Le rassegne dell'Accademia Diritto e Migrazioni - ADiM

La sezione dedicata alle rassegne di ADiM fornisce ogni mese:

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




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


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


Richard Grimes, Věra Honuskova, Ulrich Stege (ed.), Teaching Migration and Asylum Law. Theory and Practice, Routledge, 2021

This highly topical book demonstrates the theoretical and practical importance of the study of migration law. It outlines approaches that may be taken in the design, delivery and monitoring of this study in law schools and universities to ensure an optimum level of learning. Drawing on examples of best practice from around the world, this book uses a theoretical framework and examples from real clients to simulations to help promote the learning and teaching of the law affecting migrants. It showcases contributions from over 30 academics and practitioners experienced in asylum and immigration law and helps to unpick how to teach the complex international laws and procedures relating to migration between different countries and regions. The various sections of the book explore educational best practice, what content can be covered,  models for teaching and learning, strategies to deal with challenges and ways forward. The book will appeal to scholars, researchers and practitioners of migration and asylum law, those teaching migration law electives and involved in curriculum design, as well as students of international, common and civil law.


Russell King, Katie Kuschminder, Handbook of Return Migration, Edward Elgar, 2022

This authoritative Handbook provides an interdisciplinary appraisal of the field of return migration, advancing concepts and theories and setting an agenda for new debates. Structured into four parts, the Handbook maps the contemporary field of return migration, examining the effects and politicisation of return migration, before moving on to explore the theme of reintegration and the impact of return migration on development in the migrants’ countries of origin. Taking an intersectional approach, expert contributors delve into the economics of return migration, deportation, the psychological wellbeing of migrants, student mobility and second-generation ‘return’ migration. The Handbook opens up new avenues for research, including new theories and conceptualisations of return migration, and articulates key issues that should be considered, both for research and for policy and practice. This Handbook will be a valuable resource for scholars and advanced students interested in migration and human rights. Its use of empirical examples and case studies will also be beneficial for policy-makers seeking an insight into the current issues in return migration.



Ana Beduschi, International migration management in the age of artificial intelligence, in Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9, n. 3

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionise the way states and international organisations seek to manage international migration. AI is gradually going to be used to perform tasks, including identity checks, border security and control, and analysis of data about visa and asylum applicants. To an extent, this is already a reality in some countries such as Canada, which uses algorithmic decision-making in immigration and asylum determination, and Germany, which has piloted projects using technologies such as face and dialect recognition for decision-making in asylum determination processes. The article’s central hypothesis is that AI technology can affect international migration management in three different dimensions: (1) by deepening the existing asymmetries between states on the international plane; (2) by modernising states’ and international organisations’ traditional practices; and (3) by reinforcing the contemporary calls for more evidence-based migration management and border security. The article examines each of these three hypotheses and reflects on the main challenges of using AI solutions for international migration management. It draws on legal, political and technology-facing academic literature, examining the current trends in technological developments and investigating the consequences that these can have for international migration. Most particularly, the article contributes to the current debate about the future of international migration management, informing policymakers in this area of growing importance and fast development.


Glenda Garelli, Martina Tazzioli, Migration and ‘pull factor’ traps, in Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9, n. 3

This article engages with the centrality that the push–pull theory regained in the context of border deaths in the Mediterranean Sea and particularly as part of the debate against the criminalization of nongovernment organizations (NGOs’) rescue missions at sea. The article opens by illustrating the context in which the push–pull theory re-emerged—after having been part of migration studies’ history books for over a decade—as part of an effort to defend non-state actors engaged in rescue missions in the Mediterranean Sea against an aggressive campaign of illegalilzation conducted by European states. We then take a step back to trace the history of the push–pull theory and its role as a foil for critical migration studies in the past 20 years. Building on this history, the article then turns to interrogating the epistemic and political outcomes that result from bringing evidence against the NGOs’ role as pull factors for migrants. The article closes by advocating for a transformative, rather than evidencing, role of critical knowledge in the current political context where migrants and actors who fight against border deaths are increasingly criminalized.


Catherine Gomes, Transience as method: A conceptual lens to understanding evolving trends in migration, mobility, and diversity in the transnational space, in Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9, n. 3

Migration as an act and as a concept is becoming more complex and nuanced not only because of increasing numbers of people and groups criss-crossing and circulating international borders but also because of push–pull factors that determine agendas and aspirations affecting transnational mobile actors. Static and binary understandings of migration as either settled or temporary are thus disrupted with new and impactful rising trends in the migration-mobility nexus identified. Based on observations of global political and community responses to transnational migration, and various research projects I have been involved with on temporary migration (international students, working holiday makers, and university-educated professional workers) in the Asia-Pacific, this article puts forward the idea that transience—a phenomenon where migrants regardless of visa and residency status are, for different reasons, spatially unsettled and transnationally mobile—be used as a conceptual lens in order to see emerging dynamics within the migration-mobility experience. Transience as a conceptual lens provides a disjuncture in our understanding of the migration-mobility nexus beyond the categories of temporary and permanent, and is a useful method in helping us understand the complexities, nuances, and ecologies which emerge from the migration experience, and making us aware of evolving patterns of diversity. Transience, in other words, becomes a new method in understanding evolving and emerging migration patterns by investigating the unevenness of the migrant(ion) journey.


Natasha Maru, Michele Nori, Ian Scoones, Greta Semplici, Anna Triandafyllidou, Embracing uncertainty: rethinking migration policy through pastoralists’ experiences, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 5

Today there is a disjuncture between migration flows that are complex, mixed and constantly evolving and the emerging global migration governance paradigm that seeks to impose clarity, certainty, regularity and order. Addressing the gap between policies and realities, this article explores lessons for migration policy and governance from mobile pastoralists’ experience. Using examples from human migration flows within and between Europe and Africa and insights from pastoral systems from India, Italy and Kenya, the article identifies important similarities between international migration and pastoral mobility. We focus on four interconnections: both international migration and pastoral mobility show multi-directional and fragmented patterns; both involve multiple, intersecting socio-economic, political, cultural and environmental drivers; both must respond to non-linear systems, where critical junctures and tipping points undermine clear prediction and forecasts, making social navigation and reliability management more useful concepts than risk-based prediction and control and finally for both uncertainty is not conceived of as a state of crisis but an inherent feature, pregnant with possibility and hope. Building on these four points, and drawing from pastoralists’ experiences, we propose some methodological, practical and policy reflections for bridging the disjuncture between migration realities on the ground and global migration governance policies and discourses.


Pietro Masala, L’inclusione sociale degli immigrati e i limiti alle politiche di esclusione: indicazioni dalla giurisprudenza costituzionale, in Rivista AIC, 2022, n. 1

L’articolo, dopo una sintetica ricognizione dei principi costituzionali che dovrebbero indurre il legislatore ordinario a favorire l’inclusione sociale degli immigrati residenti in Italia, in specie assicurando un’adeguata tutela dei diritti sociali, analizza la giurisprudenza costituzionale in materia di disparità di trattamento fra cittadini e stranieri nell’accesso alle prestazioni sociali. L’evoluzione di tale giurisprudenza, con una particolare attenzione per la fase più recente, è ricostruita allo scopo di ricavare indicazioni utili a comprendere fino a che punto tali principi, come interpetati dalla Corte costituzionale, possano costituire un argine efficace rispetto a politiche discriminatorie, ovvero rispetto a scelte normative tese a sostituire il paradigma dell’inclusione sociale degli immigrati con quello dell’esclusione. Descrivendo gli orientameni consolidati, formulati con riferimento ai diversi tipi di requisiti ‘escludenti’ previsti nella legislazione statale e regionale, e ponendo in risalto gli approdi a cui la Corte giunge nelle sue ultime decisioni (riguardanti anche alcune disposizioni approvate nella prima parte della legislatura in corso, implicanti forme di esclusione in parte nuove), si evidenziano le strategie argomentative, gli schemi di ragionamento e le tecniche di giudizio che limitano la discrezionalità del legislatore in questa materia. Ciò permette, infine, di desumere ulteriori implicazioni circa il modello di società che deve costituire l’orizzonte di un esercizio di tale discrezionalità improntato ai principi costituzionali.


Fran Meissner, Tilmann Heil, Deromanticising integration: On the importance of convivial disintegration, in Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9, n. 3

In light of current experiences with migration-driven diversification, is it still conducive to think about the effects of international migration by advocating for immigrant integration? This article argues that there are key problems with European uses of immigrant integration logics that cannot be resolved through redefinitions or reappropriations of the term. Even highly refined notions of immigrant integration misconstrue the role and relevance of differences in diversity dynamics. Immigrant integration further risks concealing and perpetuating power dynamics and (colonial) hierarchies. These continue to shape the social relevance of differences. Analytically thinking about superdiversity directs us to paying more attention to disintegration, a notion that cannot be reduced and measured by way of individual or group performance. To be able to usefully engage with disintegration, we argue that it needs to be divorced from ideas about social fragmentation and social collapse. To do this, we draw on recent developments in the literature on conviviality to emphasise the relational practices, power asymmetries, and materialities that enter into negotiations of difference. Convivial disintegration aptly addresses continuously reconfiguring and uncertain social environments. Our article thus provides a deromanticised and enabling provocation for easing integration anxieties.


Lea M. Klarenbeek, Reconceptualising ‘integration as a two-way process’, in Migration Studies, 2021, vol. 9, n. 3

In this article, I advocate the reconceptualisation of ‘integration as a two-way process’. I argue that integration is, fundamentally, an issue of relational inequality, and conceptualising it as a one-way process constitutes problems of undesirability and infeasibility. I show the theoretical hiatus which characterises many dominant approaches to the two-way process, which leads scholars to build their work on internal contradictions and to implicitly (and often unintentionally) feed into a one-way integration discourse. I argue that as long as conceptualisations of integration as a two-way process reinforce a boundary between ‘people who integrate’ and ‘people who do not integrate’, they are unfit to avoid the problems of one-wayness which they intended to overcome in the first place. In the last part of the article, I put forward some initial building blocks for a new theoretical framework of ‘integration as a two-way process’ which is more attentive to the relational social processes that constitute integration.


Marco Mogiani, Studying Borders from the Border: Reflections on the Concept of Borders as Meeting Points, in Geopolitics, 2022

Can the border be considered an epistemological starting point for the analysis of border theories and processes? Whether we look at Rumford’s ‘Seeing like a border’, Mezzadra and Neilson’s ‘Border as Method’, or at Mignolo’s ‘Border thinking’, the answer seems to be a positive one. Similar in their way of employing a different gaze to look at and from the border, yet radically divergent in their methods and outcomes, each of these approaches has indeed provided a unique perspective on borders. However, I argue, a more critical analysis of such approaches reveals how they tend to (1) reproduce those epistemological distinctions that have cut across border studies in the past thirty years and (2) selectively consider some aspects in the analysis of borders, while omitting or overlooking others. All of them appear therefore necessary to grasp the multiplicity of processes, networks, and conflicts that produce and shape – while being simultaneously produced and shaped by – borders. Drawing from, yet critical towards these works, the article will take the border itself as a starting point of investigation, in order to (1) empirically analyse the processes, forces, and conflicts unfolding across borders and (2) analytically interrogate the various epistemological approaches with their advantages and shortcomings. The paper argues that borders should be better thought of as ‘meeting points’, i.e., places of encounter, interaction/clash, and reassessment/redefinition of different theories and processes. Conceiving borders as such, the paper concludes, can provide a more comprehensive framework for the analysis of borders, capable of looking at them not just as passive places moulded by different forces and encapsulated through conventional theoretical approaches, but as active, complex, and variegated processes capable of generating social outcomes and changes.


Sawitri Saharso, Tabea Scharrer, Beyond race?, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

While at the moment the world seems to be divided along racial lines and ‘race’ appears to be a central axe of social inclusion and exclusion, in this article we ask whether it is thinkable to go ‘beyond race’. We want to explore the idea of going ‘beyond race’ in four different ways: (1) ‘Beyond race’ as a demographic reality when people of mixed origin form the majority of population; (2) ‘Beyond race’ in regard to policies that aim at combatting inequalities also along color lines, yet are no longer dependent on a notion of race. (3) ‘Beyond race’ in terms of political mobilizations, e.g. the possibility or desirability of anti-racist movements not grounded in identity politics and (4) ‘Beyond race’ as a conceptualization of race that is decoupling biology and culture, or even to stop thinking in racial categories altogether, yet without de-politicizing any marginalised group’s, history and experience. We are aware that this questioning of race, and by implication of ethnicity, may be a typical hang-up of two authors based in Europe. We have invited authors from different parts of the world, and with different academic backgrounds to reflect in a commentary on the issues we raise and to explain their position.


Martina Sardo, Respingimenti a catena e tutela cautelare del diritto d’asilo. Le ordinanze del Tribunale di Roma sulle ‘riammissioni informali’ in Slovenia, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2021, n. 3

On the 3rd of May, the Rome Tribunal accepted the complaint lodged by the Ministry of Interior against the interim measure with which, last January, the same Court declared the illegitimacy of the procedure of migrants and asylum seekers informal readmission in Slovenia, because of the violation inter alia of the principle of non-refoulement. Despite the negative outcome for the asylum seekers, the order of the complaint did not refute the reasoning of the judge of the first instance who, for the first time, recognized the entry protection by issuing an urgent precautionary measure. This contribution focuses on the recent tendency of States’ national Courts to provide protection, including through precautionary measures, by the recognition of the right to access to the national territory for persons seeking international protection as a result of the illegal conduct of the border authorities; it then analyzes the European Court of Human Rights approach to interim measures and the influence on the Strasbourg judge of governments’ policy on immigration and border control.


Aldo Schiavello, Massimo Starita, M.N. e altri c. Belgio: qualche osservazione dissenziente, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2021, n. 3

In this commentary to the M.N. v. Belgium case, the authors criticize the three fundamental argu-ments on which the decision of the European Court of Human Rights is founded: the approach based on ‘originalism’, the approach based on the Courts’ precedents, and the approach based on consequentialism. As far as consequentialism is concerned, the authors approve the use of non-strictly legal arguments in the Court’s reasoning, convinced as they are that human rights courts, more than any other judge, are not la bouche de la loi, but hold political power. We criticize the Court’s choice to give space to only one of the (possible) political consequences of its decision, completely disregarding all the others, regardless of their importance for human rights.


Ernesto C. Sferrazza Papa, Le contraddizioni del mondo globale tra flussi migratori e cambiamento climatico, in federalismi.it, 2022, n. 1

Il contributo mira a riflettere intorno all’efficacia o meno della forma statale per le sfide della globalizzazione. Nel primo paragrafo si discute il fenomeno della globalizzazione e le sue contraddizioni. Il secondo paragrafo introduce la nozione di “ultramodernità” come categoria utile per comprende le dinamiche contemporanee. Il terzo paragrafo discute il cambiamento climatico e le migrazioni di massa come fenomeni cruciali per il mondo globalizzato. Il quarto paragrafo riassume il contributo e propone nuove linee d’indagine.



Joyce de Coninck, Mh and Others V. Croatia: Resolving the Jurisdictional and Evidentiary Black Hole for Expulsion Cases?, in strasbourgobservers.com, 14 gennaio 2022

MH and Others v. Croatia concerns the return of a family of 14 Afghan individuals from Croatia to Serbia, which resulted in the death of 6-year-old Madina Hussiny. This case is yet another in a rich line of recent cases relating to the rise of institutionalized pushbacks at the external territorial border of the European Union that have been brought before the ECtHR and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) alike. Whereas most of these cases concern pushbacks that have some foundation in domestic law, the pushbacks under examination in the present case do not and are instead indicative of a more widespread practice without any legislative basis.


Iris Goldner Lang, Pushbacks against the Child’s Best Interests, in verfassungsblog.de, 7 gennaio 2022

The 2015/2016 migration influx caught the European Union and its Member States mostly unprepared and torn between human-rights ambitions and a growing anti-migrant political and social climate and security concerns. The lack of a functional EU-level legal framework, designed for high volumes of arrivals and based on Member States’ responsibility-sharing, contributed to increasing recourse to policies and practices of dissuading migrants away from the EU territory. This reality obviously did not leave the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) indifferent and it decided to give a legal green light to certain forms of pushbacks by interpreting Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 as tolerating collective pushbacks under certain conditions. The ECtHR applies its newly established test equally to all individuals and in all situations. However, a more nuanced approach should be taken, guaranteeing special protection to children, in accordance with the principle of the child’s best interests.


Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov, David de Groot, Curing the Symptoms but not the Disease. CJEU’s Myopic Advances in the Field of EU Citizenship in JY, in verfassungsblog.de, 20 gennaio 2022

Traffic violations are not a proportionate justification to effectively deprive a person of her EU citizenship. Moreover, situations where a renunciation of a previous Member State nationality is required before naturalizing in the Member State of residence, are unquestionably within the scope of EU law and Rottmann / Tjebbes-proportionality is required. This may sound obvious but in reality it was not, as the crucial Grand Chamber case of JY decided on January 18 demonstrates. This is a significant yet predictable addition to the edifice of EU citizenship post-Rottmann. Regrettably, the forward-looking judgment is myopic up to the point of an error of judgement as to the fundamental challenges at play in the factual constellation at hand.


Caroline Leclercq, La réintroduction illimitée dans le temps des contrôles aux frontières intérieures : une réponse pertinente aux crises de l’espace Schengen?, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 28 gennaio 2022

Les multiples crises auxquelles l’UE a dû faire face au cours des dernières années ont poussé les États membres à rétablir des contrôles à leurs frontières intérieures afin de faire face à la menace terroriste, migratoire ou plus récemment sanitaire. Certaines dispositions du Code Frontières Schengen (CFS) autorisent de telles exceptions, mais pour une durée limitée. En cas de menace grave et prévisible (art. 25 § 1 CFS) ou imprévisible (art. 28 CFS) pour l’ordre public ou la sécurité intérieure, les États membres peuvent réintroduire le contrôle à leurs frontières pour une durée maximale de six mois. En outre, lorsqu’ils sont confrontés à des “circonstances exceptionnelles mettant en péril le fonctionnement global de l’espace Schengen en raison de manquements graves et persistants liés au contrôle aux frontières extérieures”, la durée maximale est portée à deux ans (art. 29 CFS).


Anna Lübbe, Pushbacks? Never mind, we’re doing it. The EU Commission’s Proposal to Curb Onward Migration in the Schengen Area, in verfassungsblog.de, 24 gennaio 2022

„Pushback“ has been elected Germany’s non-word of the year 2021. The word is rather innocent, the act is the problem: An inhumane process, says the jury, that deprives refugees of the opportunity to exercise their human and fundamental right to asylum. Whether or not the word euphemises the act, as the jury opines, it is a misdeed to deport people without acknowledging their concerns for protection, examining them substantially, and ensuring effective legal protection. Legal protection is not effective, if the case can only be brought to court post factum. A right to stay is required pending a (interim) court decision on the admissibility of the transfer. Where these standards are not met, the principle of non-refoulement – an absolute and non-derogable principle that must be safeguarded effectively – is guaranteed only on paper. The EU Commission has now submitted a proposal for an amendment of the Schengen Borders Code that allows for irregular arrivals to be returned without effective legal protection.


Maria O’Sullivan, Novak Djokovic and the Australian Migration System. The Broad Powers of the Australian Immigration Minister and Australian Public Law, in verfassungsblog.de, 21 gennaio 2022

The cancellation of tennis star Novak Djokovic’s visa by the Australian government last week highlighted some of the legal contestations and confusion surrounding vaccination mandates, but also gave a glimpse of Australian migration and public law. There is hope that the proceeding will provide some momentum for the reform of its most controversial aspects. On Sunday, 16 January 2022, after a hearing which was watched from all over the world (85,000 people on youtube), the Full Federal Court of Australia dismissed Novak Djokovic’s application for judicial review of the cancellation of his visa. This was a unanimous judgement of a three-bench court. He was subsequently deported and therefore unable to compete in the Australian Open. Technically, Mr Djokovic could have sought ‘special leave’ to go to the High Court of Australia. He did not choose to make use of this further appeal, possibly because seeking leave to appeal to Australia’s supreme court is difficult and would have involved at least another week of litigation, which would have conflicted with his competitive commitments at the Australian Open.


Steve Peers, Residents of everywhere? The CJEU rules on loss of immigration status due to absence from the territory, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 26 gennaio 2022

Immigration status is often lost due to a certain period of absence from the territory of the country which granted it. But what if that absence is briefly interrupted? The CJEU addressed that issue in a recent judgment concerning non-EU citizens with EU long-term resident status – which may also be relevant to those covered by EU free movement law and the Brexit withdrawal agreement.


Stefan Salomon, The Racialized Borders of the Netherlands, in verfassungsblog.de, 29 gennaio 2022

The principal function of borders in immigration law is to distinguish between persons and goods which are permitted to enter a territory and those which are not. I call this the filtering function of the border. In this short contribution, I enquire into how this filtering function of the border operates in the context of border controls in the Netherlands. More specifically, I argue that the way border controls are performed in the Netherlands structurally produces racialized subjects. To understand how border controls produce racialized subjects, it is helpful to consider what the principal object of border controls is. The principal object of border controls is not the ID-document or the legal person, but the very body of the document holder in a twofold way. Firstly, it is only by reading the biometric information of the body, stored in a chip in the official identity document, that the suspicion about the gap between a person’s “real” identity and her ascribed legal identity is bridged. Secondly, bodily features are read as signposts that someone “is not from here” and thus differences in (legal and political) belonging are inscribed onto the body. This means that suspicion operating selectively is not merely the act of individual border control officers, but is, as the following section discusses, a structural feature of the law regulating EU internal borders.


Thomas Spijkerboer, International Migration Law and Coloniality, in verfassungsblog.de, 28 gennaio 2022

In European human rights law, it is taken for granted that states have the sovereign right to regulate migration. A right to be admitted to a country of which one is not a national, or a right not to be expelled, exists only in exceptional cases. In the words of the European Court of Human Rights “as a matter of well-established international law and subject to its treaty obligations, a State has the right to control the entry of non-nationals into its territory” (Abdulaziz, Cabales & Balkandali v UK, para. 67). This means that, in the sphere of migration, the starting point is not the right of the individual but the right of states. Instead of states having to justify an interference with the right of an individual, it is the individual who has to justify their “interference” with the right of the state to control migration.


Sophie Henderson, Protecting the Rights of Women Migrant Domestic Workers. Structural Violence and Competing Interests in the Philippines and Sri Lanka, Routledge, 2022

Migrant women across Asia disproportionately work in precarious, insecure, and informal employment sectors that are subject to few regulations, pay low wages, and expose women to harm, of which domestic work is among the most prevalent. This book uses the cases of the Philippines and Sri Lanka to develop a comprehensive, intersectional, rights-based approach to better protect women migrant domestic workers against exploitation. As accounts of exploitation, gender-based violence, torture, and death among migrant domestic workers increase, the recognition and defence of their human and labour rights is an urgent necessity. The Philippines and Sri Lanka are two of the leading labour-sending states of women domestic workers in Asia, and their economies have become increasingly dependent on the remittances they send back home. Drawing on extensive original research this book argues that these two sending states are guilty of structural violence by sustaining a network of institutions, policies and practices, which serve to systematically disadvantage and discriminate against women migrant domestic workers. The research covers the entire migration process, from pre-departure, through to overseas employment, followed by return and reintegration. This book’s innovative application of structural violence theory as a way to investigate the role of state institutions in labour-sending countries in the Global South will be of interest to researchers from across the fields of migration studies, gender studies, human rights law, and Asian Studies.


