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”).
- EU: Frontex director accused of misleading parliament over fundamental rights obligations (Statewacht, 18 gennaio 2021)
- I respingimenti italiani in Slovenia sono illegittimi. Condannato il ministero dell’Interno – di Duccio Facchini (Altraeconomia, 21 gennaio 2021)
- Canada now resettles more refugees than any other country, mostly through private sponsorship – di Bryony Lau (National Post, 30 dicembre 2020)
- Hungary ‘ignoring EU court ruling on asylum’ – di Nikolaj Nielsen (EU observer, 11 gennaio 2021)
- Dalle feste milionarie alle violenze sui migranti, è bufera sull’agenzia Ue Frontex – di Valentina Furlanetto (Il Sole 24ore, 21 gennaio 2021)
- The EU’s urgent imperative in the Sahel – di David Miliband (EU observer, 13 gennaio 2021)
- Turkey snubs Greece on migrant returnees – di Nikolaj Nielsen (EU observer, 19 gennaio 2021)
- Biden to Announce Broad Plan to Reverse Trump Immigration Policies – di Michael D. Shear (The New York Times, 19 gennaio 2021)
- Canada now resettles more refugees than any other country, mostly through private sponsorship – di Bryony Lau (National Post, 30 dicembre 2020)
- Vite dimenticate. I bambini di Lesbo prigionieri nel fango – di Francesca Ghirardelli (Avvenire, 23 gennaio 2021)
- Basta immigrati irregolari, la Danimarca fissa l’obiettivo “zero richiedenti asilo” nel Paese (Europa Today, 25 gennaio 2021)
- UN estimates global migrant growth was ‘slowed’ by 2 million in 2020 – di Emma Wallis (Info Migrants, 18 gennaio 2021)
- Joe Biden’s Immigration Bill Aims to Address the Root Causes of Migration. Will it Work? – di Jasmine Aguilera (Time, 20 gennaio 2021)
- What are the real reasons behind Bosnia’s migrant crisis? – di Lillo Montalto Monella e Paola Lucchesi (Euronews, 20 gennaio 2021)
- International Migration 2020 Highlights – di Clare Menozzi (Relief Web, 15 gennaio 2021)
- Syrian refugee family hopes end of travel ban reunites them with loved ones stuck overseas – di Kate Morrissey (Los Angeles Times, 24 gennaio 2021)
- Refugee Resettlement Coordinator Is Hopeful For What Comes Next Under Biden – di James Doubek (NPR, 22 gennaio 2021)
- Canada’s immigration minister provides COVID-19 update – di Kareem El-Assal (Cic News, 25 gennaio 2021)
- Migration Agency hits back at criticism over long waiting times (The Local, 25 gennaio 2021)
- Ocean Viking ship rescues hundreds of migrants off Libya coast (Al Jazeera, 23 gennaio 2021)
- MEPs agree to mandate and probe into Frontex – di Nikolaj Nielsen (EUobserver, 1 febbraio 2021)
- Hungary: 4,903 pushbacks after EU Court declared them illegal – di Emma Wallis (Info Migrants, 1 febbraio 2021)
- UN agency demands EU stop violence against migrants – di Nikolaj Nielsen (EUobserver, 11 febbraio 2021)
- Vaccinating refugees spurs a global dilemma – di Carmen Paun (Politico, 11 febbraio 2021)
- Frontex embroiled in new transparency case – di Nikolaj Nielsen (EUobserver, 15 febbraio 2021)
- Greek asylum retraumatising victims of torture, NGO says – di Nikolaj Nielsen (EUobserver, 13 febbraio 2021)
- In Turkey’s Safe Zone in Syria, Security and Misery Go Hand in Hand – di Carlotta Gall (The New York Times, 16 febbraio 2021)
- Vaccini anti Covid a rischio per 500mila “invisibili” – di Rosanna Magnano (Il Sole 24 Ore, 17 febbraio 2021)
- Biden, svolta sull’immigrazione: cittadinanza in tre anni per dreamer e braccianti – di Claudio Salvalaggio (Il Secolo XIX, 18 febbraio 2021)
- Nuovo governo Draghi: “Sui migranti risposta è piena assunzione responsabilità Ue” (Stranieri in Italia, 18 febbraio 2021)
- Sweden grants trans woman refugee status after court appeal (The Local, 16 febbraio 2021)
- Sweden proposes new rules for work permit holders (The Local, 2 febbraio 2021)
- Biden administration tries to transition from campaigning on immigration to managing a dysfunctional immigration system – di Nick Miroff (The Washington Post, 20 febbraio 2021)
- États-Unis : le projet de Biden pour réformer le système d’immigration – Martin Gauthier (Courrier Expat, 22 febbraio 2021)
- What to Expect From Biden’s Immigration Policies – di Christina Lu (Foreign Policy, 8 febbraio 2021)
- Colombia anuncia una regularización masiva de migrantes venezolanos que “podría beneficiar a más de 2 millones” de personas (Bbc, 8 febbraio 2021)
- Canada to Fall Short of 2021 Immigration Target, RBC Says – di Shelly Hagan (Bloomberg, 16 febbraio 2021)
- Sharp fall in global migration threatens economic recovery – di Delphine Strauss (Financial Times, 9 febbraio 2021)
