 973

Ai fini del rilascio del permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo, l’art. 9 TUI richiede, tra le altre condizioni, il possesso di un titolo di soggiorno in corso di validità da almeno cinque anni, senza specificarne la tipologia e senza che siano previste preclusioni. Ne segue che non c’è alcuna incompatibilità tra residenza elettiva e permesso di soggiorno di lunga durata, al quale potrà accedere, soddisfatti tutti gli altri presupposti, sia lo straniero giunto in Italia per motivi economici, sia lo straniero che abbia fatto ingresso per protezione internazionale, sia, a fortiori lo straniero in possesso di ampie disponibilità finanziarie, che offra sicure garanzie di autosostentamento e che intenda stabilirsi nel territorio nazionale.

Espulsioni collettive ECtHR, Judgment of 8 July 2021, Shahzad v. Hungary, Application no. 12625/17

In April 2016, the applicant attempted to travel to Serbia via North Macedonia. He claimed to have applied for asylum in Serbia on two occasions but was refused both times without having his asylum claims examined. On 11 August 2016, the applicant irregularly crossed the border into Hungary. Several hours later, he and other members of the group were apprehended by Hungarian police and removed to the other side of the border fence between Hungary and Serbia despite no formal decision having been made. As the applicant was unable to enter Hungary he stayed in Serbia. In late 2016 the applicant returned to Pakistan. Having referred to inter alia the general principles set out in M.K. and others,  the ECtHR considered the applicant’s complaint under Article 4 of Protocol 4 ECHR admissible. It continued in its assessment by referring to the principles summarised by N.D. and N.T. concerning the “collective” nature of an expulsion. The ECtHR reiterated that the decisive criterion for an expulsion to be characterised as “collective” was the absence of “a reasonable and objective examination of the particular case of each individual alien of the group”. While it was not disputed that the applicant was removed to Hungary without an examination of his situation by the Hungarian authorities, the ECtHR considered it necessary to assess whether this could have been attributed to his conduct. However, it was not argued that the crossing by the applicant had created a disruptive situation that was difficult to control and compromised public safety. The ECtHR therefore considered that apart from the applicant’s unauthorised entry, the case could not be compared to N.D and N.T. The ECtHR continued by reiterating that countries like Hungary, whose borders are, at least partly, external borders of the Schengen Area, must provide “genuine” and “effective” access to means of legal entry, in particular border procedures. It noted that in the present case, the only possibilities for the applicant to enter legally were through two transit zone located 40km and 84km from the location to which the applicant was returned. The Court accepted that while the applicant could physically reach the area surrounding the transit zones, he could not have made use of the asylum procedure because of the limited access to the zones based on the limit on the daily number of applications. Moreover, as a single man, and due to irregularities in the management of access to transit zones, the waitlist could take several months. In view of these considerations, the ECtHR concluded that the applicant’s removal was of a collective nature in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR. The ECtHR additionally concluded inter alia that the Hungarian government had failed to illustrate the effectiveness of the remedy available under Article 13 ECHR in conjunction with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR, thereby in violation of that provision.

 

Espulsioni collettiveECtHR, Judgment of 8 July 2021, D.A. and Others vs. Poland, Application no. 51246/17

The applicants are Syrian nationals, currently residing in Belarus, who attempted to seek international protection in Poland on three different occasions in 2017. They allege that the Polish authorities repeatedly denied them the possibility of lodging applications for international protection and exposed them to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment by removing them to Belarus, in violation of the interim measures granted to them by the Court. The Court first analysed the applicants’ claims under Article 3 ECHR that they had been exposed to the risk of inhuman and degrading treatment in Syria as a result of chain refoulement from Belarus to Syria. Referring to its previous decisions in Ilias and Ahmed v. Hungary and M.K. and Others v. Poland, the Court indicated that if a State seeks to remove an asylum-seeker to a third country without examining the merits of the asylum request, the expelling authorities should ensure that the individual will have access to an adequate asylum procedure and will not be subjected to refoulement in the receiving third country. The Court noted that at the time of the events, a systematic practice of misrepresenting asylum seekers’ statements existed at the border checkpoints between Poland and Belarus. It also rejected the government’s claim that the applicants had not expressed a wish to apply for international protection nor had explained the reasons why they feared persecution if they were subsequently removed to Syria. The Court noted that the applicants submitted an arguable claim that there was no guarantee that their applications for international protection would be seriously examined by the Belarusian authorities and that their return to Syria could violate Article 3 ECHR. Therefore, the Court found that the Polish authorities had violated Article 3 ECHR. Concerning the applicants’ complaint that they had been subjected to collective expulsion in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR, the Court noted that the authorities disregarded the applicants’ statements concerning their wish to apply for international protection. Even though individual decisions were issued with respect to each applicant, they did not reflect the reasons given by the applicants to justify their fear of persecution and hence were not based on a sufficiently individualised examination of the circumstances of the applicants’ cases. It therefore concluded that the decisions issued in the applicants’ cases constituted a collective expulsion of aliens in violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR. The Court also found a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 ECHR and that the Polish government had failed to discharge its obligations under Article 34 ECHR.