Paola Pannia, La diversità rivendicata: giudici, diritti e culture tra Italia e Regno Unito. Uno studio comparato, CEDAM, 2021

Il libro muove da una domanda che si impone con urgenza alle democrazie costituzionali: che rilievo giuridico attribuire alla diversità? La ricerca si confronta con questo tema concentrandosi su una precisa diversità, su una precisa rivendicazione: la richiesta di trattamento differenziato, su base culturale, che viene avanzata in giudizio da un individuo appartenente a un gruppo minoritario. Dopo aver delineato le coordinate teorico-concettuali del governo della differenza, l’analisi si concentra sul dato fenomenico, comparando le esperienze di Italia e Regno Unito, con l’obiettivo di individuare e comprendere i percorsi argomentativi degli organi giurisdizionali italiani e inglesi chiamati a pronunciarsi su quelle istanze. Nonostante le differenze di contesto normativo, politico e sociale, nonché di sistema e tradizione giuridica, l’indagine rivela come i giudici italiani e inglesi rispondano alla diversità rivendicata nelle aule giudiziarie con il medesimo approccio: evitando di affrontare la complessità che involge la diversità culturale manifestata all’interno del processo. In assenza di indicazioni provenienti dal piano legislativo, i giudici, privi della formazione necessaria e, tuttavia, obbligati a pronunciarsi sulle istanze loro presentate, si trovano disorientati e soli di fronte ai delicati, inediti, difficili dilemmi sollevati da questi casi. Diventa quindi necessario, e non più eludibile, elaborare e promuovere meccanismi che consentano di costruire una giurisdizione che tenga conto della dimensione culturale, capace di combinare in termini costituzionalmente orientati la garanzia dell’eguaglianza e della diversità con la tutela dei diritti dei più vulnerabili.


James C. Simeon, Serious International Crimes, Human Rights, and Forced Migration, Routledge, 2022

This volume elucidates and explores the interrelationships and direct causal connection between serious international crimes, serious breaches to fundamental human rights, and gross affronts to human dignity that lead to mass forced migration. Forced migration most often occurs in the context of protracted armed conflict of a noninternational nature where terrorism, fierce fighting, deep animosity, tit-for-tat retaliation, and “rapid dominance” doctrine all lead to the commission of atrocity crimes. Accordingly, this volume makes a valuable contribution to the literature and to the cause of trying to resolve mass forced displacement at its root cause, to explore the course that it takes, and how it might be prevented. The collection comprises original research by leading legal scholars and jurists focusing on the three central themes of serious international crimes, human rights, and forced migration. The work also includes a Foreword from Sir Howard Morrison, QC, former President of the Appeals Division of the International Criminal Court. The book will be a valuable resource for students, academics, researchers, and policymakers working in the areas of international law, migration, human rights, and international criminal law.



Kaya Barry, Samid Suliman, Bordering Migratory Shorebirds through Contested Mobility Developments, in Geopolitics, 2022

Airports and seaports inhabit multiple geographies that dictate global mobility across political, economic, social, and environmental borders. In Australia and across the Asia-Pacific, large-scale mobility developments are being undertaken to connect local businesses and industries with global markets. However, these projects are proceeding without regard for the impacts that these mobility hubs will have on local and global ecologies. This is certainly the case across the Asia-Pacific region, where industry is impacting on the routes of migratory shorebirds along the ‘East Asian-Australasian Flyway’, which spans 18 countries and carries over 50 million migratory birds each year. Key sites that make up the Flyway are established and prolific hubs for these nonhuman mobilities, yet encroaching land reclamation practices are resulting in considerable avian population declines. This paper explores how more-than-human conceptualisation of the EAA Flyway and the “borders” it instigates through global conservation and nation-state governance are inadequately protecting the migratory shorebirds. We examine the recent and contested developments in Moreton Bay, in Brisbane, Australia, and the many bordering practices that take shape in this local place along the EAA Flyway. We argue that the multi-sited path that compose these global Flyways challenge our all-too-human-centric conceptions of space, borders, and movement.


Amalia Campos-Delgado, Karine Côté-Boucher, Tactics of Empathy: The Intimate Geopolitics of Mexican Migrant Detention, in Geopolitics, 2022

By focusing on the externalisation of US bordering into Mexico, we consider the institutional setting that both limits and channels gestures of care and empathy in migrant detention. Working within a framework that highlights the connections between the global and the intimate, and by proposing to read these connections as they unfold into an intimate geopolitics of humanitarian borderwork, we unpack the effects of Mexico’s recent shift towards humanitarian border politics on the interactions between detained migrants and border agents. Together with the material scarcity in which border officers operate, horrendous detention conditions and increased investments in detention facilities, this shift produces care-control dynamics that are specific to bordering in transit countries. We identify three ‘tactics of empathy’ deployed by Mexican border officers as they attempt to morally legitimise border control in this new environment, while concurrently avoiding legal liabilities and taming migrants under their custody. We argue that these tactics are less a manifestation of an ethics of care than a response to situations occurring in transit migrant detention where morality and instrumental rationality become entangled.


Mariza Dima, Alexandra Xanthaki, Thaleia Deniozou, Colin Luoma, The Rights Hero – Serious Games for Human Rights Education and Integration of Migrant and Refugee Children in Europe, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 2022, n. 1

Following the rise of migrant inflows in Europe since 2015, more than 210,000 unaccompanied children have arrived in Europe. This article argues that serious games can in principle fill the gap of human rights education that these children face and ultimately help them develop, but important issues and challenges need to be considered. The article follows the design and development of “The Rights Hero”, a prototype serious game for migrant children to help them learn and practise their rights, encouraging them to take transformative action that will lead them to integration. The game focuses on the “Rights Hero”, whose gender and race are unidentifiable and who is trying to build up two superpowers, “Resilience” and “Empowerment”, through responding appropriately to various challenges. These challenges are all too familiar to migrant children. Designed by an interdisciplinary team of human rights and game design experts, and in collaboration with the ngo Network for Children’s Rights, work on the prototype raised important discussions regarding the use of games for human rights education, the need for children to know their rights, and their understanding of integration. The article reflects on the extent to which serious games can be developed as a useful informal educational tool for the human rights education of displaced children.


Marco Martiniello, Researching arts, culture, migration and change: a multi (trans)disciplinary challenge for international migration studies, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

The paper first discusses why it is important to research the relations between migration, arts, and cultures. Second, it discusses the most promising methodological options to do it fruitfully. It concludes by claiming that the additional value of such investigations is both to allow a more comprehensive understanding of the migration process, and to move away from the victimization of migrants “rehumanize” them.


Pietro Masala, L’inclusione sociale degli immigrati e i limiti alle politiche di esclusione: indicazioni dalla giurisprudenza costituzionale, in Rivista AIC, 2022, n. 1

L’articolo, dopo una sintetica ricognizione dei principi costituzionali che dovrebbero indurre il legislatore ordinario a favorire l’inclusione sociale degli immigrati residenti in Italia, in specie assicurando un’adeguata tutela dei diritti sociali, analizza la giurisprudenza costituzionale in materia di disparità di trattamento fra cittadini e stranieri nell’accesso alle prestazioni sociali. L’evoluzione di tale giurisprudenza, con una particolare attenzione per la fase più recente, è ricostruita allo scopo di ricavare indicazioni utili a comprendere fino a che punto tali principi, come interpetati dalla Corte costituzionale, possano costituire un argine efficace rispetto a politiche discriminatorie, ovvero rispetto a scelte normative tese a sostituire il paradigma dell’inclusione sociale degli immigrati con quello dell’esclusione. Descrivendo gli orientameni consolidati, formulati con riferimento ai diversi tipi di requisiti ‘escludenti’ previsti nella legislazione statale e regionale, e ponendo in risalto gli approdi a cui la Corte giunge nelle sue ultime decisioni (riguardanti anche alcune disposizioni approvate nella prima parte della legislatura in corso, implicanti forme di esclusione in parte nuove), si evidenziano le strategie argomentative, gli schemi di ragionamento e le tecniche di giudizio che limitano la discrezionalità del legislatore in questa materia. Ciò permette, infine, di desumere ulteriori implicazioni circa il modello di società che deve costituire l’orizzonte di un esercizio di tale discrezionalità improntato ai principi costituzionali.


Katarina Mozetič, A help or hindrance? Highly educated refugees’ perceptions of the role of civic integration programmes in accessing the labour market in Oslo, Malmö and Munich, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

Research often focuses on individual-level factors shaping refugee labour market participation. Less research has been conducted on the implications of the roles of employers, integration programmes, migrant support organisations and similar. This article contributes to the literature by seeking to understand highly educated refugees’ perceptions of how civic integration programmes shape opportunity structures for their labour market participation. It is particularly concerned with how the programmes’ characteristics of malleability and comprehensiveness inform integration processes. Accordingly, the article analyses identification contestations that transpire within civic integration programmes, as perceived by the participants, and compares how these unfold in three different contexts. A total of 41 semi-structured interviews with highly educated refugees in Oslo, Malmö, and Munich were analysed. The findings suggest that the civic integration programmes were thought to either foster or hinder the participants’ employment pathways depending on whether the participants were perceived as highly educated individuals or reduced to the general category of ‘refugee’. The differences were traced back to each civic integration programme’s capacity to provide malleable integration support, calling attention to the importance of the programmes’ acknowledgment of refugees’ heterogeneous needs and the pitfalls associated with undifferentiated refugee categorisation.


Andrea Patroni Griffi, La gestione dell’immigrazione in Europa, in federalismi.it, 2022, Focus n. 4

Il governo delle migrazioni e la tutela dei migranti riguardano aspetti sui quali l’Europa ha competenza e doveri, che non è riuscita pienamente ad assolvere anche per l’ostilità dei Paesi membri. Le soluzioni esistono, se c’è volontà di percorrerle.


Sayaka Osanami Törngren, Karen L. Suyemoto, What does it mean to “go beyond race”?, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

In this commentary piece, we argue that we must interrogate the meaning of race and examine why and how race does matter in different societies across contexts before we can even consider moving “beyond race.” We understand race as fundamentally related to power, privilege, and oppression; we discuss how we cannot go “beyond race” in the face of persistent racisms, hierarchies and maintenance of power and privilege. We address that demographic changes in itself does not bring us “beyond race” and the importance of active policies and political mobilization through addressing race as an analytical category is necessary to go “beyond racism.”


Martijn van den Brink, Revising Citizenship within the European Union: Is a Genuine Link Requirement the Way Forward?, in German Law Journal, 2022, n. 1

EU institutions have argued on several occasions that national and EU citizenship should not be awarded without any genuine link with the Member State concerned. Some scholars have adopted the same position, justifying their position referring to the genuine link requirement established by the International Court of Justice in Nottebohm. This has prompted criticism from legal scholars, who point out that Nottebohm was wrong as a matter of international law and moral principle. This paper shows that supporters and critics have failed to recognise that they have been talking with different conceptions of the genuine link requirement in mind. The question of whether to apply a genuine link requirement for the recognition of nationality is altogether different from the question of whether to apply a genuine link requirement for the acquisition of nationality. Nottebohm concerns the first; the arguments of EU institutions the second. The argument of EU institutions cannot therefore be dismissed by dismissing Nottebohm. I subsequently explore the normative arguments for predicating the boundaries of national membership on a genuine link requirement. There are weighty moral reasons for member states to condition the acquisition of national and EU citizenship on the presence of a genuine link. Finally, moving from the normative to the practical, I argue that such a requirement would have far-reaching consequences (targeting not just investor citizenship schemes) and cannot be enforced as a requirement under EU law.



Waleed Mahmoud Elfarrs, E.H. v. France: On a Cold Day in July, in strasbourgobservers.com, 18 febbraio 2022

On 22 July 2021 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rendered a judgment that could be relevant to the presently sensitive topic of Western Sahara – E.H. v. France, application no. 39126/18. The first of its kind, the judgment concerns the expulsion of an asylum seeker of Sahrawi origin – the ethnicity of the population of Western Sahara – to Morocco – an occupying power that has been militarily present in Western Sahara since 1976. The status of the Sahrawi population and the long-lasting pursuit of their right to self-determination and independence have been on the agenda of the United Nations and the international (human rights) community for decades. For the most part, the status of the Sahrawi population has been high up on the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU) roll in the past few years (see e.g., here, and here), as well as academic and public campaigns in Europe and around (see e.g., here, here, and here). In E.H. v. France, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) had an opportunity to have its say on the subject, albeit on an individual asylum case level.


Germain Haumont, M.D. and A.D. v. France: Milestone Towards a Principled Prohibition on the Immigration Detention of Children?, in strasbourgobservers.com, 11 febbraio 2022

The historic position of the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter: “the Court” or “the ECtHR”) on the immigration detention of children is that such detention is compatible with the Convention where it is strictly necessary and adapted to children’s specific needs […]. This leads to a case-based scrutiny each time a child is detained for migratory reasons. However, over the years, the immigration detention of children has systematically been found unlawful under the Convention, either because of the length of the detention, often combined with the age of the child detained, or because of the material conditions of the detention that are deemed inappropriate for children. In this context, the question of a principled ban remains unsettled: if no immigration detention of children finds favour in the eyes of the ECtHR, why does the Court persist in affirming that such detention may, in theory, be reconciled with human rights?


Lena Kainz, Camille Le Coz, The Winding Road to Marrakech: Lessons from the European Negotiations of the Global Compact for Migration, in migrationpolicy.org, 22 gennaio 2022

In the summer of 2018, negotiations of the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration suddenly became front-page news, drawing far more attention than nonbinding UN agreements before it. The compact’s proponents argued it would help address transnational issues related to migration, while its opponents alleged it posed a threat to state sovereignty and would lead to an increase in migration to Western countries. Although the European Union was initially one of the driving forces behind the pact, as public demonstrations multiplied, these divisions culminated in the fall of the Belgian government and nine EU Member States voting against the compact or abstaining.


Steve Peers, Residents of everywhere? The CJEU rules on loss of immigration status due to absence from the territory, in eulawanalysis.blogspot.com, 26 gennaio 2022

Immigration status is often lost due to a certain period of absence from the territory of the country which granted it. But what if that absence is briefly interrupted? The CJEU addressed that issue in a recent judgment concerning non-EU citizens with EU long-term resident status – which may also be relevant to those covered by EU free movement law and the Brexit withdrawal agreement.



Victor T. Amadi, Trade, Migration and Law. Free Movement of Persons in the Southern African Development Community, Routledge, 2022

This book explores how law and policy makers within the Southern African Development Community regional structure might reform the legal and regulatory frameworks to best capitalise the benefits of the movement of people, drawing lessons from other experienced jurisdictions by critically engaging with the regulatory efforts and approaches in regions such as the European Union, the Economic Community of West African States, and the East African Community to propose a revised approach to migration governance and practice in the SADC. Deeper regional integration allows citizens to move freely across national boundaries, and services are a rising component of global trade and investment. However, global trade in services is stifled by barriers at and behind the border. These barriers make it difficult for service providers from developing regions to access key markets in their preferred modes of service trade. Against this background, this book aims to take the discussion on furthering regional integration and trade through the movement of people by tackling issues on stringent immigration policies, arguing that having a vibrant and rewarding trade in services will require an approach towards the unrestricted movement of persons.


Simon Behrman, Avidan Kent (ed.), Climate Refugees. Global, Local and Critical Approaches, Cambridge, 2022

The last few years have witnessed a flurry of activity in global governance and international lawseeking to address the protection gaps for people fleeing the effects of climate change. This book discusses cutting-edge developments in law and policy on climate change and forced displacement, including theories and potential solutions, issues of governance, local and regional concerns, and future challenges. Chapters are written by a range of authors from academics to key figures in intergovernmental organisations, and offer detailed case studies of policy developments in the Americas, Europe, South-East Asia, and the Pacific. This is an ideal resource for graduate students and researchers from a range of disciplines, as well as policymakers working in environmental law, environmental governance, and refugee and migration law.


Francesca Biondi Dal Monte, Emanuele Rossi, Diritto e immigrazioni. Percorsi di diritto costituzionale, Il Mulino, 2022

Tenendo conto delle rapide evoluzioni della disciplina, degli obblighi internazionali e della normativa dell’Unione europea, il volume analizza la condizione giuridica degli stranieri in Italia attraverso quattro percorsi di indagine: la cornice costituzionale di riferimento e l’evoluzione delle politiche migratorie; le condizioni di ingresso, soggiorno e allontanamento degli stranieri; i diritti e i doveri degli stranieri, con specifica attenzione alle condizioni di vulnerabilità e alle politiche di accoglienza e integrazione; i profili connessi alla cittadinanza e alle diverse forme di mobilità. Un itinerario che ha come riferimento i principi costituzionali e i concetti chiave degli istituti giuridici esaminati, e che consente di mettere a fuoco le sfide che le società contemporanee si trovano ad affrontare nel garantire i diritti fondamentali della persona, a prescindere dalla nazionalità.


Hilde Caroli Casavola (a cura di), Le migrazioni e l’integrazione giuridica degli stranieri, Giappichelli, 2021

Nel momento in cui la pandemia ha scalzato l’immigrazione nella classifica delle preoccupazioni degli europei (e non solo) è possibile studiare l’integrazione dei migranti con un approccio scevro dall’inquietudine associata nell’ultimo lustro al tema, soprattutto nel dibattito politico. Il cambiamento del contesto – dalla limitazione della libera circolazione e una ritrovata funzionalità dei confini internazionali, connesse all’emergenza sanitaria, al potenziamento delle tecnologie di comunicazione e alla digitalizzazione e l’innovazione, alle accresciute diseguaglianze economico-sociali – giustifica ampiamente un’attenta riflessione e un ripensamento di come agevolare l’integrazione mediante le regole. La presenza degli stranieri in Europa e in Italia e la nostra convivenza con pakistani, indiani, cinesi, marocchini, ghanesi e altri africani destano un interrogativo: in quale società vogliamo vivere? Se essa non è l’ideale della polis ateniese al tempo di Pericle (che comunque includeva i meteci), conta qualcosa il grado di coesione della collettività, la capacità di riconoscersi comunità di eguali per diritti e intendimenti (che si sostanzia nella cura di beni comuni, civici, locali, ex art. 2 Cost.)? E il fatto che da ciò dipenda almeno in parte la fiducia nel futuro e nelle istituzioni di ogni singolo che al suo interno trovi la dimensione adeguata alla propria realizzazione e al personale sviluppo e la motivazione sufficiente per aderire spontaneamente alle regole che la comunità si è data? Se le regole e le istituzioni ci permettono di avere una maggiore, complessiva capacità di autodeterminazione (o autonomia) individuale, non si configura forse un’opzione meritevole di considerazione per tutti i conviventi soggetti a tali regole e istituzioni?


Kate Ogg, Protection from Refuge: From Refugee Rights to Migration Management, Cambridge University Press, 2022

The places in which refugees seek sanctuary are often as dangerous and bleak as the conditions they fled. In response, many travel within and across borders in search of safety. As part of these journeys, refugees are increasingly turning to courts to ask for protection, not from persecution in their homeland, but from a place of ‘refuge’. This book is the first global and comparative study of ‘protection from refuge’ litigation, examining whether courts facilitate or hamper refugee journeys with a particular focus on gender. Drawing on jurisprudence from Africa, Europe, North America and Oceania, Kate Ogg shows that courts have transitioned from adopting robust ideas of refuge to rudimentary ones. This trajectory indicates that courts can play a powerful role in creating more just and equitable refugee protection policies, but have, ultimately, compounded the difficulties inherent in finding sanctuary, perpetuating global inequities in refugee responsibility and rendering refuge elusive. Worked examples or Exercises.




Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza, 2022, n. 1


Matteo Astuti, Caterina Bove, Anna Brambilla, Amarilda Lici, Erminia S. Rizzi, Ulrich Stege e Ivana Stojanova, «Per quanto voi vi crediate assolti siete per sempre coinvolti». I diritti umani fondamentali alla prova delle frontiere interne ed esterne dell’Unione europea

Caterina Molinari, Accordi di soft law in materia di rimpatri: carta bianca per le istituzioni UE?

Lorenzo Bernardini, La detenzione degli stranieri tra “restrizione” e “privazione” di libertà: la CEDU alla ricerca di Godot

Giacomo Travaglino, La protezione umanitaria tra passato e futuro

Giuseppe Tropea, Riparto di giurisdizione e immigrazione: note critiche sul “nomadismo giurisdizionale”

Marco Benvenuti, Dubito, ergo iudico. Le modalità di accertamento dell’età dei minori stranieri non accompagnati in Italia

Accedi all’intero fascicolo


European Journal of Migration and Law, 2022, vol. 24


Jean-Pierre Cassarino, Luisa Marin, The Pact on Migration and Asylum: Turning the European Territory into a Non-territory?

Meltem Ineli-Ciger, Is Resettlement Still a Durable Solution? An Analysis in Light of the Proposal for a Regulation Establishing a Union Resettlement Framework

Eleonora Frasca, Francesco Luigi Gatta, Ebbs and Flows of EU Migration Law and Governance: A Critical Assessment of the Evolution of Migration Legislation and Policy in Europe

Zvezda Vankova, Work-Based Pathways to Refugee Protection under EU Law: Pie in the Sky?

Emily Cunniffe, Non-economic Migrants as Workers: Securing the Right to Work for Asylum Applicants in the EU

Ferdinand Wollenschläger, An EU Fundamental Right to Social Assistance in the Host Member State? The CJEU’s Ambivalent Approach to the Free Movement of Economically Inactive Union Citizens Post Dano

Annette Schrauwen, EU Citizenship Law and Policy. Beyond Brexit, written by Dora Kostakopoulou

Holger Hoffmann, European Free Movement Area – Citizenship and Migration, edited by Ferdinand Wollenschläger

Accedi all’intero fascicolo


Karin Åberg, Examining the Vulnerability Procedure: Group-based Determinations at the EU Border, in Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 41, n. 1

Between 2016 and 2019, almost all asylum seekers who managed to reach the Greek islands in the North Aegean Sea had to undergo an assessment of their vulnerability within the EU hotspot system. Those who were found vulnerable were exempted from return under the EU-Turkey Agreement and were free to leave for the Greek mainland. This article provides a detailed account of the vulnerability procedure, which classifies migrants through pre-established categories on account of externally distinguishable features rather than individual experiences. As is shown, this type of group-based management of refugees preceded the Refugee Convention, but has since the 1960s primarily been applied in the Global South. The use of this procedure in Europe reflects an exception from the European individualist human rights approach. In the context of EU hotspots, the vulnerability procedure provides a pathway to exemption from externalisation, for those who can live up to its requirements of documentable hardship.


Grażyna Baranowska, A Tale of Two Borders. Poland’s continued illegal actions at its border with Belarus, in verfassungsblog.de, 10 marzo 2022

Russia’s invasion on Ukraine has once again brought attention to Poland’s borders, as the majority of persons fleeing the war are crossing the border to Poland. Last summer, Poland’s policy with regard to persons crossing and attempting to cross the border from Belarus has made headlines. While making fast and determined steps to help persons escaping the war in Ukraine, Polish authorities have not changed their approach toward the horrors happening at the Polish-Belarusian border. The pushbacks are continuing, and people are dying while being trapped in this border region. On the 28 February 2022, the 4th day of the Russian invasion on Ukraine, Polish authorities extended a temporary ban on staying at the border area with Belarus, making it impossible to provide humanitarian help to the people remaining there and report on the events from the ground.


Roberto Calarco, Managing Migration through Detention and Information-Giving Practices: the Case of the Italian Hotspot and Relocation System, in IMI Working Papers, 2022, vol. 173

The article explores the relation between detention and information-giving practices and investigates its contribution to migration control and (re)bordering processes at the southern European border. By focusing on the case of the hotspot system implemented in Sicily, the paper explores two main issues: a) the role played by detention practices and their relation with processes of migrant selection and migrants’ rights stratification; b) the link between authorities’ detention practices and information-giving practices carried out by intergovernmental organisations such as the UNHCR and the IOM, and the contribution of this relation to processes of migrant differential inclusion. The research methodology is built on ten months of fieldwork carried out in eastern Sicily between 2017 and 2018, on document analysis and on semi-structured interviews conducted with seventeen key informants. The article argues that the intergovernmental organisations information-giving practices about asylum, identification and relocation procedures a) contributed to perpetuating subtle and indirect forms of migration control and b) were linked, more or less directly, to detention practices carried out by authorities, and this relation contributed to reinforcing the stratification of migrants’ access to mobility and rights.