- Migration rules reviewed as government looks to fix skills shortage – di Nick Bonyhady (The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 febbraio 2021)
- Calais’s migrants continue to face an interminable violation of their human rights – di Claire Debuyser (Equal Times, 5 febbraio 2021)
- Aegean Sea a ‘lawless space’ for migrants as abuses soar: NGO (France 24, 12 febbraio 2021)
- Germany falls two thirds short of its immigration caps (Info Migrants, 10 febbraio 2021)
- Why Britain’s anti-immigration politicians are opening the doors to thousands of Hong Kongers – di Tara John (Cnn, 22 febbraio 2021)
- How EU migrant exodus is reshaping communities across the UK – di Andy Bounds (Financial Times, 17 febbraio 2021)
- Vaccine amnesty in UK for undocumented migrants – di Emma Willis (Info Migrants, 9 febbraio 2021)
- ‘Welcoming’ European welfare states are forcing refugees through mazes of harmful rules – di Dalia Abdelhady, Martin Joormann e Nina Gren (The Conversation, 1 febbraio 2021)
- Sbarchi rapidi e ricollocamenti: come il governo Draghi cambia verso sui migranti – di Alessandro D’Amato (Today Politica, 19 febbraio 2021)
- Ecco i massacri nel Tigrai.Testimoni: preti e civili orrendamente trucidati – di Paolo Lambruschi (Avvenire, 14 febbraio 2021)
- Nei Balcani l’Europa deve affrontare il ritorno jihadista e la crisi migratoria – di Mario Giro (Domani, 7 febbraio 20
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
- UNHCR, Refugee Law in a Time of Climate Change, Disaster and Conflict (gennaio 2021)
- European Council, Council of the European Union, EU migration policy (gennaio 2021)
- European Parliamentary Research Service, Understanding EU action against migrant smuggling (gennaio 2021)
- European Parliamentary Research Service, Understanding EU counter-terrorism policy (gennaio 2021)
- African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, European Court of Human Rights, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Joint Law Report 2019 (dicembre 2020)
- FRA, Handbook on European law relating to asylum, borders and immigration various fields of European law published, III ed. (dicembre 2020)
- EASO, Practical guide on the use of country of origin information by case officers for the examination of asylum applications (dicembre 2020)
- GRETA, Guidance note on preventing and combatting trafficking in human beings for the purpose of labour exploitation(dicembre 2020)
- Decreto-legge 14 gennaio 2021, n. 2 – Ulteriori disposizioni urgenti in materia di contenimento e prevenzione dell’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 e di svolgimento delle elezioni per l’anno 2021. (Proroga di termini in materia di permessi e titoli di soggiorno)
- Ordinanza del Ministero della salute del 9 gennaio 2021 – Ulteriori misure urgenti in materia di contenimento e gestione dell’emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19
- Legge 30 dicembre 2020, n. 178 – Bilancio di previsione dello Stato per l’anno finanziario 2021 e bilancio pluriennale per il triennio 2021-2023. (Flussi migratori)
- Decreto legislativo 2 febbraio 2021, n. 10 – Disposizioni per il compiuto adeguamento della normativa nazionale alle disposizioni della decisione quadro 2002/584/GAI, relativa al mandato d’arresto europeo e alle procedure di consegna tra Stati membri, in attuazione della delega di cui all’articolo 6 della legge 4 ottobre 2019, n. 117
- Decreto del Ministero dell’interno del 20 gennaio 2021 – Regole di sicurezza relative al permesso di soggiorno, redatto in conformità al regolamento (UE) 2017/1954 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 25 ottobre 2017, che modifica il regolamento (CE) n. 1030/2002 del Consiglio che istituisce un modello uniforme per i permessi di soggiorno rilasciati ai cittadini di paesi terzi
- Nota della Procura della Repubblica presso il Tribunale per i Minorenni di Trieste del 21 dicembre 2020 – Applicazione della direttiva del 31 agosto 2020 sul rintraccio di sedicenti minori stranieri non accompagnati
- Raccomandazione (UE) 2021/132 del Consiglio del 2 febbraio 2021 – Raccomandazione (UE) 2021/132 del Consiglio che modifica la raccomandazione (UE) 2020/912 relativa alla restrizione temporanea dei viaggi non essenziali verso l’UE e all’eventuale revoca di tale restrizione
- Raccomandazione (UE) 2021/119 del Consiglio dell’1 febbraio 2021 – Raccomandazione (UE) 2021/119 del Consiglio che modifica la raccomandazione (UE) 2020/1475 per un approccio coordinato alla limitazione della libertà di circolazione in risposta alla pandemia da COVID-19
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.