 

Riunificazione familiareECtHR, Judgment of 9 July 2021, M.A. v. Denmark, Application no. 6697/18 

The applicant is a Syrian national who was granted temporary protection in Denmark. He requested family reunification with his wife and two adult children five months after being granted a residence permit. His request was rejected as he had not been a Danish resident for the previous three years, as required by law. He unsuccessfully appealed the decision up to the Supreme Court. This was the first case in which the ECtHR was called on to consider whether, and to what extent, the imposition of a statutory waiting period for granting family reunification to persons benefiting from subsidiary or temporary protection status is compatible with Article 8 ECHR. The ECtHR considered a series of factors in analysing the scope of the margin of appreciation granted to States in family reunification cases. The ECtHR noted that an increased influx of migrants did not absolve States of their obligations under Article 3 ECHR, which does not allow for any exceptions, justifying factors or balancing of interests due to its absolute nature. Lastly, the ECtHR did not find any common ground at the national, European and international levels regarding the length of waiting periods. Overall, the ECtHR found that Member States should be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in deciding whether to impose a waiting period for family reunification requested by persons enjoying subsidiary or temporary protection. Nonetheless, the discretion afforded to States is not absolute and had to be examined in light of the proportionality of the measure at hand. The ECtHR then analysed whether the Danish authorities, in refusing the applicant’s request for family reunification due to the three-year limitation period, had struck a fair balance between the competing interests of the individual and of the community as a whole. It found that a waiting period of three years was a long time to be separated from one’s family, especially when the family member left behind remains in a country characterised by arbitrary violence and ill-treatment of civilians. Additionally, the Danish law did not allow for an individualised assessment of the interest of family unity in light of the specific circumstances of the persons concerned, nor did it allow for a review of the situation in the country of origin in order to analyse the prospects of return. In conclusion, the ECtHR found that the applicant had not been afforded a real possibility of having an individualised assessment of whether a shorter waiting period than three years had been warranted by considerations of family unity. Therefore, it was not satisfied that the authorities had struck a fair balance between the relevant interests at stake and found a violation of Article 8 ECHR.

 

Paesi di origine “sicuri” Conseil d’État, Décision du 2 juillet 2021, Nos. 437141, 437142, 437365

Le 2 juillet 2021, le Conseil d’État français a rendu une décision dans laquelle il a retiré trois pays, à savoir le Bénin, le Sénégal et le Ghana, de la liste des pays d’origine « sûrs », à la demande d’ONG dont l’Association des Avocats ELENA France. Concernant le Bénin, la décision précise que la situation politique du pays s’est rapidement détériorée depuis avril 2019 et connaissait une restriction des droits et libertés et de l’indépendance de la justice. Concernant le Sénégal et le Ghana, le Conseil d’Etat a relevé l’existence de dispositions législatives pénalisant les relations homosexuelles. Il a également expliqué que l’inaction ou la tolérance des autorités à l’égard des comportements anti-LGBTI justifiaient la crainte des individus d’être exposés à des persécutions ou à des traitements inhumains et dégradants en raison de leur orientation sexuelle.  Le Conseil n’a cependant pas retiré la Géorgie, l’Arménie, l’Inde et le Kosovo de la liste, comme le demandaient les requérants. Le Conseil d’État a estimé que ces États ne disposent pas actuellement de législation réprimant l’homosexualité et que leur radiation de la liste n’est donc pas justifiée.  La décision a un effet rétroactif, ce qui signifie que les demandeurs d’asile de ces trois pays doivent voir leurs demandes reclassées selon la procédure normale, plutôt que accélérée, et leurs conditions d’accueil matérielles (y compris financières) doivent être rétablies.