Sergio Carrera, Meltem Ineli Ciger, Lina Vosyliute, Leiza Brumat, The EU grants temporary protection for people fleeing war in Ukraine. Time to rethink unequal solidarity in EU asylum policy, in CEPS Policy Insight, 2022, n. 9

More than two million people have fled Ukraine since Russia’s invasion began on 24 February 2022. To respond to the sudden large-scale displacement from Ukraine, the 2001 EU Temporary Protection Directive has been activated for the first time. This paper examines the key issues and questions raised by the EU’s temporary protection regime to people fleeing Ukraine, and the medium and long-term issues which can be expected from its implementation. It draws on lessons learned or ‘not to be learned’ from policies adopted by countries such as Turkey that responded to large-scale displacement from Syria, and others in South America, such as Colombia and Brazil, that responded to large-scale displacement from Venezuela. The paper argues that the solidarity principle enshrined in the EU Treaties needs to be substantially rethought and revisited. People fleeing conflicts and seeking asylum should not be subjected to illegitimate double standards based on their European or non-European origin or any other discriminatory grounds such as race, ethnic origin, and religion. EU asylum policy should be tailored and implemented in a way that upholds the notion of equal solidarity following a human-centric approach, putting every individual’s dignity and agency at the heart of its attention. Priority needs to be given to tackling institutionalised forms of discrimination and racism towards non-European asylum seekers and refugees, as these run contrary to the rule of law and fundamental rights principles enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU).


Concetta Maria Pontecorvo, Towards Litigating Climate-Induced Migration? Current Limits and Emerging Trends for the Protection of “Climate-Induced Migrants” in International Law, in Rivista OIDU, 2022, n. 1

This paper analyses the recent development of the international law in the field of climate- induced migration. It opens with an evaluation of the initiative adopted at the regulatory level and explains that, despite notable efforts, a normative gap still exists. It then examines a new strategy, one that in recent years has been employed by communities and civil society organisations wishing to force progress in the fight against climate change – the use of litigation. It seems that (at least some of) this recent wave of litigation is relevant also in the more specific case of climate-induced migration.



Meltem İneli Ciğer, 5 Reasons Why: Understanding the reasons behind the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive in 2022, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 7 marzo 2022

Russian armed forces launched a large-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine intensified as the days went by and the number of displaced persons grew rapidly. The Council of Ministers for Justice and Home Affairs’ meeting on 27 February concluded that “The Commission proposed activating the mechanism provided for by the 2001 directive on temporary protection. There were expressions of broad support for this measure, which will be submitted to the JHA Council without delay.” The Council adopted a decision unanimously establishing the existence of a mass influx of displaced persons from Ukraine and activated the Temporary Protection Directive 2001/55/EC (TPD) on 4 March 2022. This was the first time the TPD was activated since its adoption in 2001 and one may wonder why.


Tom Dannenbaum, The Legal Obligation to Recognize Russian Deserters as Refugees, in verfassungsblog.de, 2 marzo 2022

The European Union (EU) and its member states are reportedly considering offering asylum to Russian deserters. They and other states around the world have a legal obligation to do precisely that. Soldiers who flee punishment for refusing to fight in aggressive wars are properly understood as refugees under international law.


Corinne Delon-Desmoulin, Frontex sous surveillance renforcée: Le vote de la décharge budgétaire 2019 par le Parlement européen, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 25 marzo 2022

Le Parlement européen a finalement décidé le 21 octobre 2021 (2020/2167(DEC)) d’accorder la décharge sur les comptes 2019 de l’agence Frontex après avoir ajourné celle-ci le 28 avril 2021. Sur base de la recommandation de la commission du contrôle budgétaire et de l’avis rendu par la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, l’assemblée plénière avait décidé de reporter sa décision de décharge du budget 2019 de Frontex par 528 voix contre 127 et 43 abstentions. Toutefois, la décharge accordée s’apparente davantage à un sursis accordé à Frontex qu’à un réel quitus.


Chiara Denaro, Beyond Violent Raids, Sit-In Evictions and Arbitrary Detention in Tripoli (Libya): How Black Refugee Voices Refuse to be Silenced, in law.ox.ac.uk, 17 marzo 2022

Following October 1, 2021, when Libyan security forces and affiliated militias carried out brutal police raids against refugees living in Gargaresh (West Tripoli), over 2,000 refugees started a peaceful protest in front of the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Community Day Centre (CDC) in Tripoli, demanding relocation, protection and evacuation from Libya. Since the start of the protests, UNHCR and its partners’ activities at CDC were suspended. On 10 January, 2022, after more than three months since it began, the sit-in was forcibly evicted and more than 600 people were arrested and detained. This happened just few hours after the UNHCR CDC was permanently closed.


Pavlos Eleftheriadis, Pushbacks and Lawlessness, in ejiltalk.org, 25 marzo 2022

Dozens of cases before the European Court of Human Rights claim that Greek authorities are engaged in a policy of secret returns of persons seeking asylum back to Turkey, or ‘pushbacks’. Α post on this blog, ‘Pushbacks as Euphemism’ by Niamh Keady-Tabbai and Itamar Mann drew attenttion to the alleged ‘driftbacks’ in the Aegean. These, however, are only one part of a larger picture, because the current allegations concern land borders as well. The Greek government denies that such events take place. It accuses NGOs, foreign governments and ‘trafficking networks’ of inventing these stories. Nevertheless, the Greek Ombudsman’s ‘interim report on allegations of forced expulsions’, which is the only official investigation ever to have taken place in Greece on these matters, concluded in January 2021 that the allegations it had seen were credible and that the number and the standard features of the reported pushbacks caused ‘alarm’, which was not dispelled by the response of the Greek authorities.


Tamás Molnár, EU Member States’ international responsibility when cooperating with third countries: grey zones of law, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 25 marzo 2022

In the field of border management, following the concept of European Integrated Border Management as set out in Article 3 of the new European Border and Coast Guard (EBCG) Regulation (EU) 2019/1896, EU Member States have been intensifying their cooperation either with third countries, or under the authority of third countries, or even operating in third countries.


Chris Nash, Stateless people and refugees fleeing Ukraine, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 20 marzo 2022

As the number of refugees fleeing Ukraine nears two million, we and our members on the ground have been mobilising to try to get a handle on the particular protection needs of stateless people forcibly displaced by the crisis. We know from past experience, including research under our Stateless Journeys initiative, that stateless people fleeing conflict typically face additional issues and challenges crossing borders and accessing protection. We also know that statelessness is both a cause and a consequence of forced displacement. Upon hearing anecdotal reports of difficulties experienced by stateless people trying to escape the war in Ukraine, we wanted to better understand the situation as quickly as possible. This week we have published an initial briefing to help inform refugee response actors on the ground so that problems can hopefully be anticipated and addressed before they become entrenched.


Steve Peers, Temporary Protection for Ukrainians in the EU? Q and A, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 27 marzo 2022

Among the many big developments over the last few days in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, there was an important potential asylum law measure – the decision to trigger the EU’s temporary protection Directive, a legal framework for mass influxes of people needing protection dating back to 2001 but never previously used. Member States indicated ‘broad support’ for use of the Directive at the EU Council meeting of February 27. The Commission duly proposed a Decision to give effect to this on March 2, alongside guidance for applying EU external borders law. The Council agreed on the  Decision on March 3, and formally adopted it on March 4. It applied from the same day. So to fully understand the legal rules now applying to those fleeing the invasion, it’s necessary to discuss both the 2001 Directive and the 2022 Decision to give effect to it. What do these new rules mean for the hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of people now fleeing Ukraine?


Mario Savino, Francesco Luigi Gatta, On the Brink of a New Refugee Crisis. Temporary protection as a paradigm shift?, in verfassungsblog.de, 10 marzo 2022

Democracy vs autocracy. Freedom vs censorship. National self-determination vs imperialist annexation. Peace vs war. These sharp dichotomies are the lenses through which we, Europeans, look at the Ukrainian conflict and rediscover ourselves united in the Western values, embodied in the heroic resistance of our fellow Ukrainians. Unanimously, Member States decided for the first time to use the EU budget to purchase and deliver weapons to a third country under attack. Unanimously, the same Member States decided to activate the Directive 2001/55/CE on temporary protection: an ad hoc tool to manage mass influx of displaced persons designed more than two decades ago, but never used before, not even in the 2015 “Mediterranean” refugee crisis.


Jessica Schultz, Kari Anne Drangsland, Marry-Anne Karlsen Julia Kienast, Jens Vedsted-Hansen, Collective protection as a short-term solution: European responses to the protection needs of refugees from the war in Ukraine, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 8 marzo 2022

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has raised urgent questions concerning how European countries should respond to people fleeing the war. While the initial response seems to be one of open borders and expressions of solidarity, calls to provide collective, temporary protection have been buzzing from Brussels to Oslo. The Council of the European Union unanimously decided on March 4 to activate, for the first time, the 2001 Temporary Protection Directive (TPD). In Norway, meanwhile, the government has decided to apply a long-dormant provision in the Immigration Act, §34 on ‘collective protection’. In Denmark, the government is preparing special legislation based on the TPD.


Ilya Somin, Does the Threat of Terrorism Justify Migration Restrictions?, in verfassungsblog.de, 30 marzo 2022

Since the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001, and especially since the rise of ISIS and the Syrian Civil War, beginning in 2011, Western nations have adopted various policies barring migrants and refugees based on fear of terrorism and other security threats. These range from US President Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim travel bans to restrictions adopted by various European countries in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015. As I write these words in March 2022, European nations have adopted a much more open attitude towards refugees fleeing Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine. But a similar anti-migrant backlash could potentially occur in this case, as well, especially if the crisis goes on for a long time.


Daniel Thym, Temporary Protection for Ukrainians: the Unexpected Renaissance of ‘Free Choice’, in eumigrationlawblog.eu, 7 marzo 2022

Unusual times are said to call for unusual measures. The war of aggression against Ukraine, and the departure of literally millions of citizens within a few days have triggered an unprecedented wave of solidarity. UNHCR estimates that up to four million Ukrainians may seek refuge in neighbouring countries in the coming months. More than 150 thousand people are crossing the external borders each day. Member States are experiencing what Turkey and Lebanon witnessed in the early phases of the Syrian civil war: neighbouring states are the first countries of refuge. Activating the Temporary Protection Directive 2001/55/EC was a smart and pragmatic response of the EU institutions. Member States unanimously agreed to do so at the meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on Thursday, 3 March 2022. The final text of Council Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/382 was published the following day.


Lorin Wagner, The Oligarchs Among Us,?, in verfassungsblog.de, 18 marzo 2022

Since the start of the war in Ukraine ever more focus has been placed on the hunt for the ill-gotten wealth of Russian oligarchs. Yachts, jets, and mansions have been seized, accounts have been frozen and even football clubs have been left in a state of limbo. All these frantic actions against Russian oligarchs are of course part of a larger set of sanctions of the West intended to cripple Russia’s economy and thus its ability to wage war. The righteous cause of these targeted, smart sanctions is to hurt the enablers in the upper echelons of the Kremlin where it hurts them most – the enablers, mind you, however, have come from far and wide. But even those Russian oligarchs that have been targeted are sometimes more a part of us than we would like to think. It is no secret that Russian oligarchs have not only been collecting fancy toys but also various golden passport, that not only have allowed them to make them feel like home in the European Union, but also to be a part of “us”. And since the spotlight is already shifting towards how it is that some of these Russian oligarchs are indeed “our” very own oligarchs, there will be questions of what it is that validates the legal status of nationality actually. It is an old question to be fair, but the apparent answer of the day that nationality is what any State makes of it is therefore no less unconvincing and should lead to some soul searching.



Dora Kostakopoulou, Daniel Thym, Research Handbook on European Union Citizenship Law and Policy. Navigating Challenges and Crises, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022

This Research Handbook provides a panoramic guide to the study and research of EU citizenship and its development within a challenging environment characterised by restrictive access to social benefits, Brexit, Euroscepticism and Covid-19. It combines theoretical perspectives with analyses of both the existing and future rights, duties and social protection that EU citizens ought to enjoy in a democratic and principled European Union.


Madalina Moraru, Galina Cornelisse, Philippe De Bruycker (ed.), Law and Judicial Dialogue on the Return of Irregular Migrants from the European Union, Hart Publishing, 2022

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


Vera Pavlou, Migrant Domestic Workers in Europe. Law and the Construction of Vulnerability, Hart Publishing, 2021

This book explores the often neglected, but overwhelmingly common, everyday vulnerability of those who support the smooth functioning of contemporary societies: paid domestic workers. With a focus on the multiple disadvantages these – often migrant – workers face when working and living in Europe, the book investigates the role of law in producing, reinforcing – or, alternatively, attenuating – vulnerability to exploitation. It departs from approaches that focus on extreme abuse such as ‘modern’ slavery or trafficking, to consider the much more widespread day-to-day vulnerabilities created at the intersection of different legal regimes. The book, therefore, examines issues such as low wages, unregulated working time, dismissals and the impact of migration status on enforcing rights at work. The complex legal regimes regulating migrant domestic labour in Europe include migration and labour law sources at different levels: international, national and, as this book demonstrates, also EU. With an innovative lens that combines national, comparative, and multilevel analysis, this book opens up space for transformative legal change for migrant domestic workers in Europe and beyond.


Uwe Steinhoff, Freedom, Culture, and the Right to Exclude. On the Permissibility and Necessity of Immigration Restrictions, Routledge, 2022

This book argues that citizens have a moral right to decide by which criteria they grant migrants citizenship, as well as to control access to their territory in the first place. In developing and defending this argument, it critically engages numerous objections, thus providing the reader with a thorough overview of the current debate on the ethics of immigration and exclusion. The author’s argument is based on a straightforwardly individualist and liberal starting point. One of the rights granted by liberalism is freedom of association, which also comprises the right not to associate with people with whom one does not want to associate. While this is an individual right, it can be exercised collectively like many other individual rights. Thus, people can decide to collectively organize into an association pursuing certain goals; and subject to certain provisos, this gives rise to legitimate claims to space and territory in which they pursue these goals. The author shows that this right is far-reaching and robust, which entails an equally far-reaching and robust right to exclude. Moreover, he demonstrates that large-scale immigration from illiberal cultures tends to severely compromise the way of life, the values, and the institutions of liberal democracies in ways routinely ignored by apologists for multiculturalism. Freedom, Culture, and the Right to Exclude will be of interest to scholars and advanced students working in applied ethics, political philosophy, political theory, and law.


Daniel Thym (ed.), Reforming the Common European Asylum System. Opportunities, Pitfalls, and Downsides of the Commission Proposals for a New Pact on Migration and Asylum, Nomos, 2022

Timely and profound collection of high-quality contributions, written by experts from across Europe, on the ongoing policy debate on the reform of Common European Asylum System. Contributions combine an in-depth presentation with a style of argument that addresses a broader audience: fellow academics, students and PhD researchers, practitioners, and political actors. Attention to the legislative detail coincides with an awareness of the broader picture in terms of policy developments, human rights computability, and practical implementation on the ground. The edited volume allows readers to understand the complex rules and to identify overarching challenges defining European asylum policy at this juncture. With contributions byDr. Ulrike Brandl, Dr. Galina Cornelisse, Prof. Philippe De Bruycker, Jean-Baptiste Farcy, Prof. Paula García Andrade, Prof. Dr. Iris Goldner Lang, Prof. Elspeth Guild, Dr. Meltem İneli Ciğer, Dr. Lyra Jakuleviciene, Prof. Francesco Maiani, Dr. Madalina Bianca Moraru, Prof. Violeta Moreno-Lax, Prof. Sylvie Sarolea, Dr. Lieneke Slingenberg, Prof. Dr. Daniel Thym, Prof. Lilian Tsourdi and Prof. Jens Vedsted-Hansen.




Migration and Society, 2022, vol. 5, n. 1 – Special Section: The Role of “Voluntariness” in the Governance of Migration.

Reinhard Schweitzer, Rachel Humphris, Pierre Monforte, The Role of “Voluntariness” in the Governance of Migration

Tanya Aberman, An Intersectional Approach to Exploring “Voluntary” Return in Toronto, Canada

Reinhard Schweitzer, How the Exclusion of Nongovernment Actors from the Austrian and British Return Regimes Affects the Quality of Voluntariness

Zeynep S. Mencutek, The Institutionalization of “Voluntary” Returns in Turkey

Pierre Monforte and Gaja Maestri, Personal Encounters and Bordering Processes in the British Refugees Welcome Movement

Rachel Humphris, Kristin Elizabeth Yarris, Temporality and Affect among Volunteer Humanitarians in the UK and USA

Accedi all’intero fascicolo


Antonio Cavaliere, Le vite dei migranti e il diritto punitivo, in Sistema penale, 2022, n. 4

Premessa la necessità di un metodo interdisciplinare nello studio della vigente disciplina amministrativa e penale in materia di immigrazione, vengono analizzati, alla luce di dati empirici, gli effetti negativi di tale regolazione. In riferimento al ruolo del diritto penale, si analizzano gli effetti distorsivi dell’adozione, ad opera del legislatore, del “controllo dei flussi” quale artificiale oggetto della tutela. Viene infine sottoposto a critica il cd. trattenimento “amministrativo” dei migranti.


Zlata Drnas De Clément, Migraciones sistemáticas como instrumento para la construcción de la ciudadanía global, in Rivista OIDU, 2022, n. 1

The growing emphasis given by the United Nations to the promotion and encouragement of migrations (understood in a broad sense) with the aim of constituting global citizenship has led us to make these reflections. The general trend that we observe weakens certain human rights to privilege -with a political vision- others, trying to build a new global order. Firstly, we will make some reflections on the concept of migrant, then we will deal with some developments in relation to migrations from different international spheres, to finally visualize the drivers of this trend and consider their objectives.


Klarita Gërxhani, Yuliya Kosyakova, The effect of co-ethnic social capital on immigrants’ labor market integration: a natural experiment, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, vol. 10, n. 15

Empirically identifying the causal effect of social capital on immigrants’ economic prospects is a challenging task due to the non-random residential sorting of immigrants into locations with greater opportunities for prior or co-ethnic connections. Our study addresses this selection-bias issue by using a natural-experimental dataset of refugees and other immigrants who were exogenously allocated to their first place of residence by German authorities. This unique opportunity allows us to make an important methodological contribution to the predominantly observational knowledge about immigration and co-ethnic social capital. Although a growing body of migration studies in economics and sociology stresses the importance of social networks for migrants’ labor market integration, our results show little evidence of a causal effect of social networks themselves. Being part of a larger co-ethnic community per se does not accelerate immigrants’ labor market success except for the migrants who use the resources embedded in their social contacts when looking for a job. We conclude that further methodological advancements can be achieved by embracing recent technological developments and by combining different methods to increase both internal and external validity of findings in migration studies.


Angelo Licastro, La persecuzione per ragioni di fede e il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato, in Rivista OIDU, 2022, n. 1

The right to freedom of religion is under increasing assault in many countries around the world. This phenomenon reflects a wide variety of events – such as government laws, policies and actions that impinge on religious beliefs and practices or acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society – and has led to an increase in applications for international protection in many European countries. The present paper analyses the procedures for evaluating asylum claims and for the determination of refugee status based on the protected ground of religion, on the 70th anniversary of the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951.


Amade M’charek, Race and sameness: on the limits of beyond race and the art of staying with the trouble, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, vol. 10, n. 13

In this commentary I argue that rather than going beyond race, we need to ‘stay with the trouble’ of race (Haraway 2016). Race, I want to suggest, is precisely ‘trouble’ because it is produced and sustained in everyday practices. To make this more tangible, I will zoom in on one specific case, a homicide case, that was eventually solved through forensic technologies and attend to the impact of the case on society. Analyzing responses in the media to the identification of suspect, I focus on the sense of community that emerged, and unravel how race came to play a role. To push the point that we need to attend to the intricacies of race, I will switch focus from an analysis of race in relation to difference, to race in relation to sameness. As I argue, while difference tends to be politicized, sameness has been viewed as curiously apolitical and thus functions as the baseline. Here I suggest to differentiate between sameness as otherness and sameness as us-ness. My analyses is aimed at inviting us to stay curious about what race is made to be in practice, how it manifests and what politics it does.


Concetta Maria Pontecorvo, Towards Litigating Climate-Induced Migration? Current Limits and Emerging Trends for the Protection of “Climate-Induced Migrants” in International Law, in Rivista OIDU, 2022, n. 1

This paper analyses the recent development of the international law in the field of climate- induced migration. It opens with an evaluation of the initiative adopted at the regulatory level and explains that, despite notable efforts, a normative gap still exists. It then examines a new strategy, one that in recent years has been employed by communities and civil society organisations wishing to force progress in the fight against climate change – the use of litigation. It seems that (at least some of) this recent wave of litigation is relevant also in the more specific case of climate-induced migration.


Martina Sardo, Respingimenti a catena e tutela cautelare del diritto d’asilo. Le ordinanze del Tribunale di Roma sulle ‘riammissioni informali’ in Slovenia, in Diritti umani e diritto internazionale, 2021, n. 3

On the 3rd of May, the Rome Tribunal accepted the complaint lodged by the Ministry of Interior against the interim measure with which, last January, the same Court declared the illegitimacy of the procedure of migrants and asylum seekers informal readmission in Slovenia, because of the violation inter alia of the principle of non-refoulement. Despite the negative outcome for the asylum seekers, the order of the complaint did not refute the reasoning of the judge of the first instance who, for the first time, recognized the entry protection by issuing an urgent precautionary measure. This contribution focuses on the recent tendency of States’ national Courts to provide protection, including through precautionary measures, by the recognition of the right to access to the national territory for persons seeking international protection as a result of the illegal conduct of the border authorities; it then analyzes the European Court of Human Rights approach to interim measures and the influence on the Strasbourg judge of governments’ policy on immigration and border control.


Katrin Sontag, Metka Herzog, Silva Lässer, Struggles for democracy: strategies and resources of initiatives for non-citizen voting rights at local levels in Europe, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, vol. 10, n. 14

This paper deals with non-citizen voting rights from the perspective of grassroots initiatives that campaign for more inclusive local voting rights for migrants. It looks at three initiatives in three European cities with a growing foreign population: in Basel (Switzerland), Brussels (Belgium), and Freiburg (Germany). All three initiatives address authorities with the need to increase options for migrant political participation at the local level, encourage political engagement, and raise awareness of the topic. The initiatives use different strategies, which include the performance and appropriation of rights in symbolic elections or parliamentary sessions. We interpret these activities as “acts of citizenship” and observe that these acts are not only responses to available political opportunity structures, but rather mobilize external and internal networks and invest considerable resources to make this kind of engagement possible in a specific “resource environment”.


Simona Vezzoli, Migration aspirations and preferences to stay in a Brazilian frontier town: Tranquility, hope and relative endowment, in IMI Working Paper, 2022, vol. 174, n. 4

What happens to migration when a town undergoes economic decline? Do residents migrate or do they stay? And what motivates this decision? This article answers these questions by analyzing the life and migration aspirations of young people – 17-39 age group – in Caracaraí, a large frontier Brazilian town on the edge of the Amazon forest that has experienced economic decline and stagnation since its heyday in the 1970s-80s. The analysis relies on 41 in-depth interviews (17-91 age group) and a survey with 267 respondents in the 17-39 age-group – who are frequently children of migrants who arrived during the economic boom. The article examines their view of the town, their life aspirations and prospects, and their aspirations to stay or to leave Caracaraí. While we observe ‘conditional’ migration aspirations, many young people show a preference to stay. Three interconnected factors shape this preference: life aspirations, the meaning of a ‘good life’, and hope in local development. Life aspirations often entail the pursuit of education within Brazil to take up public sector employment in Caracaraí. A ‘good life’ frequently involves closeness to family, the town’s natural environment and its peacefulness. Many young people also hold hope for the town’s development in the future. This article introduces the concept of relative endowment to describe how young people in Caracaraì feel privileged in relation to their parents’ upbringing and to people in more peripheral areas, in big Brazilian cities and abroad, thus in relation to diverse reference groups. Moreover, relative endowment can be shaped by non-economic factors, such as what is a ‘good life’ and perceptions of development. This might explain why, even in times of economic decline, many young people may prefer to stay, despite the financial gains that migration could provide.



Hanne Beirens, Samuel Davidoff-Gore, The UK-Rwanda Agreement Represents Another Blow to Territorial Asylum, in Migration Policy Institute, 22 aprile 2022

The United Kingdom’s controversial deal with Rwanda to relocate certain asylum seekers there—not for offshore processing for possible settlement in the United Kingdom but as a permanent destination—symbolizes the next step in a broader policy push that some high-income countries are taking to externalize migration management. Though other European countries, most notably Austria and Denmark, have eyed the option of offloading the responsibility for (spontaneously arriving) asylum seekers to third countries, the UK-Rwanda arrangement announced earlier this month shifts this policy ambition from a so far theoretical, still abstract, option to a seemingly tangible, ready-to-go program. If it results in successful relocation of asylum seekers, governments or politicians keen to limit the right to seek asylum upon entry to a foreign state—whether the arrival occurred legally or not—could present this deal as proof of concept for their own externalization plans. Even the agreement’s existence now serves as precedent for these parties to speak about this openly, for example reinvigorating Denmark’s interest in a similar plan.