 

Condizioni di accoglienzaCass. civ., sez. lav., ordinanza 30 giugno 2021, n. 18621

Alla luce della risoluzione del Parlamento europeo dell’8 ottobre 2020 sullo Stato di diritto e i diritti fondamentali in Bulgaria (2020/2793[RSP]) non possono nutrirsi dubbi circa la sussistenza, in tale Paese, di carenze sistemiche che implicano il rischio di trattamenti inumani e degradanti tali da porre il trasferimento del richiedente protezione in contrasto con l’art. 3, par. 2, reg. n. 604/2013/UE e 4 della Carta. Va pertanto confermata la decisione che annulla il trasferimento di un richiedente protezione verso la Bulgaria, ravvisando carenze sistemiche nelle condizioni di accoglienza.

 

Protezione internazionaleCEDH, Arrêt du 20 juillet 2021, D. c. Bulgarie, Requête no. 29447/17 

Le requérant est un ressortissant turc qui travaillait comme journaliste pour un journal et une agence de presse critiquant le régime politique en Turquie. Trois mois après la tentative de coup d’État du 15 juillet 2016, le requérant a quitté la Turquie. Il a été arrêté avec d’autres passagers à la frontière bulgaro-roumaine et détenu dans un poste de police. A plusieurs reprises, le requérant et les autres passagers exprimèrent leur souhait de solliciter une protection internationale et de se voir accorder l’assistance d’un avocat et d’un interprète. Leurs demandes furent ignorées et le requérant fut remis aux autorités turques. Il a été jugé pour appartenance à une organisation terroriste et condamné à sept ans et demi de prison en Turquie. Une procédure d’appel est actuellement en cours. Le requérant se plaignait que les autorités bulgares avaient refusé d’engager une procédure d’asile et l’avaient renvoyé en Turquie, l’exposant ainsi à un risque réel de mauvais traitements contraires aux articles 3 et 13 CEDH.  La Cour a tout d’abord rappelé que le souhait de solliciter une protection internationale n’avait pas à être exprimé sous une forme particulière. Bien que le requérant n’ait pas expressément employé le mot « asile », ses explications aux autorités bulgares indiquaient qu’il était un journaliste turc licencié qui craignait d’être poursuivi par les autorités. La Cour note également que les autorités bulgares ont été informées par le consulat turc à Bourgas que le requérant et les autres passagers étaient soupçonnés d’avoir été impliqués dans la tentative de coup d’État. Par conséquent, la Cour est convaincue que les explications du requérant aux autorités bulgares étaient suffisantes, aux fins de l’article 3, pour conclure qu’il avait exprimé ses craintes d’être soumis à des mauvais traitements s’il était renvoyé en Turquie. La Cour note en outre qu’étant donné que les autorités bulgares disposaient de suffisamment d’informations pour indiquer que le requérant avait de véritables préoccupations au regard de l’article 3, elles n’avaient manifestement pas examiné sa situation particulière et engagé une procédure d’asile. De plus, le requérant n’avait pas bénéficié de l’assistance d’un interprète ou d’un avocat, et par conséquent les autorités bulgares n’avaient pas respecté les garanties procédurales consacrées par la Convention. Enfin, la Cour a estimé que la précipitation avec laquelle l’ordre d’éloignement contre le requérant avait été exécuté – dans les 24 heures suivant son arrestation et sa détention – rendait les recours disponibles inefficaces et inaccessibles dans la pratique. La Cour a donc conclu à la violation des articles 3 et 13 CEDH.

  

Trattamenti inumani e degradantiCEDH, Arrêt du 22 juillet 2021, M.D. et A.D. c. France, Requête no. 57035/18