Maria Martha Gerdes, Samuel Hartwig, Anything Goes? The Permissive Approach of the ECtHR towards Deprivation of Nationality and Subsequent Expulsion in the Fight against Terrorism, in verfassungsblog.de, 12 aprile 2022

Last month, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the case of Johansen v. Denmark on the deprivation of nationality and expulsion due to terrorist offences. The Court rejected the applicant’s complaint of an infringement of his right to private and family life under Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and declared the application inadmissible. The decision underlines the Court’s reluctance to engage with issues raised by deprivations of nationality in terrorism cases. Instead of setting out clear limits on such measures based on the rights guaranteed by the Convention, the Court does not seem to be willing to interfere with measures related to national security, no matter how drastic the consequences for the individual.


Dana Schmalz, Enlarging the Hole in the Fence of Migrants’ Rights. A.A. and others v. North Macedonia, in verfassungsblog.de, 6 aprile 2022

With the judgment in A.A. and others v. North Macedonia, the European Court of Human Rights further branches out the creative exception to the prohibition of collective expulsions. This prohibition is a human rights guarantee laid down in Article 4 of the 4th Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. With the Grand Chamber decision in N.D. and N.T. v. Spain, the Court had created a line of reasoning that curtails migrants’ rights against the wording of the provision. Two chamber judgments, Shahzad v. Hungary (cf. discussion here) and M.H. and others v. Croatia (request for referral to Grand Chamber pending) have subsequently applied this exception in a consistent and narrow manner. The decision in A.A. and others v. North Macedonia now ignores this reasoning and twists the N.D. and N.T. criteria into an even broader exception from the prohibition of collective expulsions.


Frances Allen, Julia Gasparro, Jo Swaney, Margaret Phelan, James Gillespie (ed.), Immigration Law Handbook, Oxford, 2022

The Immigration Law Handbook has established itself as the gold standard in the field and has become an invaluable resource for immigration practitioners including Asylum and Immigration Tribunal judges, barristers, solicitors, and caseworkers working in immigration, asylum, and human rights law. In this new edition, all sections have been updated to reflect the various changes to the immigration rules since 2018, especially as a result of Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. Most notable is the inclusion of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 which made provision to end rights to free movement of people under EU law and to repeal other EU law relating to immigration. Three new Statutory Instruments set the transitional and saving provisions to which the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 are now subject. Four more new Statutory Instruments are also included: The Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018 and three relating to Brexit: The Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals)(EU Exit) Order 2019; Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; and The Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The Immigration Rules have been subject to 22 statements of changes since the last edition, some of which are significant. This edition captures all changes in the Immigration Rules up to and including those coming into force in July 2021. The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum) Rules 2014 and the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 all include amendments made in response to circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Procedure Rules and Practice Directions section has been expanded to include practice statements and brought up to date with the latest rules and guidelines. Finally, the European Materials section has been streamlined to include just the two most relevant, relating to free movement and workers’ rights. Coverage of recent new legislation sits alongside existing important legislation to maintain the strengths of the handbook as a reference tool whilst providing the reader with up-to-date access to all new developments in a single volume. Useful links to online materials are provided to guide readers towards supplementary information.


Scott FitzGerald, Refuge beyond Reach. How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers, Oxford, 2022

Refuge beyond Reach shows how rich democracies deliberately and systematically shut down most legal paths to safety. Media pundits, politicians, and the public are often skeptical or ambivalent about granting asylum. They fear that asylum-seekers will impose economic and cultural costs and pose security threats to nationals. Consequently, governments of rich, democratic countries attempt to limit who can approach their borders, which often leads to refugees breaking immigration laws. In Refuge beyond Reach, David Scott FitzGerald traces how rich democracies have deliberately and systematically shut down most legal paths to safety. Drawing on official government documents, information obtained via WikiLeaks, and interviews with asylum seekers, he finds that for ninety-nine percent of refugees, the only way to find safety in one of the prosperous democracies of the Global North is to reach its territory and then ask for asylum. FitzGerald shows how the US, Canada, Europe, and Australia comply with the letter of law while violating the spirit of those laws through a range of deterrence methods–first designed to keep out Jews fleeing the Nazis–that have now evolved into a pervasive global system of “remote control.” While some of the most draconian remote control practices continue in secret, Fitzgerald identifies some pressure points and finds that a diffuse humanitarian obligation to help those in need is more difficult for governments to evade than the law alone. Refuge beyond Reach addresses one of the world’s most pressing challenges–how to manage flows of refugees and other types of migrants–and helps to identify the conditions under which individuals can access the protection of their universal rights.


Francesca Rosignoli, Environmental Justice for Climate Refugees, Routledge, 2022

This book explores who climate refugees are and how environmental justice might be used to overcome legal obstacles preventing them from being recognized at an international level. Francesca Rosignoli begins by exploring the conceptual and complex issues that surround the very existence of climate refugees and investigates the magnitude of the phenomenon in its current and future estimates. Reframing the debate using an environment justice perspective, she examines who has the responsibility of assisting climate refugees (state vs non-state actors), the various legal solutions available and the political scenarios that should be advanced in order to govern this issue in the long term. Overall, Environmental Justice for Climate Refugees presents a critical interrogation of how this specific strand of forced migration is currently categorized by existing legal, ethical and political definitions, and highlights the importance of applying a justice perspective to this issue. Exploring the phenomenon of climate refugees through a multi-disciplinary lens, this book will be of great interest to students and scholars of environmental migration and displacement, environmental politics and governance, and refugee studies.




European Journal of Legal Studies – Special Issue: Adjudicating Migrants’ Rights: What Are European Courts Saying?


Veronica Federico, Madalina Moraru and Paola Pannia, The Growing but Uneven Role of European Courts in (Im)migration Governance: A Comparative Perspective

Madalina Moraru, The European Court of Justice Shaping the Right to be Heard for Asylum Seekers, Returnees, and Visa Applicants: An Exercise in Judicial Diplomacy

Louis Imbert, Endorsing Migration Policies in Constitutional Terms: The Case of the French Constitutional Council

Danai Angeli and Dia Anagnostou, A Shortfall of Rights and Justice: Judicial Review of Immigration Detention in Greece

Paola Pannia, Questioning the Frontiers of Rights: The Case Law of the Italian Constitutional Court on Non-European Union Citizens’ Social Rights

Monika Szulecka, The Undermined Role of (Domestic) Case Law in Shaping the Practice of Admitting Asylum Seekers in Poland

Accedi all’intero fascicolo



James Dennison, Re-thinking the drivers of regular and irregular migration: evidence from the MENA region, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

Why do individuals vary in their desire to emigrate? Why are some willing to emigrate irregularly? This article tests four theoretical approaches—socio-demographics; economic and political context; access to migrant networks; and psychological factors—across the Middle East and North Africa region. Data from the Arab Barometer is used to show that the most prevalent factors are youth, university education, being male, and stress levels as well as negative economic and political perceptions, being unmarried, trust in social media, remittances, and low religiosity. Notably, economic factors such as unemployment and income are shown to rarely have an effect. The determinants of being willing to emigrate without papers are fewer and distinct: gender and lower income especially as well as lower education and negative economic and political perceptions. Several contributions to our understanding of emigration are made: a two-step model of irregular emigration based on findings across 12 countries, new evidence of the complex and, within-country, muted role of economic factors, the centrality of psychology, and how, tentatively, it appears that both extreme wealth and war interact with the most fundamental socio-demographic drivers.


Donatella Loprieno, Riflessioni sul reddito di cittadinanza e gli stranieri alla luce della sent. n. 19 del 2022 della Corte costituzionale, 2022, n. 3

The present work offers some remarks on the Constitutional Court’s judgment n. 19 of 2022 regarding the requirements in the long-term resident permit of third countries to access the Citizen’s income. After a summary of the constitutional jurisprudence on the access to social security benefits by foreign citizens, the article describes the complex nature of the Italian citizen’s income and pay attention to the categories of foreign citizens who are excluded from accessing the benefit. Finally, the article will analyse the reasons of the referring court for which the benefit is a measure to safeguard the basic needs of the foreign citizens and the reasons of the Constitutional Court for which, instead, the citizen’s income is not simply a welfare intervention. This determination leads the Constitutional Court to conclude that in not unreasonable for the legislator to choose to reserve the benefit only to long-term resident migrants.


Azzurra Muccione, Recenti tendenze della prassi internazionale in merito alla tutela del minore non accompagnato nel contesto delle migrazioni, in Osservatorio costituzionale, 2022, n. 3

In today’s migratory flows, the presence of minors unaccompanied by parents or adult reference persons is constantly recorded. While there are multiple international standards relevant to the protection of unaccompanied minors, to date, however, there is no binding instrument, of a regional or universal nature, which is specifically and directly aimed at ensuring rights and protection for minors who cross alone State borders to find a shelter from wars, persecutions, poverty or to carry out an emigration project. This paper intends to verify, after a brief reconstruction of the relevant legal framework, the most recent trends emerging from international norms on the rights of the child in relation to the context of migration. Following this investigation, the essay will contribute to focus on the significance of these trends in the context of a case study, concerning Italy and Kosovo, in light of the arrivals in Italy of unaccompanied minors from that country.


Maayan Niezna, Paper chains: tied visas, migration policies, and legal coercion, in Journal of Law and Society, 2022

‘Tied visa’ regimes are labour migration policies thatcondition migrants’ visas on employment with a par-ticular employer, thus restricting their access to thelabour market. This article considers how, under suchregimes, control by the state shapes control by employ-ers, and investigates the resemblance between officialmigration control policies and private means of con-trol and coercion, amounting to forced labour and traf-ficking. The discussion includes the theoretical analysisand empirical consideration of a case study: the Israelitied visa regime, regulating migrant workers and Pales-tinian workers. The consideration of two groups of non-citizen workers, subject to different but related regimes,enables a novel analysis of the coercive impact of com-mon labour migration policies, and of the justificationsoffered for such policies. The Israeli Supreme Courtdemonstrated some commitment to constitutional prin-ciples protecting non-citizens, but later withdrew fromthese principles and justified tied visas on the groundsthat they serve the perceived public interest.


Marie Walter-Franke, Triaging Mixed Migration: Trump Card or Achilles Heel of the Common European Asylum System? Insights from Organized Hypocrisy, in International Journal of Regugee Law, 2022

With border screening at the core of the ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’, the European Commission presents the effective triage of mixed migration as a trump card to finally fix the dysfunctional Common European Asylum System (CEAS). This calls for a closer examination of how triage governmentality relates to dysfunctionality as a trope in the European Union’s (EU) asylum policy. The article shows how, in the last three decades of policymaking, EU actors have consistently represented the CEAS as dysfunctional. One of the core problems put forward is that the EU’s common standards of qualification, procedures, and reception have failed to harmonize how persons in need of protection are identified and treated across the EU. The resulting asylum lottery undermines the legitimacy and efficacy of the EU’s allocation and return systems. Can the effective triage of mixed migration render the CEAS functional? This article argues that, in the design of the CEAS, triage mechanisms are key to reconciling the competing objectives of asylum protection and migration control. As implementation falls short, a gap has emerged between promises and results within triage governmentality.


Delphine Rodrik, Rights Not Recognized: Applying the Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law to Pushbacks at International Borders, in International Journal of Regugee Law, 2022

Rather than facilitating access to protection for those escaping persecution or seeking security, today’s State policies often aim to prevent individuals from ever reaching their territories. The goal of deterrence has been manifested in border militarization and externalization practices that block those in need of protection – frequently labelled as ‘irregular’ or ‘illegal’ migrants – from accessing asylum and other protective procedures. In tandem, widespread State practices of informal, summary, and collective ‘pushbacks’ seek to remove individuals who do arrive in these State territories without individualized evaluations of their protection claims or adherence to any required procedure. This article argues that these pushbacks, which place affected individuals outside the framework of any applicable law and prevent them from accessing its protections, do more than obstruct asylum claims and violate the principle of non-refoulement. They strip individuals of their right to be recognized as persons before the law, protected by article 16 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After analysing the doctrine of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on article 16 in particular, and broadly exploring the interpretation of the right in other instruments that contain it, this article examines how the common processes and result of pushbacks implicate and degrade this right. It demonstrates that article 16 constitutes a critical protection against the increasing ‘rightlessness’ in which asylum seekers and other migrants often find themselves today. As such, it submits that evaluating pushbacks through the framework of the right to recognition as a person before the law, rather than through the lens of refoulement or expulsions alone, allows a better analysis of the multi-layered human rights impact of such practices, scrutinizes their use as a tactic in a deterrence-driven policy landscape, and facilitates a more critical evaluation of their (il)legality.


Stefan Salomon, Constructing Equality in EU Asylum Law, in International Journal of Regugee Law, 2022

The view that subsidiary protection status is a lesser form of protection than refugee status is widespread among European Union (EU) Member States’ asylum authorities and courts. This view is based on the assumption that the protection needs of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection are of shorter duration than those of refugees. Based on this assumption, several EU Member States have curtailed the rights of beneficiaries of subsidiary protection and national courts have upheld these restrictions. This article argues that the assumption of a shorter duration of subsidiary protection, and therefore lesser protection needs, is empirically unfounded and normatively untenable. The assumption is based on the premise that the principal circumstances justifying subsidiary protection – poor security situations or armed conflicts – are temporary in nature. Contrary to tendencies in EU Member States, it is argued that the development of EU asylum law points towards the creation of a uniform status of protection that entails the same rights for refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection. Why, then, does the assumption of the temporary nature of subsidiary protection persist? This article posits that the persistence of the assumption of the temporary nature of subsidiary protection derives from a more profound perception in international legal thought of wartime as exceptional and of short duration.


Rachel Sharples, Categorising anti-asylum Seeker Sentiment through a Regime of Securitisation, in Geopolitics, 2022

In this paper, we reveal three classes of asylum seeker sentiment in the Australian population. The first group are pro-asylum seekers who think Australians should help refugees, that government agencies should not be turning back boats carrying people seeking asylum, that immigration levels are low, and that current government policy is too tough. The second group are anti-asylum seekers who strongly disagree with helping refugees and people seeking asylum, and support a tough border policy. A third group are pro-government policy but largely sympathetic to refugees and people seeking asylum. We explain the demography and attitudes of these three groups using the theory on border securitisation. The securitisation actions and discourse position people seeking asylum as a threat. This has received widespread public endorsement. This is an empirical reflection of over two decades of influential Australian government discourse of antipathy towards refugees and asylum seekers. Successive Australian governments have tied those seeking asylum who arrive by boat with strict border enforcement policies that target people seeking asylum as a security threat to be repelled from the Australian mainland. This largely negative discourse has supported the merits of tough border controls. However, this discursive campaign has not entirely eradicated sympathy towards refugees and asylum seekers.



Meghan Benton and Andrew Selee, The Ukrainian Conflict Could Be a Tipping Point for Refugee Protection, in Migration Policy Institute, Maggio 2022

With nearly 6 million people fleeing Ukraine since the Russian invasion began in February, the displacement has exceeded any recent humanitarian crisis in speed and size over such a short period of time. The numbers of arrivals have dwarfed the experience of the 2015-16 European crisis, and the conflict is adding dramatically spiraling energy and food prices to the long list of challenges the continent is facing. Recent displacement crises—from Syria, Afghanistan, and Venezuela to Myanmar, South Sudan, and most recently, Ukraine—have imposed huge stresses on the humanitarian protection regime. Trying to fit these mass-displacement situations into the global protection architecture often seems like trying to catch sand with a net. Yet individual countries and regional organizations have been innovating to meet the challenge and expand the options available for humanitarian protection. While some efforts have been uneven and poorly institutionalized, others have surprised observers with their creativity and possibilities. It is worth learning how some of these new trends may be reshaping humanitarian protection going forward and providing new approaches to protection at a time when displacement crises appear to be affecting larger numbers of people than at any time in recent decades.


Esin Küçük, The odd couple: Free choice of asylum and temporary protection, in EU Law Analysis, 16 maggio 2022

The idea of free choice of protection state in asylum law has been entertained in the literature, mostly as part of the debate surrounding the reform of the EU asylum regime. Maiani, for example, convincingly makes a case for a free choice of asylum state and proposes scaled-up solidarity instruments to offset the implications of such a model for the preferred states. Mitsilegas proposes the mutual recognition of positive asylum decisions, which would allow refugees (instead of asylum seekers) to choose their country of protection. The idea of allowing asylum seekers to choose their country of protection was also considered by the Commission in debates about a reform of the Dublin Regulation, although it failed to find enough support for the reason that it would not provide for solidarity or a fair sharing of responsibility, a highly sensitive issue.


Yasha Maccanico, Italian Court of Cassation: Vos Thalassa judgment acquits migrants who resisted return to Libya, in EU Law Analysis, 27 maggio 2022

In December 2021, the Italian Court of Cassation (CoC) quashed the convictions and three-and-a-half-year sentences handed on 3 June 2020 by the Palermo court of appeal (CoA) to two men (from Ghana and Sudan) deemed the ringleaders of a protest on board of the Vos Thalassa tug boat to stop their return to Libya in July 2018. A group of 67 migrants of various nationalities was rescued from a wooden boat in distress in international waters (in the Libyan SAR zone), as communicated to the Italian maritime rescue coordination centre (IMRCC) at 15:18 on 8 July. The Libyan authorities were informed, but did not reply, so the Vos Thalassa was ordered to head towards Lampedusa to meet a support vessel. At 22:00, the Libyan Coast Guard instructed the tug boat to head towards the African coast to transfer its passengers onto a Libyan vessel, so the Vos Thalassa accordingly changed its route. At 23:34, the captain called the IMRCC requesting that an Italian military vessel be sent due to a situation of danger for the crew, following resistance from the rescued people.


Aphrodite Papachristodoulou, The Ban-Opticon of Migration: Technologies at Maritime Borders and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, in law.ox.ac.uk, 11 maggio 2022

Today, seemingly more than ever, migrants and refugees try to reach European shores by resorting to the only apparent (non-legal) avenue: irregular, lengthy, and perilous sea crossings in barely functional boats. Approximately 2,720 migrants lost their lives by drowning en route to Europe in 2021, a number that makes up the majority of fatalities recorded worldwide. At the same time, technologies of control in border governance have been used by the EU and its Member States to create a militarised border, making the right to seek asylum elusive. However, this underlying notion of treating migrants as others evokes a segregated approach towards foreigners, non-nationals or non-citizens and has resulted in the proliferation of exclusionary bordering practices applied from the moment an individual attempts to leave home country. This manifests how the EU constructed itself through ‘the production of spacings that set Europe off against its exterior “others”’. Without a doubt, the dominant representation of migration (and people on the move) as problematic to a host community fuels destructive attitudes and allows for stricter securitisation measures to address this supposed threat.


Steve Peers, Poundshop free movement? Long-term resident non-EU citizens: the EU Commission’s new proposal, in EU Law Analysis, 13 e 15 maggio 2022 (part. 1; part. 2)

As part of its broader policy on legal migration, the EU has long had an interest in regulating the legal status of long-term non-EU residents in Member States. The current law on this issue is a Directive dating from 2003 – amended in 2010 to extend it to those with refugee or subsidiary protection status. A recent proposal from the Commission aims to go further in extending the rights of this big group of non-EU citizens. The following analysis is the first part of an explanation and analysis of the main features of the Commission’s proposal – which would have to be agreed (perhaps following amendments) by EU Member States in the Council, as well as the European Parliament, to become law. (Denmark and Ireland have an opt out; the UK had also opted out of the current law while it was a Member State). The second part of this blog post (split to keep its length manageable) looks at the proposals to change the rules on long-term resident non-EU citizens moving to other Member States.


Janine Prantl, Generous, but Equal Treatment? Anti-Discrimination Duties of States Hosting Refugees Fleeing Ukraine, in EU Migration Law Blog, 4 maggio 2022

More than 5 million refugees have recently fled Ukraine, the fastest-growing mass displacement in this century. About a quarter of Ukraine’s population and half of its children have fled their homes. The European Union (EU) responded with a first-time activation of the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD). Lurking behind tremendous generosity, States have treated arrivals from Ukraine differently than other recent flows of forced migrants and have also treated some fleeing Ukraine differently than others. Although differential treatment is not always discriminatory under human rights law, some State responses to the current crisis arguably have been. Fortunately, the law creates myriad ways to challenge these violations. Using this law in the courts, we argue, could foster better protection of refugees and other migrants in the current crisis and in the future, strengthening non-discrimination’s rightful place as a key tool for advancing the rights of people crossing borders.


Nikolas Feith Tan, Externalisation of asylum in Europe: Unpacking the UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Agreement, in EU Migration Law Blog, 17 maggio 2022

The UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Agreement (APA) is the latest in a line of cooperative asylum arrangements that seek to shift asylum responsibility from destination states in the Global North to countries in the developing world. Such arrangements are generally for the purpose of deterring and deflecting protection seekers and, as such, the APA should be understood as a form of externalisation, an umbrella concept for the efforts of certain states to externalise certain basic functions (in this case asylum processing and protection) in the areas of border control and asylum.


Daniel Thym, Op-Ed: “Illegality of Internal Border Controls: The Court of Justice feeds the Appetite for Legislative Reform: Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark (C-368/20 & C-369/20)”, in EU Law Live, 4 maggio 2022

Free movement within the Schengen area is one of Europe’s proudest achievements. Nevertheless, the past decade has witnessed the proliferation of internal border controls across Europe for diverse reasons such as terrorism, secondary movements of asylum applicants, or the COVID-19 pandemic. The Grand Chamber found these practices to be illegal in a judgment of principle on 26 April 2022. Judges should be applauded for having upheld the legal integrity of EU law. Having said this, the judgment might have the side effect of feeding the appetite for the swift adoption of the Commission’s latest reform initiative, which would effectively reverse the ruling.



Nergis Canefe, Transitional Justice and Forced Migration. Critical Perspectives from the Global South, Cambridge University Press, 2022

This volume brings together critical legal scholarship and theories of forced migration that draw attention to the dual role of law as it pertains to transitional justice and mass violence resulting in forced population movements. Contributors to the volume analyze how forced migration in the Global South have impacted contemporary realities. While there has been considerable focus on refugees and asylum seekers from conflict zones, there is less attention paid to the far more numerous internally displaced peoples (IDPs), stateless people, warehoused refugees, non-status displaced and returnees in the Global South. In this volume, a multidisciplinary group of scholars question the reasons behind the restrictive choices that lock us into area studies modalities instead of genuine interdisciplinary analysis by linking the traditional subject matter of transitional justice with the realities of forced migration in the Global South.


Bríd Ní Ghráinne, Internally Displaced Persons and International Refugee Law, Oxford University Press, 2022

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are persons who have been forced to leave their places of residence as a result of armed conflict, violence, human rights violations, or natural or human-made disasters, but who have not crossed an international border. There are about 55 million IDPs in the world today, outnumbering refugees by roughly 2:1. Although IDPs and refugees have similar wants, needs and fears, IDPs have traditionally been seen as a domestic issue, and the international legal and institutional framework of IDP protection is still in its relative infancy. This book explores to what extent the protection of IDPs complements or conflicts with international refugee law. Three questions form the core of the book’s analysis: What is the legal and normative relationship between IDPs and refugees? To what extent is an individual’s real risk of internal displacement in their country of origin relevant to the qualification and cessation of refugee status? And to what extent is the availability of IDP protection measures an alternative to asylum? It argues that the IDP protection framework does not, as a matter of law, undermine refugee protection. The availability of protection within a country of origin cannot be a substitute for granting refugee status unless it constitutes effective protection from persecution and there is no real risk of refoulement. The book concludes by identifying current and future challenges in the relationship between IDPs and refugees, illustrating the overall impact and importance of the findings of the research, and setting out questions for future research.