La première requérante a fui le Mali via l’Italie, en raison d’un risque de mutilations génitales féminines et de mariage forcé. Elle est ensuite arrivée en France où elle a donné naissance à sa fille. En juin 2018, il a été jugé que l’Italie était responsable de l’examen de la demande d’asile du demandeur et une ordonnance de transfert, conformément au règlement Dublin III (604/2013), a été émise. Par la suite, les autorités françaises placèrent la requérante et sa fille en rétention administrative. La requérante, accompagnée de sa fille, refusa par la suite d’embarquer sur le vol pour l’Italie. En conséquence, les autorités ont obtenu gain de cause dans leur demande de prolongation de 28 jours de la période de détention du requérant. Après onze jours de détention, la Cour EDH a accordé des mesures provisoires en vertu de l’article 39 et a demandé aux autorités françaises de mettre fin à la détention des requérants. En ce qui concerne la détention administrative des mineurs, la Cour EDH a pris en compte trois facteurs dans son appréciation de la violation de l’article 3 CEDH : l’âge des enfants mineurs, l’adéquation des locaux à leurs besoins spécifiques et la durée de leur détention. Dans son appréciation, la Cour EDH a d’abord noté qu’en l’espèce, le fait que le requérant mineur soit accompagné ne décharge pas les autorités des obligations découlant de l’article 3 CEDH et que la vulnérabilité particulière de l’enfant mineur est « décisive et prime sur le fait que le parent est un étranger en séjour irrégulier. Se référant à l’âge des nourrissons, la Cour EDH a rappelé A.M. et autres et R.M et autres, où la Cour EDH a constaté des violations de l’article 3 à l’égard de mineurs d’un âge similaire à celui du requérant mineur. S’agissant des conditions matérielles, elle a conclu que les conditions du centre de détention en question avaient un effet préjudiciable sur le requérant mineur. Au vu des conditions du centre de détention, la Cour EDH a estimé que la période de détention de onze jours, qui n’a pris fin qu’après l’émission d’une mesure provisoire en vertu de l’article 39, était excessive. À cet égard, la Cour EDH a estimé que les autorités ont traité le requérant mineur d’une manière qui dépassait le seuil de gravité requis pour une violation de l’article 3 CEDH. En outre, la Cour EDH a estimé que, eu égard au lien inséparable entre une mère et son bébé de quatre mois, il en allait de même pour le premier requérant. Par conséquent, entraînant une violation de l’article 3 CEDH.  En référence aux griefs au titre de l’article 5(1)(f) CEDH, la Cour EDH a d’abord souligné les principes applicables énoncés dans A.B. et autres et a rappelé que lorsqu’un enfant est impliqué, une mesure de détention ne sera conforme à l’article 5(1)(f) CEDH que si les autorités nationales peuvent établir qu’il s’agit d’une mesure de dernier recours et qu’aucune autre mesure moins restrictive ne pourrait être appliquée. La Cour EDH a estimé qu’il existait des preuves suffisantes pour dire que les autorités nationales n’avaient pas vérifié que la détention et la prolongation de cette détention étaient une mesure de dernier recours pour laquelle aucune autre mesure moins restrictive n’aurait pu être prise. Dans cette optique, la Cour EDH a conclu à une violation de l’article 5(1)(f) CEDH. De plus, la Cour a conclu à l’absence de vérification effective de la légalité de la détention des requérants imputable aux juridictions internes, ce qui a violé l’article 5(4) CEDH.

 

Trattamenti inumani e degradantiECtHR, Judgment of 29 June 2021, Monir Lofty v. Cyprus, Application no. 37139/13

The applicant is an Egyptian national who was deported twice from Cyprus between 1991 and 2012. He was also granted Cypriot citizenship, which was subsequently revoked. Following the revocation of his citizenship and his deportation in June 2012, the applicant re-entered Cyprus unlawfully and was arrested and detained by the authorities in various immigration detention facilities. In 2014, he applied for international protection, alleging that as a Coptic Christian, he feared persecution if he returned to Egypt. The Asylum Service rejected the application. The applicant complained against his detention relying on Articles 3, 5(1) and (4) ECHR. The Court first declared admissible the complaint about the conditions of detention at the Menoyia detention centre. It however declared inadmissible the remainder of the complaints concerning the material conditions of his detention at the other facilities. Concerning the alleged inadequate conditions of detention at the Menoyia centre, the Court noted that in 2014, the Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) raised concern about the problem of insufficient personal space per detainee at the detention centre. Relying on information provided by the government, it found that the applicant had been held in a multi-occupancy cell measuring 18.36 sq. m. with up to seven inmates, meaning the applicant had only 2.29 sq. m of personal space during his detention at the centre. The Court therefore concluded that the conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Menoyia centre subjected him to hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and amounted to degrading treatment prohibited by Article 3 ECHR. Turning to the applicant’s claim that he had been unlawfully and arbitrarily deprived of his liberty for a period of seventeen months in breach of Article 5(1) ECHR, the Court noted that although the Supreme Court had ordered the applicant’s immediate release in July 2013, the authorities re-arrested and detained him until July 2014 without justification as to the lawfulness of his detention. The Court therefore found that the applicant’s continued detention was arbitrary and in violation of Article 5(1) ECHR. The Court did not find it necessary to separately examine the claim that the applicant had not had an effective remedy at his disposal to challenge the lawfulness of his detention under Article 5(4) ECHR. The Court therefore found that there had been a violation of Articles 3 and 5(1) ECHR.