Vladislava Stoyanova, Stijn Smet, Migrants’ Rights, Populism and Legal Resilience in Europe, Cambridge University Press, 2022

Bringing together scholars of migration and constitutional law, this volume analyses the problematic relationship between the rise of populism, restrictions of migrants’ rights and democratic decay in Europe. By offering both constructive and critical accounts, it creates a nuanced debate on the possibilities for and limitations of legal resilience against populist erosion of migrants’ rights. Crucially, it does not merely diagnose the causes of restrictions of migrants’ rights, but also proposes how the law might be used as a solution. In this volume, the law is considered as both a source of resilience and part of the problem at three distinct levels: the legal-theoretical, the European, and the national level. It is a major contribution to the literature on migrants’ rights, offering a nuanced account of how legal resilience might be used to safeguard migrants’ rights against further erosion in populist times. This book is available as Open Access.



Anastasia Bermudez, Plural violence(s) and migrants’ transnational engagement with democratic politics: the case of Colombians in Europe, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

This article explores how multiple, interrelated violence(s) shape the ways in which migrants relate to democratic politics transnationally. It takes as a departing point the literature on violent democracies and violent pluralism in the Latin American context, and more specifically the situation in Colombia, where democratic institutions coexist with plural violence(s). Following on from studies of migrant transnational politics, the analysis focuses on the Colombian diaspora and how migrants coming from violent democracies engage politically with the home country. Based on extensive research with Colombian migrants in Europe since the mid-90s, the article shows how despite different motivations for migrating, origin-country violence plays a significant role in the lives of many Colombians abroad. It then explores how violence influences migrants’ transnational politics. Migrating from a context of pervasive violence(s) can affect migrants’ sense of transnational belonging as well as increase mistrust and indifference towards formal democratic processes. However, the situation in the home country, together with being exposed to different conditions in the host society, can also motivate migrants to participate transnationally in initiatives to end the violence, thus increasing cooperation and trust.


Kelly Bracewell, Cath Larkins, and Nicky Stanley, ‘They Class Me as a Child because I’m 15. But They Don’t Want Me at the Kid’s Club’: Towards Rights Respecting Refuges for Teenagers, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 2022, n. 2

Teenagers participating in a series of interviews over the course of their stay in domestic violence refuges described difficulties associated with the constraints of refuge life. Twenty young people reported experiences that connect to and challenge UN Convention on the Rights of the Child provisions and provide guidance on how refuges might strengthen their response and meet obligations to respect, protect and promote teenagers’ rights. Recognition of teenage refuge experience is needed, alongside the provision of space, independence and privacy; support to recover from domestic violence and abuse; involvement in leisure activities; educational support; access to computers and online information; and increased opportunities for individual and collective decision making. The findings contribute to growing evidence that policy makers and other duty bearers need to develop adequate resourcing, attitudinal change, practice guidance, dedicated support, active engagement and participation, and collaborative work between agencies. Implementation strategies are also discussed.


Antonello Ciervo, L’irragionevole sicurezza: la Corte costituzionale alle prese con il reato di favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione clandestina, in Osservatorio costituzionale, 2022, n. 3

The essay analyzes the decision no. 63/2022 of the Italian Constitutional Court, which declared the illegitimacy of art. 12, third paragraph, letter d) of d. lgs. n. 286/1998 in the part in which it provided for an increase in the sanction established in the first paragraph. The decision is very important and must be considered positively, however some important legal issues remain in the shadows, such as the problem of the criminalization of solidarity and the permanence of very high detention sanctions, especially if compared with those of other European States, such as, for instance, France


Mariana Gkliati, The Next Phase of The European Border and Coast Guard: Responsibility for Returns and Push-backs in Hungary and Greece, in European Papers, 2022, n. 1

This Article deals with the potential responsibility of Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, for human rights violations, through the case studies of the Greek-Turkish and the Hungarian-Serbian border, where systematic human rights violations have been well-reported. Such violations are studied in the context of the activity of Frontex in border surveillance and return operations in Hungary since 2016, and the Rapid Border Intervention launched in Greece in 2020. This Article looks, in particular, into the indirect responsibility of the agency through assisting the host state in the commission of a violation, and into its direct responsibility due to exercising a degree of effective control over seconded agents. What is more, it notes the shift after the 2019 amendment of the EBCG Regulation from complicity, as the main form of responsibility for Frontex, to direct respon- sibility. This shift is brought by the expansion of the powers and competences of the agency, especial- ly with respect to the standing corps of 10.000 border guards, including the agency’s own statutory staff, increased use of own large assets (aircrafts, vessels), and an increased role in return operations. The author further reflects upon the role of EU agencies in a model of “mixed government”, in ensur ing the balance between supranationalisation and intergovernmentalism, and amongst the interests of EU citizens, Member States, and European integration. The conclusion is drawn that, no such bal- ance can be struck before human rights, amongst the core EU values, are properly upheld, and be- fore suitable accountability safeguards are set.


Inmaculada González García, La ruta migratoria de África occidental hacia Canarias. De la crisis de los cayucos de 2006 a la crisis migratoria 2020-2021. Análisis y valoraciones, in Rivista OIDU, 2022, n. 2

The sea has traditionally been the main route of entry to Spanish territory for irregular immigrants primarily from Sub-Saharan Africa. The reactivation of the Atlantic route at the end of 2019 has considerably increased the arrival of immigrants from Morocco to the Canary Islands. This paper analyses the political and operational mechanisms established by the Spanish authorities, also in the European Union (EU), to control Spain’s maritime borders, especially in the Canary Islands, paying special attention to what was learned after the cayuco crisis in 2006.


Ayse Güdük, Ellen Desmet, Legal consciousness and migration: towards a research agenda, in International Journal of Law in Context, 2022, n. 2

This paper reviews scholarship regarding migrants’ legal consciousness. After discussing the personal, geographic and methodological scope of the reviewed studies, the conceptualisation of legal consciousness is examined in light of evolutions in general legal consciousness studies. Thereafter, factors emerging as shaping migrants’ legal consciousness are analytically clustered at four levels: individual characteristics, relational factors, cultural dynamics, and public policies and discourse. Future research on legal consciousness could shift its gaze towards understudied migrant groups as well as places. We suggest being more explicit regarding the conceptualisation of dimensions of what is ‘legal’ and of ‘consciousness’, and adopting a pluralist approach to law. The analytical grouping of the factors impacting migrants’ legal consciousness may serve as a useful reference point for future research and facilitate a more comprehensive appraisal of the various dynamics shaping migrants’ legal consciousness.


Dudziro Nhengu, Covid-19 and female migrants: policy challenges and multiple vulnerabilities, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, n. 10

To what extent has Covid-19 policy responses exacerbated the already existing multiple vulnerabilities of female migrants in Southern Africa? Using strategic conversations, the paper explores personal experiences of key conversants, to explore how gender blind policy responses to the pandemic have heightened female migrants’ socio-economic challenges. The paper recommends gender sensitive and context specific policy responses to mitigate the existing socio-economic challenges.


Fulvia Ristuccia, “Cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run”: Untangling the effects of the expulsion of “undesired” Union citizens: FS, in Common Market Law Review, 2022, n. 3

The Grand Chamber ruling annotated here deals with the balance between Union citizens’ right to move and the power of Member States to control who resides within their territory, in an area without border checks.


Vincenzo Telaro, Il diritto d’asilo costituzionale: premesse storiche e questioni attuali nel rapporto di integrazione multilivello tra le fonti, in federalismi.it, 2022, n. 17

Il diritto d’asilo rappresenta il più antico diritto umano della storia. Dopo una disamina storica dell’istituto, ci si sofferma sul diritto d’asilo costituzionale. Numerose, infatti, sono le questioni che hanno riguardato tale diritto nel nostro ordinamento costituzionale e che non sono ancora del tutto risolte. La soluzione, tuttavia, sembra possa essere trovata attraverso l’integrazione multilivello tra le fonti costituzionali nazionali e quelle sovranazionali europee. La disamina è dedicata, altresì, al contiguo ma differente problema degli esodi di massa in caso di guerra, questione di grande attualità a causa del conflitto russo-ucraino.



Karin Aberg, Detecting Vulnerability in Greek Hotspots, in EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, 29 giugno 2022

Between 2016 and 2019, most asylum seekers on the Greek hotspots had to undergo a vulnerability  assessment. If found vulnerable, they were exempted from return to Turkey under the EU-Turkey Agreement and free to travel to the Greek mainland. Two groups were concerned. First, those who would not be safe in the third country; Second, those who for personal reasons cannot be managed through camps and border procedures, due to physical or social circumstances.


Tamas Molnar, Marion Panizzon, Daniela Vitiello, A New Special Issue on the Rule of Law and Human Mobility in the Age of the Global Compacts – Classics in New Refractions, in ASILE Blog, 7 giugno 2022

Cross-border human mobility remains a “vision” for many and becomes a reality for others. The United Nations (UN) Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM) assists in the legal aspiration to turn dangerous routes and unsafe journeys into legal pathways by “strengthening international cooperation” for effective migration management (Objective 23). Still, the sovereign right of States to decide whom to admit limits migration trajectories, while a diversified toolbox of multilateral treaties, bilateral agreements and a plethora of soft law instruments govern other phases of the trajectory. Within this spectrum, the GCM takes a central place as the “first intergovernmental agreement prepared under the auspices of the [UN], to cover all dimensions of international migration in a holistic and comprehensive manner” – borrowing the words of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.


Steve Peers, It’s the end – but the moment has been prepared for: the CJEU confirms that UK citizens have lost EU citizenship, in EU Law Analysis, 9 giugno 2022

In today’s judgment, the CJEU has finally confirmed that UK citizens lost EU citizenship as a consequence of Brexit, following the earlier Advocate-General’s opinion, which I discussed here. (There are other pending cases on this issue – see my compilation of Brexit litigation – but there’s no reason to think that the CJEU would decide them differently). The judgment is striking for the extent to which it dismisses arguments that British citizens have retained EU citizenship. It’s definitely the end of an era. And yet, it also contains foreshadowing of issues that will be relevant to the post-Brexit future relationship between the UK and the EU.


Stéphane Saurel, Frontex under the budgetary scrutiny of the European Parliament, 31 maggio 2022

The budgetary scrutiny is one of the most powerful cards the European Parliament can play to make effective its oversight over a decentralised agency. The budgetary discharge procedure is indeed an instrumental tool to enhance the political accountability of the agencies. The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) provides a good illustration of how the European Parliament uses this power as, from the second year in a row, it withheld its approval of the management of the agency’s budget. By contrast, the budgetary procedure offers to the European Parliament less possibility to influence the functioning of an agency.


Zachary Whyte, Hoping For Zero: Danish Externalization Plans to Rwanda and a Politics of Deterrence, in law.ox.ac.uk, 7 giugno 2022

Like the UK, Denmark has been trying to establish forms of asylum externalization for the past three decades or more. In 2018, the Social Democrats – a centre-left party which has grown increasingly restrictive in its asylum and refugee policy – made it the central pillar of their migration policy. In 2020, they appointed a “migration ambassador” to pursue this aim. They have been trying to make a deal with Rwanda specifically for the past few years but have so far only officially agreed a rather vague, non-binding Memorandum of Understanding with no specific action points.


Vera Wriedt, Expanding Exceptions? AA and Others v North Macedonia, Systematic Pushbacks and the Fiction of Legal Pathways, in EU Immigration and Asylum Law and Policy, 7 giugno 2022

The closure of the Greek-Macedonian border on 8 March 2016 entailed systematic pushbacks. The largest operation occurred on 14-15 March 2016, when more than 1500 refugees were summarily returned from North Macedonia to Greece. The complaint of AA and others v North Macedonia addressed this large-scale pushback operation. However, instead of condemning these pushbacks, the European Court of Human Rights expanded the exception from the prohibition of collective expulsions created in the case of ND and NT v Spain and found the applicants culpable of circumventing legal pathways, ignoring that these were clearly not available in practice. Thereby, the Court reproduces exclusionary reasoning that has shaped the European Convention on Human Rights since its inception.

Diritto, immigrazione e cittadinanza, 2022, n. 2

Bruno Nascimbene, Editoriale

Chiara Cudia, Acquisto della cittadinanza per naturalizzazione e questioni di giurisdizione: alla ricerca della legalità sopita

Antonio Guerrieri, La valutazione dell’intensità degli scontri ai fini del riconoscimento della protezione sussidiaria “lettera c”

Cecilia Siccardi, Quali vie di ingresso legale per i richiedenti protezione in Europa? Contesto europeo e costituzionale

Luca Galli, Quale ruolo degli attori pubblici nella sponsorship privata dei rifugiati? Una riflessione sull’esperienza italiana alla luce di quella canadese

Giulia Del Turco, Le procedure autorizzatorie pre-ingresso dei cittadini extra-UE: quale giusto procedimento?

Erik Longo, L’eguaglianza alla prova delle migrazioni: la giurisprudenza costituzionale sulle prestazioni sociali a favore degli stranieri residenti

Patrizia Brambilla, False dichiarazioni per ottenere il reddito di cittadinanza: profili di illegittimità del requisito soggettivo della residenza decennale in Italia per ottenere il beneficio e conseguenze in sede penale

David Mancini, Il principio di non punibilità delle vittime di tratta. Sfida per l’effettività dei diritti e logica dell’intervento penale



Giorgia Bevilacqua (a cura di), Sicurezza umana negli spazi navigabili: sfide comuni e nuove tendenze, Editoriale Scientifica, 2021


Peter Billings, Regulating Refugee Protection Through Social Welfare. Law, Policy and Praxis, Routledge, 2022

This book analyses the use and abuse of social welfare as a means of border control for asylum seekers and refugees in Australia. Offering an unparalleled critique of the regulation and deterrence of protection seekers via the denial or depletion of social welfare supports, the book includes contributions from legal scholars, social scientists, behavioural scientists, and philosophers, in tandem with the critical insights and knowledge supplied by refugees. It is organised in three parts, each framed by a commentary that serves as an introduction, as well as offering pertinent comparative perspectives from Europe. Part One comprises three chapters: a rights-based analysis of Australia’s ‘hostile environment’ for protection seekers; a searing critique of welfare policing of asylum seekers as ‘necropolitics’; and a unique philosophical perspective that grounds scrutiny of Australia’s policing of asylum seekers. Part Two contains five chapters that uncover and explore the lived experiences and adverse impacts of different social welfare restrictions for refugee protection seekers. Finally, the chapters in Part Three offer distinct views on human rights advocacy movements and methods, and the scope for resistance and change to the status quo. This book will appeal to an international, as well as an Australian, readership with interests in the areas of human rights, immigration and refugee law, social welfare law/policy, social work, and public health.


Jürgen Bast, Frederik von Harbou, Janna Wessels, Human Rights Challenges to European Migration Policy. The REMAP Study, Hart, 2022

The EU has become a powerful player in the area of migration. As a result, European migration policies increasingly conflict with the EU’s commitment to respect Human Rights. The book identifies the most pressing challenges, outlines the relevant legal standards, and provides recommendations for reform. Core issues are – asylum seekers’ access to protection in the EU, – personal liberty and free movement of migrants, – safeguarding the rule of law in immigration proceedings, – the prohibition of discrimination on any ground, including immigration status, – respecting the social and family ties of migrants, -guaranteeing minimum social rights for irregular migrants, and – the public and private infrastructure necessary for defending the Human Rights of migrants.


Joseph Kofi Teye (ed.), Migration in West Africa, Springer, 2022

This open access book provides an analysis of migration-related issues in the West African sub-region offers policy recommendations for the challenges and harnessing the benefits of migration provides a historical analysis of many migration-related issues Examines the dynamics and impacts of international migration within and from West Africa.



Giorgia Bevilacqua, Framing Solidarity at Sea in the Context of Human Security, in federalismi.it, 2022, Focus – Non State Actors and Human Security in Navigable Spaces, n. 2

Whereas, on the one hand, the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity has repeatedly recalled the crucial importance of solidarity (at sea), on the other hand, since 2018 a number of international institutions have also repeatedly reported the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance given to people on the move. Against this controversial backdrop, this paper aims to investigate whether – and to what extent under international law – civil society members may be entitled to undertake acts of solidarity with migrants and refugees crossing maritime borders in an irregular manner.


Silvia Borelli, Channel Crossings and Deaths at Sea, in federalismi.it, 2022, Focus – Non State Actors and Human Security in Navigable Spaces, n. 2

The recent marked increase in numbers of individuals attempting to cross the English Channel on small boats is at the centre of the current debate on immigration in the United Kingdom. This paper provides an overview of the measures recently proposed or adopted to counter the phenomenon and assesses their legality under international law. It argues that the creation of safe and legal routes to protection is the most appropriate way to accommodate both the UK’s legitimate interests in limiting irregular migration by sea, and its humanitarian obligations towards vulnerable migrants.


Danea F. Georgula, Building Walls at Sea: An Assessment of the Legality of the Greek Floating Barrier, in International Journal of Refugee Law, 2022, vol. 20, n. 20

In January 2020, against the backdrop of the Mediterranean refugee crisis, Greece announced its intention to install a floating barrier in the maritime passage between Turkey and Lesvos as a measure to deter the flow of asylum seekers arriving by sea. This article analyses the implications and assesses the legality of installing a floating barrier in light of the law of the sea, human rights law, and refugee law.


Adele Del Guercio, Is It Lawful to Save Human Lives at Sea?, in federalismi.it, 2022, Focus – Non State Actors and Human Security in Navigable Spaces, n. 2

This contribution aims to analyze Italian case-law concerning NGOs involved in search and rescue activities in the Mediterranean, and will focus on the notion of ‘place of safety’ that emerges from it. In recent years there has been a campaign in media and political discourse that has resulted in the adoption of law aimed at criminalizing activities conducted at sea by NGOs. Nevertheless Italian courts, taking inspiration from an integrated interpretation of international obligations regarding both maritime law and human rights, have consistently absolved NGOs of wrongdoing, arguing that they have acted in compliance with the duty to rescue at sea. Italian Courts, among them the Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione), have promoted the principle of non-refoulement as an essential elements in the identification of a place of safety for persons rescued at sea, who must be protected regardless of other considerations, and without any form of discrimination.


Adele Del Guercio, Una governance integrata della mobilità umana nel contesto del cambiamento climatico. Spunti di riflessione a partire dalla decisione Teitiota del Comitato per i diritti umani, in Diritto Pubblico Europeo – Rassegna Online, 2022, vol. 1

Il contributo, a partire dalla decisione Teitiota c. Nuova Zelanda del Comitato per i diritti umani, si pone l’obiettivo di indagare se la mobilità umana connessa con il cambiamento climatico, il degrado ambientale e i disastri abbia trovato una regolamentazione nell’ordinamento sovranazionale. In particolare, dopo aver esaminato i contenuti della decisione richiamata, ci si sofferma sul quadro internazionale di lotta al cambiamento climatico e su quello concernente l’immigrazione e l’asilo. Infine si va a verificare l’impatto della decisione Teitiota sugli ordinamenti nazionali.


Elena Gualco, Does Accommodating Solidarity in EU Asylum Law Require a Paradigm Shift? From Solidarity despite Asylum Seekers to Solidarity towards Asylum Seekers, in federalismi.it, 2022, Focus – Non State Actors and Human Security in Navigable Spaces, n 2

Acknowledging the central role of solidarity within the architecture of the EU, the paper investigates the internal and external dimension of solidarity. In order to evaluate the EU commitment towards its accommodation, the paper investigates how solidarity has been embedded into the CEAS and under the provisions of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum. Once pointed out that solidarity – despite being a universal value – is mostly intended for the benefit of EU States, the paper advocates for a paradigm change where the focus of EU asylum legislation ceases to be the affected State(s) but rather becomes the affected individuals.


Carl Jauslin, Is there an obligation to do more than the fair share? European inter-state solidarity and global human rights-based solidarity, in EUI Working Paper, 2022

The aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the notion of solidarity and shared responsibility by providing conceptual clarifications on the different obligations that fall on the members of a community of solidarity. Members of a community of solidarity share responsibility for and among each other. But: What happens if a member is not doing its fair share? Do the other members of the community of solidarity have the obligation to take over the share of non-complying members? The answer to this question can only be given by distinguishing the different solidarity regimes applicable to the situation. This paper takes the example of state’s obligations under EU law and international human rights law in the area of refugee protection to show the interplay between regional interstate solidarity and global human rights-based solidarity. It concludes that general human rights obligations like the principle of non-refoulement are valid independently from possible burden sharing agreements between EU-member states. This means that states can be required to do more than their fair share they agreed upon among each other if fundamental human rights guarantees are at stake.


Derek Lutterbeck, Airpower and Migration Control, in Geopolitics, 2022

Migration scholarship has thus far largely neglected the role of aircraft in both (irregular) migration and state policies aimed at controlling migration. Drawing inspiration from the field of strategic studies, where ‘airpower’ has been a key theoretical concept, this article explores the role of aerial assets in states’ migration control efforts. The article discusses three main dimensions of the use of airpower in controlling migration: the increasing resort to aircraft for border enforcement purposes – or what can be referred to as ‘vertical border policing’ –, states’ tight monitoring of the aerial migration infrastructure, and the use of aircraft in migrant return operations. As a core element of state power, it is airpower’s key features of reach, speed and height which have made it a particularly useful migration control instrument.


Harriet Macey, “Safe zones”: A protective alternative to flight or a tool of refugee containment? Clarifying the international legal framework governing access to refugee protection against the backdrop of “safe zones” in conflict-affected contexts, in IRCC, 2022, n. 919

So-called “safe zones” pose an increasingly pressing threat to genuine and robust international legal protection for persons fleeing conflict. This paper aims to address the key challenges and risks of safe zones under international law and to provide some clarifications on the legal framework which must be respected by refugee-receiving States. Through assessing the intentions of preventing migration flows which underlie their creation, this paper will demonstrate that the existence of safe zones cannot be used to circumvent the obligations of refugee-receiving States under international law, specifically the right to leave and seek asylum and the prohibition of non-refoulement. This paper concludes that safe zones should only be created as an urgent response to humanitarian crises in order to ensure the immediate safety of civilians in conflict zones, and only under very strict conditions. In this respect, this paper will demonstrate that even if safe zones comply with certain minimum protective standards, because of the volatility and complexities of the conflict environment they should not and cannot act as a substitute for genuine refugee protection under international law.


Katia Neri, Private Ships Faced with Large-Scale Rescue Operations at Sea – A Challenge for the Law of the Sea, in federalismi.it, 2022, Focus – Non State Actors and Human Security in Navigable Spaces, n. 2

The existence of an obligation to render assistance applicable to the private sector is clear. However, its implementation gives rise to numerous challenges. The present article highlights the difficulties faced by the private ships and the shipping industry when involved in a rescue operation in the context of migration and demonstrates that they are not properly addressed by the international law of the sea, leading to detrimental consequences on the implementation of the obligation to render assistance at sea. The lack of political will of States to accept the disembarkation of migrants in their ports has serious practical, legal, and commercial consequences for the shipmasters and their crews. Besides, most of the time, commercial ships are not equipped nor trained for conducting search and rescue missions making them both significantly expensive and dangerous.


Benjamin Nyblade, Elizabeth Iams Wellman, Nathan Allen, Transnational voting rights and policies in violent democracies: a global comparison, in Comparative Migration Studies, 2022, vol. 10

In recent decades more than one hundred countries have enfranchised their diasporas, allowing emigrants to vote from abroad. However, this widespread formal recognition of extraterritorial voting rights does not always lead to increased participation of emigrants in home country politics. Migrant-sending countries have complex relationships with their diasporas, and this relationship is particularly fraught for countries with endemic violence. This article leverages a new dataset documenting the adoption and implementation of extraterritorial voting rights and restrictions for 195 countries from 1950 to 2020 to demonstrate how transnational voting rights and policies in violent democracies differ from other regimes. While violent democracies extend transnational voting rights to their emigrants at rates comparable to other regime types, they are less likely to implement those rights, and when they do implement them, they are more likely to restrict them to insulate domestic politics from external influence.


Jorrit Rijpma, Apostolis Fotiadis, Addressing the Violation of Fundamental Rights. At the External Borders of the European Union. Infringement Proceedings and Conditionality in Eu Funding Instruments, in The Greens/EFA, June 2022

Violations of fundamental rights at the external borders, including pushbacks and violence committed towards third country nationals, have been well-reported and documented by journalists and NGOs. Meanwhile, national courts, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) have on various occasions established the existence of pushbacks at the external borders of the European Union. Following an inquiry into the way in which the European Commission monitors and ensures respect for fundamental rights by the Croatian authorities in the context of border management operations supported by EU funds, the Ombudsman agreed with the Commission’s argument that it “does not have the authority or means to investigate or directly monitor border activities itself”, it also held that the Commission “has the authority and an obligation to ensure that EU funds granted to a Member State are spent in compliance with fundamental rights and EU law, and to insist on safeguards to this end.”


Rebecca Maria Torres, “Asylum is Not for Mexicans”: Unaccompanied Youth and Racio-Governance at the US Border, in Geopolitics, 2022

In this article we engage and extend work on race and border politics via an analysis of unaccompanied Mexican migrant youth. Historically, until recently, Mexican youth have formed the largest group of unaccompanied minors attempting to move across the US-Mexico border. However, a set of structural political, socio-legal, and everyday institutional violences lead to their neglect, disregard and exclusion from rights to protections in both the US and Mexico. We use Yarimar Bonilla’s notion of “racio-colonial governance” (2020), in connection with antiracist and feminist US-Mexico border studies and feminist border geopolitics, to understand how these complex and interwoven systems are spatialised and racialised: shaped both by long histories of racism and colonialism, and entrenched by contemporary, geographically-specific racialised beliefs and practices. In particular, we show how place-specific processes of racialisation construct Mexican youth as dehumanised criminals, contaminants, and security threats in border crossing sites, shelters and detention centres, and in border cities. We draw upon research carried out along the Tamaulipas-Texas border by the co-authors between 2015–2020. In particular, we focus on 26 key informant interviews and 25 in-depth migration histories with repatriated Mexican youth. Many of these individuals were identified through a survey of 204 deported Mexican unaccompanied children conducted in three government shelters. We show how systemic racism across these linked border spaces and systems powerfully devalue Mexican youth migrants, normalising extensive institutional neglect, violence, and denying their internationally determined asylum rights and other forms of relief. Our youth-centred focus extends important existing work on migration and race by demonstrating how historically-produced racist stereotyping around criminality, worthiness, security, lost innocence, and childhoods-denied are shaped by place and institutionalised in the US-Mexico border-complex.


Daniela Vitiello, In Search of the Legal Boundaries of an “Open Society”. The Case of Immigrant Integration in the EU, in Freedom, Security & Justice: European Legal Studies, 2022, n. 2

The European Union is a legal order based on a pluralist system of values. As testified by the EU motto, diversity is the epistemic backbone of the entire process of European integration. This holds true first and foremost in horizontal relations among the Member States, which are all equal and whose diversity – in terms of legal and judicial systems, institutional settings and national identities – is expressly recognised, protected and operationalised under EU law. The same holds true for European citizens, whose mutual sense of belonging to an “ever closer Union” is not rooted in a pre-determined and monolithic vision of the “common good”. On the contrary, it is nurtured by the respect for everyone’s freedom, culture and way of life, which is in turn ensured by the capacity of EU law to confer upon individuals “rights which become part of their legal heritage” and which national courts must protect. These constitutive features of the system – accompanied by freedom of movement, the principle of non-discrimination, the rights of democratic participation and political representation – have contributed to strengthening the interconnections among European people and mitigated the lack of a strong, national- type “European identity”.



Jonas Bornemann, The Selective Nature of a pan-European Willkommenskultur. Reflections on the War in Ukraine and Its Implications for Humanitarian Protection, in Verfassungsblog, 12 July 2022

Four months into Russia’s war on Ukraine, there has been a tremendous show of support for Ukrainians fleeing violence and the atrocities of war – in Europe and elsewhere in the world. As is well-known, European states have hammered out pragmatic administrative solutions to accommodate large numbers of incoming person, going to great lengths to provide for beneficial welfare arrangements. Against this backdrop, it may not be unreasonable to present the crisis in Ukraine as a tipping point for humanitarian protection more generally. While this blog post acknowledges the positive developments put into practice, it takes a generally optimistic assessment with a grain of salt. The selective nature of recent policy shifts betrays the idea that tailor-made beneficial instruments could incentivise a more general policy turn in the field of humanitarian protection in Europe. Besides, attention should be drawn to the fact that initially beneficial arrangements are currently called into question and partly rolled back. As a case in point, the Polish government has recently decided to cut welfare benefits of Ukrainians, while Hungary allegedly overestimates the number of persons to tap into additional EU funding. For those who have benefitted from a pan-European Willkommenskultur these last months, this raises the question whether generous arrangements are here to stay.


Sarah Ganty, Dimitry Vladimirovich Kochenov, Citizenship Imposition is the New Non-Discrimination Standard. ECtHR Blames the Victims in Savickis, in Verfassungsblog, 22 July 2022

Savickis and others v. Latvia is about pension rights. Employment periods accrued in the former republics of the USSR, other than the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic (“SSR”), are excluded for ‘non-citizens of Latvia’ from the length of their employment count. For those with Latvian citizenship, meaning ancestral connections predating the Soviet occupation, the situation is radically different: work elsewhere in the USSR is always counted. Latvian nationality is the only ground for the differentiation. On 9 June 2022, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR found ‘very weighty reasons’ (§219) to uphold the exclusionary practice, by 10 votes against 7. We now know that under ECHR law, years of employment being equal, not paying a pension to second-class minority citizens compared with the Latvians belonging to the ‘titular national’ does not constitute discrimination. This is not just out of the blue: the majority flushes the idea of non-discrimination down the drain by implicitly overruling the settled case-law: Andrejeva v. Latvia. The majority schizophrenically boasts the importance legal certainty while doing this. Those who decided not to naturalize in the country of residence are not entitled to non-discrimination: the lack of citizenship – i.e. the differentiation introduced by the Latvian state to bring down precisely the group in question – emerges as sufficient justification. The meaning of ‘discrimination’ in ECHR law became less clear as a result.


Tesseltje de Lange, Recasting the Single Permit Directive: furthering the protection of migrants at work in the EU?, in Eu Migration and Asylum and Policy, 13 July 2022

In its communication of 27 April 2022, the European Commission makes a political and economic case for a sustainable and common approach to labour migration. Indeed, most EU member states face ageing populations who require care, and post-covid-19 labour shortages are on the rise jeopardising the green transition. One of the legislative proposals tabled by the European Commission is a recast of the Single Permit Directive. Although the European Commission had contemplated conditions for admission for low- and medium-skilled workers in the new pact, this idea was abandoned. Admission conditions of low and medium-skilled workers are sufficiently addressed by national legislation, is the feedback the Commission received from the Member States.


Steve Peers, Giving Back Control: British travel to the EU after Brexit, in Eu Law Analysis, 24 July 2022

One of the most Blindingly Obvious Things in the history of Blindingly Obvious Things is that one consequence of the UK leaving the EU is that travel to and stay in the EU by British citizens is now different – the obvious corollary of travel to and stay in the UK by EU citizens being different, as the Leave campaign specifically demanded. In light of current disputes about delays crossing the border, what exactly does that mean in practice? The following blog post addresses the issues in Q and A format.


Lena Riemer, The Costs of Outsourcing. How the UK’s policy of outsourcing their asylum obligations violates human rights, perpetuates the country’s ECHR skepticism, and expands dangerous precedence, in Verfassungsblog, 12 July 2022

Last month the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) granted an urgent interim measure according to Rule 39 of the Rules of the Court in a case concerning an imminent removal of an asylum-seeker from the UK to Rwanda (KN v. the United Kingdom, application no. 28774/22). In doing so, the Strasbourg Court halted the first flight of a controversial policy to send asylum-seekers to Rwanda, ordering the removal of the last passenger from the airplane. This flight aimed to implement a partnership arrangement of April 2022 between the UK Government and the Republic of Rwanda agreed upon in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The MoU details the policy which would allow the transfer of any asylum seeker whose claims were deemed inadmissible (entered the country irregularly and passed an initial vulnerability screening) for their asylum process and possibly permanent settlement in Rwanda in “exchange” for an initial GBP 120 Mio.


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


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

















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

Diritto al rispetto della vita privata e familiare – ECtHR, Judgement of 13 January 2022, Hashemi and others v. Azerbaijan, Applications no(s). 1480/16, 3936/16, 15835/16, 28034/16, 34491/16, 51348/16, 15904/17

The case concerns seven applicants and their families who fled Afghanistan or Pakistan between 1993-2010. On arrival in Azerbaijan, the applicants were given a letter of protection from the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, however the national authorities refused to issue an identity card and acknowledge as citizens their children who have since been born in Azerbaijan. The applicants unsuccessfully appealed against this refusal to the Baku Administrative and Economic Court, claiming under the principle of jus soli that the children were Azerbaijani citizens from birth. The applicants’ claims were again rejected on appeal on the basis that the parents had another citizenship and subsequently the applicants brought their case to the ECHR on the grounds of Article 8 of the Convention. The Court considered that as an identity card is necessary for the effective exercise of many of the rights which only citizens can claim, the deprivation of which constitutes an interference with these rights, and therefore with the right to private life as guaranteed by Article 8. Following this, the Court determined that the next consideration to be made is whether the interference with the applicant’s children’s rights were arbitrary or not, by investigating whether they benefited from procedural guarantees. In this regard, the Court noted the amendment to domestic law which came into force in May 2014 and introduced restrictions on Azerbaijani nationality for children born on the territory to foreign parents. However, the Court found significance in the fact that the children concerned were in possession of birth certificates issued by the Azerbaijani authorities before the legislative change in May 2014. The Court noted that although there was an existence of a clear and precise legal framework, the legislative provisions were not interpreted by the national authorities in a way that was compatible with the Convention and the applicant’s children did not benefit from the necessary procedural guarantees. In light of the foregoing, the Court concluded that the denial of Azerbaijani citizenship to the applicant’s children was neither lawful nor accompanied by necessary procedural safeguards and so must therefore be regarded as arbitrary. Following this, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention.


Cittadinanza dell’Unione – CGUE, Grande Sezione, sentenza 18 gennaio 2022, JY c. Wiener Landesregierung, C-118/20

La situazione di una persona che, avendo la cittadinanza di un solo Stato membro, rinuncia a tale cittadinanza e perde, di conseguenza, il proprio status di cittadino dell’Unione, al fine di ottenere la cittadinanza di un altro Stato membro, a seguito della garanzia fornita da parte delle autorità di quest’ultimo Stato che tale cittadinanza le sarebbe stata concessa, rientra, per la sua natura e le sue conseguenze, nell’ambito di applicazione del diritto dell’Unione qualora tale garanzia sia revocata con l’effetto di impedire a tale persona di recuperare lo status di cittadino dell’Unione. L’articolo 20 TFUE deve essere interpretato nel senso che le autorità nazionali competenti e, se del caso, i giudici nazionali dello Stato membro ospitante sono tenuti a verificare se la decisione di revocare la garanzia di concessione della cittadinanza di tale Stato membro, che rende definitiva la perdita dello status di cittadino dell’Unione per la persona interessata, sia compatibile con il principio di proporzionalità in considerazione delle conseguenze che essa comporta per la situazione di tale persona. Tale requisito di compatibilità con il principio di proporzionalità non è soddisfatto qualora una simile decisione sia motivata da infrazioni di natura amministrativa al codice della strada, che, secondo il diritto nazionale applicabile, danno luogo a una mera sanzione pecuniaria.


Reddito di cittadinanza per stranieri — Corte Cost., sentenza 25 gennaio 2022, n. 19

Il reddito di cittadinanza non si risolve in una mera provvidenza assistenziale diretta a soddisfare un bisogno primario dell’individuo, ma presenta un contenuto più complesso di misura di politica attiva del lavoro, che comprende un percorso personalizzato di accompagnamento all’inserimento lavorativo e all’inclusione sociale. A questa sua prevalente connotazione si collegano la temporaneità della prestazione e il suo carattere condizionale, cioè la necessità che si accompagni a precisi impegni dei destinatari. Resta compito della Repubblica, in attuazione dei principi costituzionali stabiliti negli articoli 2, 3 e 38, primo comma, della Costituzione, garantire, apprestando le necessarie misure, il diritto di ogni individuo alla sopravvivenza dignitosa e al minimo vitale; tuttavia nemmeno il rilievo costituzionale di tale compito legittima la Corte stessa a “convertire” verso questo obiettivo una misura cui il legislatore assegna finalità diverse. La Corte ha pertanto ritenuto che, considerati la durata del beneficio (18 mesi, con possibilità di rinnovo) e il risultato perseguito (l’inclusione sociale e lavorativa), non irragionevolmente il legislatore, nell’esercizio della sua discrezionalità, abbia destinato la misura agli stranieri soggiornanti in Italia a tempo indeterminato.


Procura speciale e protezione internazionale Corte Cost., sentenza 20 gennaio 2022, n. 13

La Corte costituzionale ha dichiarato non fondate le questioni di legittimità costituzionale, sollevate in riferimento agli artt. 3, 10, 24, 111 e 117, comma 1, della Costituzione, e relative all’articolo 35-bis, comma 13, sesto periodo, del d.lgs. n. 25/2008, che prevede, nei giudizi per il riconoscimento della protezione internazionale, l’onere del difensore di certificare la data di rilascio in suo favore della procura speciale a ricorrere per Cassazione; onere che – secondo la giurisprudenza delle Sezioni Unite della Cassazione – è previsto a pena di inammissibilità del ricorso. La Consulta ha infatti rilevato l’ampia discrezionalità del legislatore in materia processuale, con il solo limite della manifesta irragionevolezza o arbitrarietà delle scelte adottate.


Protezione internazionale e omosessualità – Cass. civ., Sez. III, ordinanza 2 dicembre 2021, n. 38101

La Corte di Cassazione si è pronunciata in seguito al rigetto da parte del Tribunale di Venezia del ricorso sulla richiesta di protezione internazionale avanzata da un richiedente asilo nigeriano. Il richiedente in questione aveva chiesto protezione internazionale sulla base delle persecuzioni e delle minacce subite a causa della sua omosessualità. Tali richieste sono state respinte in appello dal Tribunale per la loro apparente genericità e contraddittorietà. La Cassazione ha invece accolto i motivi di ricorso, annullando la sentenza del Tribunale di Venezia. Difatti, secondo il ragionamento della Corte, il Tribunale non aveva tenuto conto dei principi riguardanti la valutazione dell’orientamento sessuale enunciati dalla CGUE nelle cause riunite da C-148/13 a C-150/13 e non aveva svolto un’indagine sulla situazione degli omosessuali in Nigeria, venendo così meno al suo dovere di cooperare all’indagine.


Allontanamento di cittadino europeo – Cass. civ., Sez. I, sentenza 4 gennaio 2022, n. 65

Qualora l’interessato sia residente nei precedenti dieci anni nel territorio dello Stato (oppure sia un minore), il provvedimento di allontanamento del cittadino europeo è di competenza del Ministro dell’Interno (art. 20, co. 9, d.lgs. n. 30/2007). Deve tuttavia escludersi che l’adozione di un simile provvedimento da parte del Prefetto ne comporti la nullità, trattandosi di articolazione del Ministero dell’Interno, competente proprio in tema di allontanamento dei cittadini dell’Unione (negli altri casi). Ne deriverebbe, al più, un’ipotesi di incompetenza relativa, la quale, una volta instaurato il giudizio nei riguardi dell’organo processualmente legittimato, resta priva di rilievo, dovendosi valutare comunque nel merito la sussistenza del diritto del ricorrente a permanere in Italia e la fondatezza o meno della contraria pretesa della P.A. convenuta al suo allontanamento.


Ingresso e soggiorno illegale – Cass. pen., Sez. I, sentenza 12 gennaio 2022, n. 526

A seguito delle modifiche introdotte nel 2011, la contravvenzione di cui all’art. 10-bis TUI (ingresso e permanenza illegale nel territorio dello Stato) deve ritenersi conforme al diritto dell’Unione europea, atteso che il legislatore italiano ha sostituito alle pene detentive originariamente previste – e giudicate incompatibili con gli obiettivi della c.d. direttiva rimpatri – le pene pecuniarie. Inoltre, il diritto UE non osta a che l’ammenda sia sostituita dalla misura dell’espulsione, ove: a) emerga, a seguito di un accertamento personale e individuale, il rischio di fuga da parte dello straniero, che dovrà essere accertato in base a un esame individuale della situazione personale, b) risulti accertato che è effettivamente possibile l’esecuzione immediata dell’espulsione e che non sussiste alcuna delle condizioni ostative di cui all’art. 14, comma 1, TUI.


Patrocinio a spese dello Stato – Cass. civ., Sez. VI, ordinanza 7 gennaio 2022, n. 285

In materia di protezione internazionale, la revoca dell’ammissione al patrocinio a spese dello Stato non consegue automaticamente dal rigetto della domanda (art. 35-bis, co. 17, d.lgs. n. 25/2008) ma richiede comunque l’accertamento del presupposto della colpa grave nella proposizione dell’azione e, pertanto una valutazione diversa e autonoma da quella relativa alla fondatezza nel merito della domanda di protezione, di cui va necessariamente dato conto in motivazione.


Sottrazione e trattenimento di minori all’estero Cass. civ., Sez. I, ordinanza interlocutoria 5 gennaio 2022, n. 161

Vanno rinviate alle Sezioni Unite le seguenti questioni riguardanti l’interpretazione del criterio della “residenza abituale” del minore di cui all’art. 5 della Convenzione dell’Aja del 1996: a) se per la Convenzione dell’Aja del 1996 (art. 5 sulla competenza), la “residenza abituale” ritenuta dal giudice di uno degli Stati aderenti che per primo è stato adito per pronunciare sull’affido del minore, nella specie il Tribunale della Federazione Russa in territorio russo, è accertamento che osta a che il giudice di altro Stato contraente, nella specie il giudice italiano, successivamente compulsato dalle parti, possa esercitare la propria giurisdizione, accertando, in ragione di differenti presupposti fattuali, la “residenza abituale” in territorio italiano del medesimo minore; b) se a definizione della quaestio facti, in cui è destinata a tradursi la nozione di “residenza abituale” del minore, rientri anche il fattore tempo che, nella sua diacronica declinazione, ammetta, con il conseguente diverso atteggiarsi della richiamata nozione, l’esistenza di una competenza giurisdizionale di più Stati contraenti ex art. 5 della Convenzione dell’Aja del 1996; c) se, pertanto, i fatti di “residenza abituale” possano connotarsi in modo distinto tra giudici di più Stati aderenti alla Convenzione dell’Aja del 1996, anche definendo parentesi di sospensione e nuova attualizzazione di una originaria “residenza abituale”, senza che tanto realizzi sovrapposizioni e futuri conflitti là dove appaiano rimaste inosservate, nell’applicazione, dal giudice successivamente adito, le norme di prevenzione (vd. art. 13, comma 1, Convenzione dell’Aja del 1996 sul dovere di astensione del giudice dello Stato richiesto di decidere su misure di protezione del minore a fronte della pendenza del procedimento presso un giudice di altro Stato aderente).


Misure di accoglienza – TAR Molise, Sez. I, sentenza 28 dicembre 2021, n. 472

È legittima la revoca delle misure di accoglienza a titolo sanzionatorio ai sensi dell’art. 23, co. 1, lett. e), d.lgs. n. 142/2015 anche nei confronti del soggetto non ospitato in uno SPRAR e per comportamenti gravemente violenti commessi non nella struttura ma al di fuori di essa. Infatti, a prescindere dalla tipologia del centro ospitante, il provvedimento non è ammissibile unicamente nei confronti dei soggetti ospitati in strutture appartenenti allo SPRAR, atteso che il rinvio all’art. 14, contenuto nella precedente formulazione dell’art. 23 citato, va inteso come mezzo per individuare l’Autorità competente alla revoca, piuttosto che come indice di una ipotetica volontà legislativa di delimitare l’ambito applicativo della normativa. 


Procedura di emersione –  TAR Piemonte, Sez. I, sentenza 5 gennaio 2022, n. 6

È illegittimo per difetto di motivazione il provvedimento che rigettata la dichiarazione di emersione dal lavoro irregolare ex art. 103 d.l. n. 34/2020, limitandosi a richiamare il parere non favorevole all’accoglimento dell’istanza espresso dalla Questura e motivato dall’esistenza di recentissime censure di polizia, senza ulteriori specificazioni.


Soggiornanti di lungo periodo TAR Lombardia, Sez. III, sentenza 3 gennaio 2022, n. 5

È illegittimo il decreto che trae automaticamente dall’assenza dello straniero dal territorio UE per un periodo continuativo eccedente i dodici mesi consecutivi la revoca del titolo per soggiornanti di lungo periodo, indipendentemente dall’eventuale giustificazione addotta al riguardo dall’interessato.


Protezione internazionale Trib. Roma, ordinanza 21 dicembre 2021

Di fronte al rischio di grave compromissione dei diritti umani in Afghanistan è dovere del Giudice riconoscere il diritto all’ingresso in Italia per avere protezione ai sensi dell’art. 25 del Codice visti dell’Unione europea.


Visto per motivi umanitari – Trib. Roma, Sez. XVIII civile, sentenza 14 gennaio 2022, n. 76126

In data 21 dicembre 2021 il Tribunale di Roma aveva accolto il ricorso presentato da due giovani afghani a seguito dell’accertamento della loro concreta esposizione a gravi rischi in caso di permanenza in Afghanistan, ordinando all’Italia di rilasciare visti umanitari ai sensi dell’art. 25 del Codice Visti Schengen (n. 810/2009). Il Ministero aveva tuttavia subito opposto ostacoli, proponendo ai richiedenti di entrare a far parte di corridoi umanitari (peraltro non ancora attivati) oppure di dimostrare con idonea documentazione il percorso di accoglienza e integrazione in Italia adeguatamente finanziato. I giovani afghani si erano rivolti nuovamente al Tribunale di Roma chiedendo di indicare le esatte modalità di esecuzione dell’ordinanza di dicembre. In data 14 gennaio 2022 il Tribunale ha ritenuto il comportamento del Ministero elusivo dell’ordine giudiziale, già preciso e incondizionato, ordinando il rilascio dei visti umanitari entro 10 giorni.

Traffico di migrantiECtHR, Judgment of 10 February 2022, Al Alo v. Slovakia, Application no. 32084/19

The case concerned a Syrian national’s complaint that his trial and conviction on charges of migrant smuggling had been unfair. An important part of the evidence against him had come from the migrants he had aided, who had been questioned only at the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. These witnesses had later been expelled from Slovakia and thus absent from the applicant’s trial. At the time the applicant had been without legal counsel and had not attended their pre-trial questioning. The Court found that the applicant had been deprived of the possibility to examine or have examined witnesses whose evidence had carried significant weight in his conviction, without sufficient justification. In particular, although the migrants’ absence from the country had in principle been valid grounds for admitting in trial evidence of their pre-trial testimony, on the facts there had not been good enough reasons for their non-attendance at the applicant’s trial as the authorities had been provided with their addresses and identity documents and they had failed to make use of means of securing the witnesses’ appearance remotely. Nor had there been sufficient factors to counterbalance such a disadvantage to the defence. The fact that the applicant had chosen not to attend the migrants’ pre-trial questioning could by no means be accepted as implicitly constituting a complete waiver of his right to examine or have examined the witnesses against him. The authorities should have made sure that the applicant, who had made it clear from the outset that he had difficulties understanding legal matters, had been aware of the consequences of not exercising his rights. Accordingly, the proceedings against him as a whole had not been fair.