 

Trattenimento ai fini dell’allontanamentoCGUE, sentenza 22 giugno 2021, Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophone et al. c.  Conseil des ministres, C-718/19

Gli articoli 20 e 21 TFUE nonché la 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 1612/68/CEE 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, devono essere interpretati nel senso che: a) non ostano a una normativa nazionale che applica ai cittadini dell’Unione e ai loro familiari, in pendenza del termine loro concesso per lasciare il territorio dello Stato membro ospitante a seguito dell’adozione nei loro confronti di una decisione di allontanamento per motivi di ordine pubblico, o durante il periodo di proroga di tale termine, disposizioni volte ad evitare il rischio di fuga che sono simili a quelle che, per quanto riguarda i cittadini di paesi terzi, mirano a recepire nel diritto nazionale l’articolo 7, paragrafo 3, 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, a condizione che le prime disposizioni rispettino i principi generali previsti all’articolo 27 della direttiva 2004/38/CE e che non siano meno favorevoli delle seconde; b)  ostano a una normativa nazionale che applica ai cittadini dell’Unione e ai loro familiari, che dopo la scadenza del termine impartito o della proroga di tale termine non si siano conformati a una decisione di allontanamento adottata nei loro confronti per motivi di ordine pubblico o di pubblica sicurezza, una misura di trattenimento ai fini dell’allontanamento della durata massima di otto mesi, durata che è identica a quella applicabile nel diritto nazionale ai cittadini di paesi terzi che non si siano conformati a una decisione di rimpatrio adottata per tali motivi, ai sensi dell’articolo 6, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2008/115/CE.

 

Diritti dei minori migranti ECSR, Decision of 12 July 2021, International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) and European Council for Refugees and Exiles (ECRE) v. Greece, Complaint No. 173/2018

On 12 July, the European Committee on Social Rights published its decision on a collective complaint brought by the ICJ and ECRE regarding the treatment of migrant children in the country. Regarding the right to shelter, the Committee noted that exceptional circumstances cannot exempt a state from its obligations to provide shelter under Article 31 (2) of the Charter and found that substandard conditions and overcrowding, as well as absence of long-term accommodation for unaccompanied minor children, integrated a violation of Article 31 (2). The right to adequate housing under Article 31 (1) was considered to entail an obligation for more permanent accommodation if the children have remained in temporary facilities for longer than necessary. Consequently, the lack of adequate accommodation for all children on the islands and the lack of sufficient long-term accommodation for unaccompanied children on the mainland violated their right to adequate housing under that article. Moreover, the “persistent failure” to provide appropriate accommodation indicated a failure to take necessary measures and violated the children’s rights to protection against social and moral danger under Article 7 (10). Similarly, the inadequate accommodation situation, the failure of Greek authorities to provide a functioning guardianship system to unaccompanied and separated migrant children, as well as the routine use of detention under the “protective custody” regime, were all found to violate the right to social and economic protection under Article 17 (1). According to the Committee, detention in police stations or closed facilities cannot be an alternative to proper accommodation schemes, even for short periods of time. Regarding the right to education, the absence of formal and stable educational arrangements contributed to the finding of a violation of Article 17 (2) for children residing on the islands. The Committee stated that non-formal education cannot be a substitute for the public education system, regardless of the duration of the stay on the islands. Lastly, considering that the shelter and suitable accommodation is a “minimum prerequisite” to address and prevent ill-health among minors, the failure to ensure access to accommodation and healthcare to migrant children violated their right to protection of health under Article 11 (1) and (3). Although the complaint and submissions were lodged before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Committee noted that the health emergency can exacerbate existing issues with healthcare provision.