DetenzioneECtHR, Judgment of 3 February 2022, Komissarov v. the Czech Republic, Application no. 20611/17

The case involved a Russian national who gained residency in the Czech Republic in 1999. The applicant was indicted by Russia for fraud and was the subject of several extradition requests lodged by Russia. In November 2015 the Ministry of Justice of the Czech Republic authorised the applicant’s extradition and he was apprehended and placed in detention in May 2016. On the following day, the applicant lodged an application for asylum and the extradition proceedings were halted, however he remained in detention during the duration of the asylum proceedings and following their rejection he was extradited on the 15 November 2017. The applicant therefore submitted to the ECHR that his detention was arbitrary and excessively lengthy as the time-limit prescribed under domestic law had not been followed and no alternative measures to detention were considered. In its analysis, the Court noted that when extradition and asylum proceedings run together, separate time-limits are provided in domestic law, and in the present case these limits had been greatly exceeded. The Court continued that strict time limits for an examination of the asylum are important safeguards against arbitrariness, and that therefore the domestic authorities were under an obligation to demonstrate the required diligence, under both domestic law and the Convention. It elaborated that in the applicant’s case, the authorities did not acknowledge or react to the serious delays in the proceedings despite the applicant’s complaints. The Court thereby deduced that the delays in the asylum proceedings and the length of the applicant’s detention pending extradition for 18 months was not in accordance with domestic law. It moreover analysed that the two time-limits are linked and that the time-limit for consideration of an asylum claim is intended to ensure the overall length of detention is not excessive. In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5§1(f) of the Convention.


Protezione internazionaleCGUE, sentenza 22 febbraio 2022, XXXX c.Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatride, C‑483/2

L’articolo 33, paragrafo 2, lettera a), della direttiva 2013/32/UE del 26 giugno 2013, recante procedure comuni ai fini del riconoscimento e della revoca dello status di protezione internazionale, letto alla luce dell’articolo 7 e dell’articolo 24, paragrafo 2, della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso non osta a che uno Stato membro eserciti la facoltà offerta da tale disposizione di respingere in quanto inammissibile una domanda di protezione internazionale con la motivazione che al richiedente è già stato concesso lo status di rifugiato da parte di un altro Stato membro, qualora tale richiedente sia il padre di un minore non accompagnato che ha ottenuto il beneficio della protezione sussidiaria nel primo Stato membro, fatta salva, tuttavia, l’applicazione dell’articolo 23, paragrafo 2, della direttiva 2011/95/UE del 13 dicembre 2011, recante norme sull’attribuzione, a cittadini di paesi terzi o apolidi, della qualifica di beneficiario di protezione internazionale, su uno status uniforme per i rifugiati o per le persone aventi titolo a beneficiare della protezione sussidiaria, nonché sul contenuto della protezione riconosciuta.


Diritto alla salute Cass. civ., Sez. Un., ordinanza 15 febbrai 2022o, n. 4873

A fronte di misure pre-determinate dal legislatore in modo tale da non consentirne attuazioni differenziate e discriminatorie (in questo caso, relative alle misure sul distanziamento personale all’interno dei CAS) non vi è potere discrezionale, e la competenza a giudicare sul diritto alla salute, anche dei richiedenti asilo, è del Giudice ordinario.


Protezione internazionaleCass. civ., sez. VI, sentenza 4 febbraio 2022, n. 3553

È cassata con rinvio la decisione che nega la protezione internazionale a una cittadina cinese denunciata e arrestata per la propria appartenenza a un culto cristiano non registrato di carattere segreto, ritenendo che l’ordinamento cinese non persegua penalmente il culto in quanto tale, ma la segretezza dell’associazione. L’interpretazione contrasta infatti con gli artt. 19 Cost., 9 CEDU e 10 Carta dei diritti fondamentali UE, i quali tutelano anche la dimensione privata della libertà di culto e che devono guidare l’interpretazione della nozione di persecuzione per motivi religiosi.


Procedure di emersioneTAR Puglia, sentenza 18 febbraio 2022, n. 270.

In tema di emersione ai sensi dell’art. 103, co. 1, d.l. n. 34/2020, considerata la legittimazione del lavoratore ad impugnare il rigetto dell’Amministrazione, al primo va riconosciuto il diritto di essere destinatario degli avvisi anche precedenti alla decisione definitiva (in questo caso il provvedimento di rigetto era stato comunicato solo al datore di lavoro ma molti mesi fa). Inoltre, in ragione del favor che il legislatore dedica alla regolarizzazione ed al contrasto al lavoro nero, deve farsi applicazione dell’art. 5, co.11-bis del d.lgs. 109/2012, e rilasciare il permesso per attesa occupazione nel caso in cui la domanda non possa essere accolta solo per fatti imputabili al datore di lavoro.


EspulsioneCass. pen., sentenzza 1 febbraio 2022, n. 3532

Una volta emesso il decreto che dispone il giudizio o altro provvedimento equipollente, non è consentita la pronuncia della sentenza di non luogo a procedere a seguito di espulsione dello straniero dal territorio dello Stato. Infatti, la ratiodella disposizione di cui all’art.13, co. 3-quater, TUI corrisponde a una specifica finalità processuale deflattiva – scongiurare la celebrazione di un processo nei confronti di un soggetto impedito a parteciparvi personalmente perché espulso prima dell’emissione dello stesso — e non invece a un diritto dell’interessato.


CittadinanzaTrib. Roma, ordinanza 8 gennaio 2022, N.R.G. 38037/2021

Ai fini del riconoscimento della cittadinanza, in merito alla definizione dell’età del ricorrente ammesso a presentare la domanda, trova applicazione l’art. 33 della legge n. 69 del 2013, per cui non possono essere imputati all’interessato eventuali inadempimenti dei genitori o dell’Amministrazione, la quale è tenuta a dare comunicazione relativa all’esercizio del diritto (cosa che nel caso di specie non era avvenuta, così consentendo all’interessato di presentare domanda oltre il compimento diciannovesimo anno). Inoltre, la presenza di momenti di irreperibilità anagrafica non è sufficiente a contestare la presenza in Italia, laddove si tratti di una circostanza del tutto conforme alla condizione di nomade che, di per sé, non costituisce elemento preclusivo alla valutazione, in concreto, della posizione di soggetto che ha soggiornato regolarmente e continuativamente sul territorio italiano dalla nascita.


Permesso di soggiornoTAR Sardegna, sentenza 7 febbraio 2022, n. 83

Fermo l’assunto per cui la dimostrazione di disporre di un reddito minimo è una condizione essenziale per il rinnovo del titolo di soggiorno, la PA non può negare l’istanza per carenza del requisito reddituale se l’interessato fornisce la prova che l’assenza di riscontri reddituali nelle banche dati INPS dipende dalla condotta del datore di lavoro, denunciando l’irregolarità con l’atto formale di recesso per giusta causa.


EspulsioneCons. Stato, sentenza 7 febbraio 2022, n. 857

In materia di espulsione per ragioni di sicurezza dello Stato, non può essere accolta la tesi per cui il rimpatrio fondato su un sospetto di terrorismo esporrebbe di per sé l’interessato a rischi nel Paese di origine, bollandolo inevitabilmente in tutti i campi del vivere civile, atteso che, in tal caso, sarebbe sempre impossibile procedere all’espulsione dello straniero la cui permanenza possa agevolare organizzazioni o attività terroristiche, mentre tale espulsione può essere impedita solo in presenza di un rischio concreto, attuale e sufficientemente circostanziato che esso subisca violenze o trattamenti persecutori, degradanti o disumani.

Espulsione  — ECtHR, Judgment of 10 March 2022, Shenturk and others v. Azerbaijan, Application no. 41326/17

The case concerns four Turkish nationals who moved to Azerbaijan where they worked in private schools and companies affiliated with the Gülen movement. Their asylum requests in Azerbaijan were ignored and they were expelled to Turkey, where they were arrested and taken into custody for alleged involvement in the so-called Fetullahist Terrorist Organisation. The applicants complained that their detention and subsequent removal from Azerbaijan to Turkey were in breach of Articles 3, 5 and 13 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 7  to the Convention in the case of the first applicant. Firstly, the Court assessed the alleged violation of Article 5(1) and noted that the whole period of detention of the first applicant and the various periods of detention of the second, third and fourth applicants were not based on a formal decision authorising their detention as required by the domestic law and were accordingly unlawful within the meaning of Article 5(1). Moreover, the Court found that the applicants’ removal to Turkey constituted a breach of the formal extradition proceedings and of the relevant international safeguards. In its analysis of the complained violation of Article 3, the Court contended that the national authorities had at no time examined the applicants’ fears of ill-treatment if returned to Turkey and that the decision to remove them from Azerbaijan based on the cancellation of the passport or residence permits was only a pretext to conduct an “extradition in disguise”. The Court thus considered that the applicants were denied effective guarantees of protection against arbitrary refoulement and that the respondent State had not complied with its procedural obligation under Article 3 by failing to assess the risks of the applicants being subjected to treatment contrary to that provision. Based on the above, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.


CPR CGUE, sentenza 10 marzo 2022, C. c. Landkreis Gifhorn, C‑519/20

L’articolo 16, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2008/115/CE del 16 dicembre 2008, recante norme e procedure comuni applicabili negli Stati membri al rimpatrio di cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare, deve essere interpretato nel senso che una sezione specifica di un istituto penitenziario subordinata alla direzione di tale istituto e soggetta all’autorità del Ministro può essere considerata un «apposito centro di permanenza temporanea», purché le condizioni dei cittadini di paesi terzi ivi trattenuti ai fini dell’allontanamento evitino, quanto più possibile, che tale trattenimento sia simile a un confinamento in ambiente carcerario e siano concepite in modo da rispettare i diritti garantiti dalla Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea nonché i diritti sanciti dall’articolo 16, paragrafi da 2 a 5, e dall’articolo 17 di detta direttiva. L’articolo 18 della medesima direttiva, in combinato disposto con l’articolo 47 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali, deve essere interpretato nel senso che il giudice nazionale chiamato a disporre il trattenimento o la proroga del trattenimento in un istituto deve poter verificare il rispetto delle condizioni (presenza di situazioni di emergenza) alle quali l’articolo 18 subordina la possibilità di prevedere il trattenimento in istituto penitenziario. L’articolo 16, paragrafo 1, in combinato disposto con il principio del primato del diritto dell’Unione, deve essere interpretato nel senso che il giudice nazionale deve disapplicare la normativa di uno Stato membro che consenta, in via temporanea, che i cittadini di paesi terzi il cui soggiorno è irregolare siano trattenuti, ai fini dell’allontanamento, in istituti penitenziari, separati dai detenuti ordinari, anche qualora le predette condizioni non siano, o non siano più, soddisfatte.


Favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione clandestina — Corte Cost., sentenza 10 marzo 2022, n. 63

È manifestamente sproporzionata la pena da 5 a 15 anni di reclusione, prevista dal TUI  per chi abbia aiutato qualcuno a entrare illegalmente nel territorio italiano utilizzando un aereo di linea e documenti falsi. Le elevatissime pene stabilite per le ipotesi aggravate di favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione si possono ragionevolmente spiegare solo in chiave di contrasto al traffico internazionale di migranti, gestito da organizzazioni criminali che ricavano da questa attività ingenti profitti, ma sono evidentemente sproporzionate rispetto a situazioni diverse, nelle quali non risulta alcun coinvolgimento in tali organizzazioni. Il fatto che ha dato origine alla pronuncia della Corte Costituzionale riguardava una donna nigeriana accusata di aver fatto entrare in Italia su un aereo di linea la figlia e la nipote, rispettivamente di tredici e otto anni, utilizzando documenti che ne attestavano falsamente la nazionalità senegalese. Il reato di favoreggiamento dell’immigrazione, punito nella forma base con la reclusione da 1 a 5 anni, è funzionale al controllo dei flussi migratori e, quindi, alla tutela di interessi pubblici di grande rilievo, come gli equilibri del mercato del lavoro, le risorse limitate del sistema di sicurezza sociale, l’ordine e la sicurezza pubblica. Le ipotesi aggravate, per le quali sono previste pene assai più severe, sono invece a tutela – oltre che del controllo dei flussi migratori – degli interessi del migrante, che in queste ipotesi è la “vittima” del reato. Si pensi ai casi in cui lo straniero trasportato rischia la propria vita o incolumità, ad esempio in imbarcazioni di fortuna, o è sottoposto a trattamenti inumani e degradanti, come quando viene nascosto in celle frigorifere destinate al trasporto di merci. Da un lato, chi utilizza un mezzo di trasporto internazionale, come un aereo di linea, deve necessariamente sottoporsi a tutti gli ordinari controlli di frontiera, che rendono più facile identificare gli stranieri privi di autorizzazione all’ingresso nel territorio italiano. Dall’altro, è vero che usare un documento falso significa aver commesso un reato per procurarselo, ma i reati di falsità documentale sono ordinariamente puniti, nell’ordinamento italiano, con pene di gran lunga inferiori a quella prevista per il favoreggiamento aggravato. Pertanto, in assenza di altre circostanze aggravanti, fatti come quello giudicato dal Tribunale dovranno essere puniti con la più contenuta pena della reclusione da 1 a 5 anni prevista dal primo comma dell’articolo 12 TUI, in concorso con quella prevista per il reato di utilizzazione di documenti falsi. In conclusione, è dichiarata l’illegittimità costituzionale dell’art. 12, comma 3, lettera d), TUI, limitatamente alle parole «o utilizzando servizi internazionali di trasporto ovvero documenti contraffatti o alterati o comunque illegalmente ottenuti».


Bonus bebé e assegno di maternitàCorte Cost., sentenza 4 marzo 2022, n. 54

Le disposizioni che escludono da alcune provvidenze (bonus bebè e assegno di maternità) gli stranieri extracomunitari non titolari del permesso per soggiornanti UE di lungo periodo sono incostituzionali perché “istituiscono per i soli cittadini di Paesi terzi un sistema irragionevolmente più gravoso, che travalica la pur legittima finalità di accordare i benefici dello stato sociale a coloro che vantino un soggiorno regolare e non episodico sul territorio della nazione”, e negano adeguata tutela proprio a chi si trovi in condizioni di più grave bisogno.


Cittadinanza TAR Lazio, sentenza 15 marzo 2022, n. 2928

La discrezionalità che connota il riconoscimento della cittadinanza implica accurati apprezzamenti da parte dell’amministrazione sulla personalità e sulla condotta di vita dell’interessato e si esplica in un potere valutativo circa l’avvenuta integrazione dello straniero nella comunità nazionale sotto i molteplici profili della sua condizione lavorativa, economica, familiare e di irreprensibilità della condotta. Tale valutazione deve tenere conto anche degli illeciti penali commessi nel periodo di dimora in Italia, ma non può legittimamente prescindere da un giudizio globale sulla personalità e, soprattutto, dal giudizio sulla gravità in sédella vicenda penale, a fronte di ogni altro comportamento del soggetto.


Detenzione ECtHR, Judgment of 3 March 2022, Nikoghosyan and Others v. Poland, Application no. 14743/17

The case concerned an Armenian family who attempted to enter and claim asylum in Poland multiple times between October 2016 and November 2016. The applicants were summarily returned to Ukraine and on 6 November 2016 were eventually able to submit a claim for asylum which was rejected in April 2017. During this time he applicants were administratively detained in a guarded centre in Biala Podlaska. The Court firstly examined the claims under Article 5(1) and considered that the need to clarify the applicant’s statements on their reasons for entering Poland constituted a valid ground for their initial detention, however as no information was sought from them after December 2016, relying on this ground to extend their detention could not be justified. The Court continued that the second ground the domestic courts relied on was the statutory presumption that the applicants posed a high risk of absconding. Despite this reason, the domestic courts did not give sufficiently thorough or individualised consideration to the applicant’s situation. Furthermore, the fact that three minor children were concerned was not considered by the courts when they decided to place them in detention. It emphasised that the detention of young children should be avoided and authorities must establish that this measure was taken as a last resort in the event that a less restrictive measure is not available. The Court concluded that the applicant’s detention for almost six months was not a measure of last resort of which an alternative measure was available and that there was a violation of Article 5(1) of the Convention. In relation to Article 3 and 8 claims, the Court declared these as inadmissible for being lodged out of time and therefore rejected the remainder of the application.


Detenzione ECtHR, Judgment of 24 February 2022, M.B.K. and Others v. Hungary, Application no. 73860/17

The case concerned an Afghan family of parents and four children who were detained in the Röszke transit zone between Hungary and Serbia for seven months, until they were granted refugee status and transferred to a reception centre in October 2017. They complained under Article 3, 5, 8, 13 and 34 of the Convention on the grounds that the conditions of their detention, lack of effective remedy to complain about the conditions and the state’s failure to comply with the interim measure were all incompatible with their Convention rights. Referring to R.R. and others, the Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR in respect of the minor applicants in the present case. However, in relation to the adult applicants, the Court noted that the living conditions in the transit zone were generally acceptable, and they did not show more vulnerability than other asylum seekers confined there. Furthermore, the Court set out that although the confinement could have resulted in feelings of frustration, anxiety and powerlessness, the fact that the family was not separated would have provided relief for the applicants. For these reasons, the Court did not find a violation of Article 3 with respect of the adult applicants as the level of severity was not met. Under Article 5 referring to the similarity of the facts in the present case and R.R. ,the Court found violations of Article 5 (1) and (4). The Article 8 complaint was rejected as it was raised later than the Article 3 complaint and did not comply with the six-month time limit set out in Article 35. Moreover, regarding the Article 13 claim in conjunction with Article 3, the Court reasoned that as the Article 3 claim concerning the adult applicants was held inadmissible, the applicants have no arguable claim for the purposes of Article 13. Finally, the Court held that the remaining complaints were admissible but with reference to considerations in R.R. and others it declared it unnecessary to examine them separately. 


Terrorismo ECtHR, Decision of 3 March 2022, Johansen v. Denmark, Application no. 27801/19

The case involved a dual Danish and Tunisian national who had his Danish citizenship stripped on account of terrorism charges. The applicant had lived most of his life in Denmark but travelled to Syria in September 2013 and stayed until February 2014 undertaking training with the Islamic State. In October 2017 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to four years imprisonment by the District Court in Denmark. In November 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of depriving the applicant of his Danish nationality and expelling him from Denmark with a permanent ban on return. The applicant complained that the withdrawal of his Danish citizenship and expulsion order violated his rights under Article 8 of the Convention. The Court determined that the Supreme Court’s decision to strip the applicant of his Danish nationality had not been arbitrary. Furthermore, it continued that the Danish authorities had acted diligently and swiftly and had given the applicant opportunity to contest the previous rulings. It considered that it was legitimate for Denmark to take a firm stand against terrorism and therefore was satisfied that a thorough assessment which balanced competing interests had been made when deciding on the deportation order. The Court thereby concluded that the decision was not disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and rejected the applicant’s complaint.


Protezione internazionaleCGUE, sentenza 3 marzo 2022, NB e AB c. Secretary of State for the Home Department,C‑349/20

L’articolo 12, paragrafo 1, lettera a), della direttiva 2004/83/CE del 29 aprile 2004, recante norme minime sull’attribuzione, a cittadini di paesi terzi o apolidi, della qualifica di rifugiato o di persona altrimenti bisognosa di protezione internazionale, nonché norme minime sul contenuto della protezione riconosciuta, deve essere interpretato nel senso che, 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, cosicché a una persona è attribuibile ipso facto lo «status di rifugiato» ai sensi di tale disposizione: 1) occorre prendere in considerazione, nell’ambito di una valutazione individuale, le circostanze pertinenti esistenti non solo al momento in cui detta persona ha lasciato la zona operativa dell’UNRWA, ma anche al momento in cui le autorità amministrative competenti esaminano una domanda di riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato o in cui le autorità giudiziarie interessate si pronunciano sul ricorso proposto contro una decisione di diniego di riconoscimento di tale status; 2) qualora la persona interessata dimostri di essere stata costretta a lasciare la zona operativa dell’UNRWA per motivi che esulavano dal suo controllo e prescindevano dalla sua volontà, spetta allo Stato membro, laddove ritenga che detta persona sia oramai in grado di fare ritorno in tale zona e di beneficiare in essa di detta protezione o di detta assistenza, dimostrare che così è nel caso di specie; 3) laddove la persona sia stata costretta a lasciare la zona operativa di tale organismo, non è necessario dimostrare che l’UNRWA o lo Stato nel cui territorio essa opera abbia inteso infliggere un danno a tale persona o privarla di assistenza, mediante azione o omissione. Ai fini di tale disposizione è sufficiente dimostrare che l’assistenza o la protezione dell’UNRWA sia effettivamente cessata per un qualsiasi motivo, cosicché tale organismo non sia più in grado, per motivi oggettivi o legati alla situazione specifica di detta persona, di garantire a quest’ultima condizioni di vita conformi alla missione di cui è investito; 4) si deve tener conto dell’assistenza fornita a tale persona da attori della società civile, come le organizzazioni non governative, purché l’UNRWA mantenga con questi ultimi un rapporto di cooperazione formale di natura stabile, nell’ambito del quale gli stessi assistono l’UNRWA nell’adempimento del suo mandato.


Integrazione socio-lavorativaCass. civ., sez. I, sentenza 4 marzo 2022, n. 7218

Ai fini del riconoscimento della protezione umanitaria il giudice è tenuto, secondo i principi posti dalla sentenza delle Sezioni Unite n. 24413/2021, a valutare la deduzione, da parte del richiedente asilo, dei profili di integrazione socio-lavorativa in Italia, al fine di valutarne l’apprezzabilità e la rilevanza, nell’ambito del giudizio di bilanciamento da condurre tra le condizioni di vita godute in Italia e quelle alle quali il richiedente potrebbe essere esposto in caso di rimpatrio. Nell’ambito di detta valutazione comparativa, il Tribunale dovrebbe apprezzare l’incidenza, sui rapporti di lavoro, dell’emergenza Covid, con particolare riferimento all’effetto sospensivo dei rapporti derivante dalla correlata normativa emergenziale.


Cittadinanza — Cons. Stato, sentenza 10 marzo 2022, n. 1718

In tema di concessione della cittadinanza italiana, non è di per sé censurabile l’approccio che assegna rilievo a pendenze e segnalazioni di rilevanza penale a carico del coniuge e dei figli dell’istante, sia in ragione della comunione di vita che caratterizza il matrimonio, sia per i riflessi che tale concessione potrebbe avere sulla posizione dell’altro coniuge (cfr. art. 5, l. n. 91/1992, nonché art. 19, co. 2, lett. c), TUI). Tuttavia, tali elementi non devono essere assunti dal provvedimento acriticamente come di per sé idonei ad accreditare un giudizio di disvalore nei confronti del soggetto richiedente. Deve essere perciò annullato il provvedimento ministeriale che non rechi un approfondito apprezzamento sui fatti sottesi alle denunce e, dunque, sul reale disvalore delle condotte rispetto ai principî fondamentali della convivenza sociale e alla tutela anticipata della incolumità pubblica, lasciando ignoto lo sfondo fattuale nel quale la condotta si inserisce e, di conseguenza, il concreto possibile impatto pregiudizievole che essa può concretamente assumere nel giudizio di meritevolezza al conseguimento dello status invocato, specie ove siano pretermessi elementi di segno positivo che si sostanziano nel risalente e proficuo inserimento del coniuge e dei figli dell’appellante, questi ultimi già cittadini italiani, nel contesto socio economico italiano, fatto palese dagli studi svolti e dal vissuto professionale.


Procedure di emersioneTAR Piemonte, sentenza 23 febbraio 2022, n. 166

La procedura di emersione ai sensi dell’art. 103, co. 2, D.l. 103/2020 è compatibile con la pendenza della richiesta di protezione internazionale.


Misure di accoglienza TAR Emilia-Romagna, sentenza 28 febbraio 2022, n. 223

È legittima la revoca delle misure di accoglienza per superamento del reddito annuo, ma è illegittima la richiesta di restituzione se il richiedente non ha occultato il lavoro (art. 20, Direttiva 2013/33/UE) e l’ente gestore ne era comunque a conoscenza.


Accesso ai CPRTAR Lombardia, ordinanza 11 marzo 2022, n. 313

Il diniego opposto dalla Prefettura di Milano all’accesso di una delegazione di volontari dell’associazione NAGA al Centro di permanenza per il rimpatrio risulta adottato in difetto di istruttoria, in ordine alla legittimazione sostanziale dell’associazione ricorrente. Esso risulta altresì adottato in violazione dell’articolo 10 bis della l- 7 agosto 1990, n. 241, in quanto la Prefettura, a seguito dell’acquisizione del parere negativo del Ministero dell’Interno, non ha comunicato all’associazione ricorrente i motivi ostativi all’accoglimento dell’istanza, precludendole, in tal modo, la possibilità di formulare osservazioni che avrebbero potuto condurre ad un diverso esito del procedimento. La domanda cautelare deve essere accolta anche in considerazione della prevalenza che il Collegio intende accordare alla tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli stranieri trattenuti nel Centro di permanenza ed alla trasparenza dell’attività amministrativa rispetto alle generiche esigenze organizzative addotte dalla Prefettura di Milano.