 

Sistemazione per richiedenti asiloHigh Court, Judgment of 21 June 2021, R (Secretary of State for the Home Department) v First-tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber), [2021] EWHC 1690 (Admin).

The decision of the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) concerned AM a 29-year-old national of Afghanistan whose asylum claim has been refused. AM was homeless and living in destitution. The FTT decided that in light of the risks of contracting Covid-19 to those who were homeless, living in the streets, and to members of the public, the Secretary of State was legally obliged to continue to provide accommodation for AM until step 4 of the Government’s Roadmap out of lockdown is reached, when the remaining legal restrictions imposed to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic would be lifted. The Home Office challenged this decision before the High Court on the grounds that inter alia Article 8 ECHR imposes no positive duty to accommodate all those who lack accommodation whether generally or in the circumstances of a pandemic. Justice Chamberlain inter alia assessed the case law on positive obligations arising from Articles 2, 3, and 8 ECHR and concluded that it was for the UK Government to decide how best to protect destitute asylum-seekers from the various threats to their life and health to which homelessness gives rise (including COVID-19). He stated that based on the case law of the ECtHR in BudayevaStoicescuHudorovic, a broad margin of appreciation is to be accorded to it in taking that decision. In that regard, Chamberlain J stated that the existence of a margin of appreciation at the international level does not necessarily mean that the national courts must accord the Secretary of State an equivalent margin to reach decisions about policy. In this case, however, formulating policy in relation to the accommodation for asylum-seekers, whose claims have been rejected, requires the weighing of competing policy considerations and the making of predictive judgments about the consequences of particular measures. He highlighted that the Accommodation Regulations reflect a legislative choice to discharge any positive protective duty by accommodating destitute failed asylum-seekers on condition that they take reasonable steps to leave the UK. It was held that it is a legitimate policy and it falls within the scope of the discretion afforded to the Secretary of State. Chamberlain J stated that the Secretary of State had offered AM a way to avoid the risks associated with the Covid-19 pandemic by registering with the voluntary returns service. He indicated that had AM done that, he would have been accommodated and thus failing to do so meant that his exposure to the risk of contracting Covid-19 was his own decision. Chamberlain J therefore considered that the Secretary of State had reasonably discharged its positive obligations under Articles 2, 3 to 8 to protect AM from risks to his life and health. In that regard, he considered that the FTT was wrong to conclude that the rights of AM under Articles 2,3 or 8 required that he be accommodated until step 4 of the Roadmap is reached or at all. Chamberlain J also assessed the obligations arising from the ECHR with respect to the public at large. He noted that Articles 2, 3 and 8 ECHR have rarely been held to impose specific obligations owed to the public at large but he nevertheless assumed that those provisions, either individually or cumulatively, impose a general obligation on states to take all reasonable steps to protect their populations from the risks associated with the Covid-19. Even on that assumption, it was held that it was for the government to decide how best to discharge that obligation and the evidence had not shown that the decision not to accommodate failed asylum seekers gave rise to a significant increase in the overall risk to the public.

 

Trattenimento dello stranieroCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza 8 luglio 2021, n. 19495

Il provvedimento che proroga il trattenimento dello straniero ex art. 14, co. 5, TUI trova giustificazione nelle gravi difficoltà che la PA ha incontrato nello svolgimento delle attività connesse all’espulsione o all’allontanamento ed è necessario al fine di consentire l’accertamento dell’identità e della nazionalità dell’interessato e di acquisire la documentazione necessaria, evitando che lo stesso possa sottrarsi all’esecuzione del rimpatrio. Trattandosi di un provvedimento che incide sulla libertà personale (art. 13 Cost.), la proroga può essere concessa soltanto in presenza delle condizioni giustificative previste dalla legge e secondo una modulazione temporale rigidamente predeterminata, osservandosi che, proprio in virtù del rango costituzionale e della natura inviolabile del diritto inciso, l’autorità amministrativa deve considerarsi priva di qualsiasi potere discrezionale al riguardo. Negli stessi limiti deve ritenersi operante anche il controllo giurisdizionale.

 

Protezione umanitariaCass. civ., sez. I, ordinanza 30 giugno 2021, n. 18667

In materia di protezione umanitaria (art. 19 TUI), la presenza di figli minori in Italia rientra nell’ambito dell’apprezzamento circa la sussistenza della condizione di vulnerabilità del richiedente, in quanto tale elemento si risolve in una condizione familiare idonea a dimostrare sia una peculiare fragilità della famiglia nel complesso e dei suoi componenti singolarmente considerati, sia uno specifico profilo di radicamento del nucleo sul territorio nazionale, in conseguenza dell’inserimento dei figli nel percorso sociale e scolastico e quindi della loro naturale tendenza ad assimilare i valori ed i concetti fondativi della società italiana. Inoltre, il permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari integra una forma di tutela atipica e residuale, non subordinata alla ricorrenza di rigidi presupposti, il cui rilascio, quindi, ben può essere fondato sulla qualità di padre convivente di un minore presente sul territorio italiano, senza che, a tal fine, si ponga come preclusiva l’autorizzazione ex art. 31, d.lgs. n. 286/1998, finalizzata alla tutela di un interesse non già del richiedente, bensì essenzialmente del minore.

 

Resistenza a pubblico ufficialeCass. pen., sez. VI, sentenza 1 luglio 2021, n. 25309

Non è scriminato ex art. 393-bis c.p. il comportamento dello straniero destinatario di un ordine di espulsione illegittimo (ma solo in seguito revocato) che ha colpito con violenza l’assistente capo della Polizia di Stato che lo tratteneva per impedirne la fuga e accompagnarlo presso il Centro per l’identificazione e l’espulsione (CIE), atteso che la condotta del pubblico ufficiale, che agiva in base a un ordine formalmente legittimo, non può dirsi arbitraria. Nondimeno, va cassata la sentenza di condanna che non ritiene applicabile al caso di specie la causa di non punibilità per particolare tenuità del fatto ex art. 131-bis c.p. Sotto il profilo oggettivo, la condotta di resistenza a pubblico ufficiale non era caratterizzata da una particolare gravità – essendosi la violenza sostanziata nello strattonare l’operante e nel colpire quest’ultimo con alcuni calci funzionali a guadagnarsi la fuga, comportamento da cui non derivava alcuna lesione personale in danno della vittima – e, soprattutto, non risultava connotata da “abitualità” ostativa all’applicazione dell’istituto. Inoltre, sebbene rimangano esclusi dall’ambito della valutazione per l’applicazione della causa di non punibilità i motivi a delinquere dell’autore della condotta, ai fini dell’apprezzamento dell’intensità del dolo, non possono non essere considerate le specifiche ragioni che possono avere inciso sulla “coscienza e volontà” dell’agire. Ne discende che la convinzione dell’imputato di essere sottoposto a un provvedimento di espulsione illegittimo – convinzione non peregrina tanto che il provvedimento veniva revocato lo stesso giorno del fatto dal Giudice competente – seppure non idonea ad escludere l’elemento soggettivo del reato, certamente pare poter essere presa in considerazione ai fini della valutazione dell’intensità del dolo manifestato dall’imputato, spinto ad agire quale unica via per reagire, sia pure commettendo un reato, ad una situazione percepita come ingiusta.

 

Assegno di natalità Trib. Padova, ordinanza 13 luglio 2021, n. 3978

Nonostante il rinvio dalla Corte Costituzionale alla CGUE, è possibile un giudizio di incompatibilità della previsione di cui all’art. 1 comma 125 l. 190/2014 (che richiede requisiti restrittivi in base alla nazionalità per accedere all’assegno di natalità) con l’art. 12 par. 1 lett. e)  della direttiva 98/2011/UE  e dunque una sua disapplicazione in quanto i principi del giusto processo impongono una ragionevole celerità nella decisione, specie quando siano in gioco diritti fondamentali dell’individuo e della famiglia, nel momento peculiare della prima infanzia dei figli.

 

Discriminazione Trib. Ferrara, ordinanza 6 luglio 2021, R.G. n. 760/2021

Costituisce discriminazione la condotta tenuta dal Comune di Ferrara consistente nell’aver adottato il “Regolamento di assegnazione degli alloggi ERP” del 2 marzo 2020 nella parte in cui, alla Tabella B) allegata, lett. E.1., prevede l’assegnazione di un punteggio esorbitante di “0,5 punti per ciascun anno” nel caso di “Richiedente che, alla data di presentazione della domanda e alla data di verifica dei requisiti e delle condizioni in sede di assegnazione, sia residente anche non continuativamente nel Comune” senza la previsione di un tetto massimo e nell’avere adottato la delibera di Giunta Comunale del 7 luglio 2020, n. GC-2020-218 (e successive modifiche) nella parte in cui prevedeva che l’impossidenza di diritti reali su beni immobili, nei paesi di provenienza, sia comprovata con forme diverse per i cittadini di paesi extra U.E. rispetto ai cittadini italiani ed europei.

 

Permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoroCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 2 luglio 2021, n. 5086

In materia di rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoro autonomo, l’evasione fiscale non può essere assunta a ragione, nemmeno indiretta, di diniego, non figurando tra le cause ostative previste dal legislatore. Ne segue che la PA non può dedurre dall’evasione fiscale, automaticamente e senza alcuna verifica documentale, l’inesistenza di redditi risultanti da documentazione la cui autenticità non sia debitamente contestata.

 

Revoca delle misure di accoglienzaC.G.A.R.S., sentenza 8 luglio 2021, n. 655

La revoca delle misure di accoglienza può essere disposta anche quando incide sulla posizione di soggetti vulnerabili, in particolare minori d’età, purché la loro situazione sia tenuta in considerazione nell’ambito di un giudizio di bilanciamento. A tale riguardo, non si può ritenere che il decreto che dispone la revoca delle misure di accoglienza nei confronti di richiedenti protezione internazionale, genitori di un minore nato in Italia e responsabili di gravi condotte (art. 23, lett. e), d.lgs. cit.), non abbia tenuto conto dell’esistenza del minore, venendo lo stesso viene menzionato sia nell’epigrafe che nel dispositivo del provvedimento. Tuttavia, le gravi condotte ascrivibili ai genitori, fonte di seri problemi di ordine pubblico, sono state ritenute prevalenti, nel bilanciamento, e insuperabili. Del resto l’esistenza di figli minori a carico non può mai costituire, per lo straniero, come pure per il cittadino, un alibi per andare esente da responsabilità per le proprie condotte violente.

 

Permesso di soggiornoTAR Sardegna, sez. II, sentenza 9 luglio 2021, n. 539

La presentazione di documentazione falsa costituisce un motivo di per sé sufficiente per rifiutare il rilascio o il rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, dovendo attribuirsi valore primario della genuinità dei dati presentati alla PA, presupposto indispensabile delle relazioni tra privato e pubblica Amministrazione. Non è pertanto censurabile il provvedimento che nega il rilascio del titolo per soggiornanti di lungo periodo per avere l’interessato presentato fatture disconosciute dall’emittente a sostegno della propria condizione reddituale. Difatti non vi è motivo per discostarsi da quanto affermato da Corte giustizia UE, Sez. IV, 14 marzo 2019, n. 557, secondo cui “È revocabile il permesso di soggiorno concesso ai familiari di un soggiornante di lungo periodo che abbia ottenuto tale status sulla base di documenti falsi”, trattandosi di comportamento che denota chiaramente la tendenza a non rispettare le regole del soggiorno da parte dell’interessato.

 

Emersione del lavoro irregolareTAR Liguria, sez. II, sentenza 5 luglio 2021, n. 633

La disciplina in materia di emersione del lavoro irregolare (art. 103, d.l. n. 34/2020 e successive modificazioni) configura il parere dell’Ispettorato del lavoro sulla capacità economica del datore di lavoro come obbligatorio ma non vincolante per l’Amministrazione procedente che, pertanto, può discostarsene. Ne segue che è illegittimo il provvedimento che rigetta l’istanza di emersione sulla scorta di un parere negativo dell’Ispettorato del lavoro il quale, a causa di un errore fattuale, conclude per l’incapacità economica del datore di lavoro.

 

EstradizioneCons. Stato, sez. IV, sentenza 1 luglio 2021, n. 5019 

La disciplina del procedimento di estradizione, che già contempla il controllo sul rispetto dei diritti fondamentali dell’estradando, ne determina l’indifferenza rispetto a quello di protezione internazionale parallelamente attivato dall’interessato, non essendo ravvisabile alcun vuoto di tutela, nemmeno sotto il profilo del principio del non refoulement, che gli Stati devono garantire nell’ambito dell’estradizione di un richiedente protezione verso un Paese non membro dell’Unione europea conformemente a quanto previsto dall’art. 9, par. 3, della direttiva 2013/31/UE.