Espulsioni — ECtHR, Judgment of 26 April 2022, M.A.M. v. Switzerland, Application no. 29836/20

The case concerned a Pakistani national whose asylum claim had been rejected. The applicant converted to Christianity whilst his asylum claim was being processed in Switzerland. Following its rejection, the applicant’s appeal on the grounds of his recent conversion was subsequently rejected by the Federal Administrative Court. The applicant claimed to the Court under Articles 2, 3 and 9 of the Convention. In its analysis of the complaints, the Court firstly noted that the state authorities were aware of the applicant’s involvement and worship activities with the Salvation Army but failed to react or ask him about these activities. The Court furthermore noted the absolute nature of Article 3 rights and the vulnerable situation that asylum seekers find themselves in and reiterated the obligation on States to assess a risk of ill-treatment once they become aware of facts which may expose an individual to such a risk. The Court then turned its attention to the level of persecution experienced by Christians in Pakistan and the applicant’s risk of treatment contrary to Article 2 and 3 if returned. It determined that the Federal Administrative Court had investigated the situation for Christians in Pakistan (of which it had concluded that there was no risk of collective persecution) but that it should have additionally considered the specific situation of converted Christians. The Court furthermore investigated the applicant’s personal situation in light of the Article 2 and 3 risks and deduced that the Federal Administrative Court had not conducted a sufficiently thorough examination of the situation of converts to Christianity and of the applicant’s personal situation regarding his conversion, the seriousness of his convictions, the way in which he expressed his faith in Switzerland and intended to express it in Pakistan, his family’s knowledge of his conversion and his vulnerability to expulsion and accusations of blasphemy. In light of these findings, the Court held that there would be a violation of Articles 2 and 3 if the applicant was returned to Pakistan in the absence of a thorough and rigorous ex nunc assessment by the Swiss authorities of the general situation of Christian converts in Pakistan and of the applicant’s personal situation as a Christian convert in the event of his return. Regarding the applicant’s claim under Article 9 of the Convention, the Court did not identify a separate issue and therefore held that there was no need to examine it separately.


Trattamenti inumani e degradanti – ECtHR, Judgement of 31 March 2022, N.B. and Others v. France, Application no. 49775/20

On 31 March 2022, the ECHR delivered its judgment in the case of N.B. and others v. France. The case concerned a Georgian family, including an eight-year-old child, whose asylum application in France was rejected and who were thus issued a removal order and held in detention for 14 days. The applicants complained on the grounds of Article 3 and 34 of the Convention for their detention and the failure to respond to the interim measure against the detention. The Court firstly referred to its jurisprudence including A.B. and others to emphasize that the particularly vulnerable situation of the minor child is decisive and takes precedence over the parent’s status as illegally staying aliens. It furthermore noted that the relevant criteria were the age of the child, the reception conditions, and the duration of the detention. In this assessment, the Court noted the vulnerable position of the child as an eight-year-old, the psychological impact of the accumulation of deprivation of liberty and reported issues with the center such as noise pollution and its widespread security because of being situation beside a prison. The Court referred to A.M. and others in which a violation of Article 3 was found for a detention period of seven days and determined that the authorities did not sufficiently take the applicant’s presence and status as a minor into account. Regarding the parent applicants, the Court acknowledged that the administrative detention with their minor child could have created feelings of helplessness, anguish and frustration but did nevertheless not meet the threshold of severity required to amount to a violation of Article 3. Turning to the applicant’s complaints under Article 34, the Court determined that it was necessary to ascertain whether France’s refusal to enforce the interim measure was justified by exceptional circumstances which caused an objective obstacle which prevented France from complying with the measure. It concluded that France had not justified any exceptional circumstances and therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 34 in respect of all applicants and a violation of Article 3 in respect of the minor applicant.


Divieto di espulsioni collettive – ECtHR, Judgement of 5 April 2022, A.A. and Others v. North Macedonia, Application No(s). 55798/16, 55808/16, 55817/16, 55820/16 and 55823/16

The case concerned asylum seekers from Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria who were living in Idomeni camp in Greece and travelled by foot to North Macedonia as part of the “March of Hope” in which 1,500 migrants participated on 14 March 2016. On arrival to North Macedonia, the applicants were met by soldiers who threatened and forced them to return to Greece through a hole in a fence. The applicants claimed under Article 4 Protocol 4 and Article 13 of the Convention on the grounds that they were expelled without individual removal decisions or legal remedies or possibilities to challenge their deportation. In its analysis, the Court referred to N.D. and N.T. and Shahzad and confirmed that in the present case the expulsion was of a collective nature as the applicants were removed without any identification procedure or examination of their personal situation. It therefore continued that the necessary examination was whether the lack of individual removal decisions could be justified by the applicant’s conduct. The Court noted that there was no evidence of force used by the applicants and so the examination turned to whether the applicants by crossing the border irregularly avoided an effective procedure for legal entry. It elaborated that if a Contracting State has provided genuine and effective access to means of legal entry and an applicant has not made use of it, the Court will consider whether there were reasons not to do so which were based on objective facts for which the respondent State was responsible. In this regard, the Court noted that Macedonian law provided the applicants a possibility of entering at border crossing points if they fulfilled the entry criteria or sought asylum and that Bogorodica border crossing issues certificates to asylum seekers and was the nearest border crossing to Idomeni camp. The Court confirmed that the fact that no certificates of an expressed intention to apply for asylum were issued at Bogorodica on 14 and 15 March 2016 did not question the accessibility of this crossing or lead to the conclusion that North Macedonia did not provide genuine and effective access to the border crossing point. It continued that there was nothing to suggest that asylum seekers were prevented from approaching the legitimate border crossing point and lodging an asylum claim or that the applicants attempted to claim asylum and were returned. The applicants did not allege that they had tried to enter Macedonian territory by regular means and the Court was not persuaded that they had the required cogent reasons for not using the Bogorodica border crossing and was ultimately not convinced that the respondent State failed to provide genuine and effective access to procedures for legal entry into North Macedonia. The Court furthermore considered that the applicants put themselves in danger by participating in the entry into the Macedonian territory with a large group and did not make use of existing legal procedures, which attributed to the State’s lack of individual removal decisions. The Court applied this reasoning to the Article 13 claims and considered that as the lack of an individualised procedure for the applicant’s removal was a result of their own conduct it cannot hold the State responsible for not making a legal remedy against this removal available. It continued that the lack of a remedy did not in itself constitute a violation of Article 13 as the applicant’s complaint was never raised before the authorities of the respondent State. The Court therefore held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 4 Protocol 4 or Article 13 of the Convention.


Controlli alle frontiere interne CGUE, Grande Sezione, sentenza 26 aprile 2022, NW c. Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Leibnitz C‑368/20 e C‑369/20

La Corte ricorda che il codice frontiere Schengen pone il principio secondo cui le frontiere tra gli Stati membri possono essere attraversate in qualunque punto senza che siano effettuate verifiche sulle persone, indipendentemente dalla loro nazionalità. Si tratta qui di una delle principali conquiste dell’Unione, ossia la creazione di uno spazio di libera circolazione delle persone, senza frontiere interne. Pertanto, il ripristino del controllo alle frontiere interne dovrebbe costituire un’eccezione e una misura di ultima istanza. Così, in primo luogo, il codice frontiere Schengen consente a uno Stato membro, in caso di minaccia grave per il suo ordine pubblico o la sua sicurezza interna, di ripristinare temporaneamente un controllo di frontiera alle sue frontiere con altri Stati membri. Tuttavia, la Corte constata che una siffatta misura, incluse eventuali proroghe, non può superare una durata massima totale di sei mesi. Infatti, il legislatore dell’Unione ha ritenuto che un periodo di sei mesi fosse sufficiente affinché lo Stato membro interessato adotti, eventualmente in cooperazione con altri Stati membri, misure che consentano di far fronte a una siffatta minaccia preservando al contempo, dopo tale periodo di sei mesi, il principio della libera circolazione. La Corte precisa tuttavia che lo Stato membro può applicare nuovamente tale misura, anche direttamente dopo la fine del periodo di sei mesi, qualora si trovi a far fronte a una nuova minaccia grave per il suo ordine pubblico o la sua sicurezza interna, distinta da quella inizialmente individuata, situazione che deve essere valutata in relazione alle circostanze e agli eventi concreti. In secondo luogo, in caso di circostanze eccezionali in cui sia messo a rischio il funzionamento globale dello spazio Schengen, il Consiglio può raccomandare a uno o a più Stati membri di ripristinare il controllo di frontiera alle rispettive frontiere interne, e ciò per una durata massima di due anni. Così, dopo la fine di questi due anni, lo Stato membro interessato può, qualora si trovi a far fronte a una nuova minaccia grave per il suo ordine pubblico o la sua sicurezza interna e tutte le condizioni previste dal codice frontiere Schengen siano soddisfatte, direttamente ripristinare i controlli per una durata massima totale di sei mesi.

Detenzione – CGUE, sentenza 31 marzo 2022, IA c. Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl, C-231/21

L’articolo 29, paragrafo 2, seconda frase, del regolamento (UE) n. 604/2013 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 26 giugno 2013, che stabilisce i criteri e i meccanismi di determinazione dello Stato membro competente per l’esame di una domanda di protezione internazionale presentata in uno degli Stati membri da un cittadino di un paese terzo o da un apolide, deve essere interpretato nel senso che la nozione di «detenzione», di cui a tale disposizione, non è applicabile al ricovero coatto di un richiedente asilo in un reparto psichiatrico ospedaliero, autorizzato con una decisione giudiziaria per il motivo che tale persona, a causa di una patologia psichica, costituisce un serio pericolo per sé stessa o per la società.


Minori stranieri (profughi ucraini) – Tribunale per i minorenni di Bolzano, decreto interlocutorio 6 aprile 2022, n. 37

L’assenza di un genitore non si traduce automaticamente nella necessità di reperire un’accoglienza ex art. 19 d.lgs n. 142/2015, qualora vi sia la possibilità di un collocamento familiare. Il concetto di “familiare” va inteso in senso ampio, fino a comprendere anche persone meramente conviventi. I minori ucraini non accompagnati da almeno un genitore ma da altro “familiare” non possono automaticamente essere definiti Minori Stranieri Non Accompagnati (MNSA). Inoltre, è necessario distinguere tra l’esigenza di nominare un tutore e l’esigenza di predisporre delle misure di accoglienza: infatti, anche qualora vi sia la necessità di nominare un tutore, da ciò non discende automaticamente la necessità di provvedere anche in termini di accoglienza. Si aggiunge che la necessità di nominare un tutore deve essere accertata sulla base della Convenzione dell’Aja del 19.10.1996, in base alla quale “le leggi in materia di protezioni dell’infanzia vigenti nello Stato in cui i minorenni hanno la loro residenza abituale devono essere applicate anche nello Stato contraente in cui i minorenni si trovano temporaneamente”. Infine, e in via generale, nella scelta di ogni singola misura di sostegno e protezione va preferita, a parità di efficacia, quella che evita separazioni e preserva l’unità dei gruppi che giungono insieme.


Cittadini ucraini e protezione sussidiaria – Tribunale di Genova, decreto 22 aprile 2022

Benché migrata in Italia per ragioni esclusivamente economiche, ha diritto alla protezione sussidiaria ex art. 14, lett. c) d.lgs. n. 251/2007 una cittadina ucraina che attualmente, alla luce della situazione di conflitto armato scoppiato nel paese di origine, subirebbe, in caso di rimpatrio, una minaccia grave e individuale alla vita, derivante dalla violenza indiscriminata proprie di situazioni di conflitto armato interno o internazionale.


Trattamenti inumani e degradanti – ECtHR, Judgment of 22 March 2022, T.K. and Others v. Lithuania, Application no. 55978/20

The case concerned a Tajik family whose asylum claim in Lithuania was rejected and were subsequently given a removal order to Tajikistan. The first applicant was a member of the Tajik Islamist Renaissance party (IRPT), which is a banned organisation in Tajikistan and thereby claimed that their removal would violate their rights under Article 3 and Article 13 of the Convention. The Court noted that the existence of a risk of ill-treatment must be assessed with reference to the facts that were known or ought to have been known to Lithuania at the time of proceedings. It furthermore determined that the general situation in Tajikistan did not illustrate that any removal would constitute a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3, and so the applicant’s personal circumstances must be assessed. The Court emphasised that practice of ill-treatment of ordinary IRPT members was part of the applicant’s asylum claims and that country of origin information did not conclude that only leaders and high-ranking members of the IRPT faced persecution. It thereby found that the Lithuanian authorities did not carry out an adequate assessment of the existence of a practice of ill-treatment towards people in a similar situation to that of the applicants and instead focused on the lack of past threats and persecution of the applicants. The Court lastly emphasised the absolute nature of the rights guaranteed under Article 3 of the Convention and found that there would be a violation of this provision if the applicants were removed to Tajikistan without a fresh assessment of whether their return would expose them to a risk of ill-treatment. It subsequently considered that the indication under Rule 39 should remain in force until the present judgment becomes final or until the Court takes a further decision.


Trattamenti inumani e degradanti – ECtHR, Judgment of 29 March 2022, N.K. v. Russia, Application no.45761/18

This case involved a Tajik national who was charged in absentia with membership of an extremist organisation by the Tajik authorities and placed in detention pending removal from Russia. The applicant invoked Articles 3, 5 and 34 of the Convention regarding the detention conditions in Russia, the breach of the interim measures against the removal order, the lack of investigation over the applicant’s alleged abduction and the applicant’s ill-treatment and lengthy prison sentence in Tajikistan. The Court firstly noted that in previous cases with similar facts it had been established that individuals whose extradition was sought by Tajik authorities on charges of politically motivated crimes constituted a vulnerable group facing a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if removed and that there was no reason to depart from these findings in the present case. Regarding the alleged abduction of the applicant and his illegal transfer to Tajikistan, the Court determined that it was necessary to examine whether the authorities (i) complied with their obligation to protect the applicant against the risk of the treatment contrary to Article 3; (ii) conducted an effective investigation into the applicant’s disappearance, and (iii) should be held accountable for the applicant’s disappearance. The Court furthermore noted that it was satisfied that the Russian authorities were aware that the applicant could face a forcible transfer to the country where he could be subjected to torture or ill-treatment, that relevant measures of protection should have been taken and that no attempt was made to carry out an investigation. Moreover, the Court determined that there was no evidence that the notification of the interim measure under Rule 39 was taken into account or that relevant steps were taken relating to the precarious situation of the applicant. Lastly, the Court considered that the Russian authorities exposed the application to a real risk of ill-treatment in Tajikistan by ordering his removal, were implicated in his forcible return, failed to carry out an effective investigation into his abduction thereby breaching Article 3 and breached the interim measure thereby violating their obligations under Article 34. The Court found a violation of Articles 3 and Article 5(4) relating to the applicant’s detention conditions and delay in appeal review against the detention. However, the Court decided there was no need to give a separate ruling on the complaint under Article 13. Finally, regarding the complaints under Article 3 for detention in the pre-trial detention and Article 5(4) for the delay in appeal review for detention, the Court held that these complaints did not meet admissibility criteria and were rejected.


Iscrizione obbligatoria al SSN – Corte d’Appello di Venezia (sez. lavoro), sentenza 15 aprile 2022, n. 492

Costituisce discriminazione la delibera della Giunta regionale del Veneto n. 753/19 nella parte in cui nega il diritto alla iscrizione obbligatoria al servizio sanitario nazionale dei cittadini extracomunitari familiari a carico di cittadino italiano in quanto si pone in violazione del principio di parità di trattamento sancito dal combinato disposto degli artt. 19 e 23 Dlt. 30/07; sicché costituisce discriminazione il diniego opposto dalla Azienda Ulss 6 Euganea all’iscrizione obbligatoria al servizio nazionale dei due appellanti, i quali hanno diritto, oltre che all’iscrizione ordinaria, alla restituzione dell’importo complessivo di euro 9683,11 corrisposto indebitamente per gli anni 2019-2020-2021.


Ingiusta detenzione – Corte di Cassazione, sez. IV penale, sentenza 7 aprile 2022, n. 13226

Non ha diritto all’equa riparazione per ingiusta detenzione in regime di custodia cautelare il cittadino straniero – assolto “perché il fatto non sussiste” dai reati ascrittigli quale partecipante a un’associazione rivolta a favorire l’ingresso in Italia di cittadini stranieri in condizione d’irregolarità – nei confronti del quale sussistano una serie di elementi atti a rappresentare che l’attività di trasferimento delle persone s’inseriva in un quadro “non certamente cristallino”, non escluso dalla sentenza di assoluzione, della cui anomalia l’interessato era consapevole.


Procedura di emersione – TAR Marche, sez. I, sentenza 11 aprile 2022, n. 239

Va annullato il provvedimento che nega l’accesso alla procedura di emersione ex art. 103 d.l. n. 34/2020 al cittadino straniero che, nel luglio 2020 e successivamente alla presentazione dell’istanza, ha fatto ritorno per 12 giorni nel Paese di origine (Albania) per un comprovato motivo (ottenere il rinnovo del passaporto in temi sensibilmente più brevi rispetto a quelli prevedibili ove la richiesta fosse stata inoltrata tramite Consolato). Infatti, in base a un principio generale del diritto amministrativo, i requisiti previsti dalla legge per l’accesso del cittadino a un determinato beneficio debbono sussistere alla data prevista dalla norma o dalla lex specialis (bando, avviso, ecc.), salvo che non sia previsto il mantenimento di tali requisiti per un determinato periodo ulteriore.


Revoca delle misure di accoglienza – TAR Molise, sez. I, sentenza 7 aprile 2022, n. 105 

È legittimo il provvedimento di revoca delle misure di accoglienza per le gravi violazioni realizzate dallo straniero che, in occasione di una protesta nel centro ospitante, si è reso responsabile del danneggiamento di suppellettili e di condotte aggressive e intimidatorie verso il personale e gli altri ospiti che non hanno preso parte alla protesta. Infatti, anche dopo i chiarimenti della Corte di giustizia circa i limiti delle sanzioni irrogabili dagli Stati membri ai sensi dell’art. 20 della direttiva 2013/33/UE a salvaguardia del principio di proporzionalità e della dignità umana, una ipotetica disapplicazione integrale dell’art. 23, comma 1, lett. e), D.Lgs. n. 142/2015 (affermato, ad es., da TAR Toscana n. 1744/2019) finirebbe per generare un pericoloso vuoto normativo in una materia assai delicata, in quanto permeata da problemi anche di ordine e sicurezza pubblica.

DetenzioneECtHR, Judgment of 17 May 2022, Ali Reza v. Bulgaria, Application no.35422/16

The case concerns an Iraqi national who was a prior beneficiary of subsidiary protection. The applicant’s subsidiary protection status was revoked and he was issued an expulsion order and entry ban for five years on the basis that his presence constituted a threat to national security. The applicant was subsequently arrested and detained. He complained against the expulsion order and detention under Articles 3, 5, 8 and 13 of the Convention. The Court firstly examined Articles 3, 8 and 13 and referred to the State’s submissions that the expulsion order of June 2015 was no longer valid, as the five-year limitation period had expired and if the applicant was deported on a new order, it would be based on new facts and subject to judicial review with suspensive effect. The Court secondly considered the claims under Article 5(1) relating to the applicant’s almost seven-month detention pending the execution of the deportation order. It noted that the detention was ordered on the ground that the deportation could not be carried out due to a lack of necessary travel documents. However, the Court continued that although a delay or failure to issue travel documents cannot be attributed to the Bulgarian authorities, it did not appear that they took any active steps to remedy this or check the realistic prospects of the applicant’s removal. It subsequently concluded that the reason which initially justified the applicant’s detention; the pending deportation proceedings against him, were no longer valid throughout the period of the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in light of the authorities’ failure to exercise sufficient diligence in carrying out that measure, therefore giving rise to a violation of Article 5(1).The Court lastly considered Article 5(4) of the Convention, and determined that there was a domestic remedy available to the applicant which was not used. It clarified that the absence of case-law and examples of the application of this remedy did not lead to a conclusion that it is ineffective and doubts as to the success prospects of the remedy are not a sufficient reason to justify not using the remedy concerned. The Court confirmed that the remedy available was sufficiently accessible, adequate and effective and therefore held that the complaint should be rejected on the ground that domestic remedies had not been exhausted.


Minori non accompagnati ECtHR, Decision of 26 April 2022, A.J. v. Greece, Application no. 34298/18

The applicant was a stateless Palestinian and unaccompanied minor who was granted asylum in Greece in 2016. The case concerned the revocation of his refugee status and the decision to return him, as well as the conditions he and his siblings faced in Greece. In the decision of 24 July 2018, the Court granted an interim measure to stop the applicant’s return to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 3 in conjunction with the Article 13 of the Convention, the Chamber ruled that, it was not justified to continue the examination of the application as the risk of being returned was not present because of the refugee status regranted to the applicant and the cancellation of his return trip to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Subsequently, the Court found no reason for the interim measure to remain in force. The applicant also complained that he had not received proper psychosocial support, which allegedly violated Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13. Despite the complaints of the applicant, the Court decided that it appears his mental health was regularly monitored by competent specialists in the hospitals and the childcare facilities. As the Court rules that the medical treatment didn’t pose any problem, it follows that the complaint was manifestly ill-founded and should be rejected. The applicant also held that the failure to appoint a guardian and the deficient procedure followed in respect of the revocation of his refugee status had violated Articles 8 and 13 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court found that this complaint is not justified in respect of the now obsolete decision of revocation and return. Finally, the applicant complained that his placement in a reception facility away from his siblings had violated his rights under Article 8 and Article 13 of the Convention. The Court did not find it unreasonable that the domestic authorities separated the children as they could not be placed in the same reception facility as these were organised according to the age and the sex of the children. The Chamber affirmed that the placement in different cities constituted an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life. However, this measure was regarded as a temporary measure, communication was regular, and at least one visit was organized. Furthermore, as soon as the issue of the family reunification was clarified, the authorities ensured that the children were reunited. For these reasons, the ECHR considered the complaint as manifestly ill-founded.


Ricongiungimento familiare CGUE, sentenza 5 maggio 2022, Subdelegación del Gobierno en Toledo c. XU e QP, cause riunite C‑451/19 e C‑532/1

L’articolo 20 TFUE deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso osta a che uno Stato membro respinga una domanda di ricongiungimento familiare presentata a favore di un cittadino di un paese terzo, familiare di un cittadino dell’Unione che possiede la cittadinanza di tale Stato membro e che non ha mai esercitato la sua libertà di circolazione, per il solo motivo che tale cittadino dell’Unione non dispone, per se stesso e per detto familiare, di risorse sufficienti affinché non divenga un onere a carico dell’assistenza sociale nazionale, senza che si sia esaminato se sussista un rapporto di dipendenza tra detto cittadino dell’Unione e detto familiare di natura tale da far sì che, in caso di diniego della concessione di un diritto di soggiorno derivato a quest’ultimo, il medesimo cittadino dell’Unione sarebbe costretto a lasciare il territorio dell’Unione europea considerato nel suo insieme e sarebbe in tal modo privato del godimento effettivo del contenuto essenziale dei diritti conferiti dal suo status di cittadino dell’Unione. L’articolo 20 TFUE deve essere interpretato nel senso, da un lato, che un rapporto di dipendenza, di natura tale da giustificare la concessione di un diritto di soggiorno derivato ai sensi di detto articolo, non sussiste per il solo motivo che il cittadino di uno Stato membro, maggiorenne e che non ha mai esercitato la sua libertà di circolazione, e il coniuge, maggiorenne e cittadino di un paese terzo, sono tenuti a convivere, in forza degli obblighi derivanti dal matrimonio secondo il diritto dello Stato membro di cui il cittadino dell’Unione ha la cittadinanza e nel quale è stato contratto il matrimonio e, dall’altro, che, qualora il cittadino dell’Unione sia minorenne, la valutazione della sussistenza di un rapporto di dipendenza, di natura tale da giustificare la concessione al genitore di detto minore, cittadino di un paese terzo, di un diritto di soggiorno derivato ai sensi del succitato articolo deve essere fondata sulla presa in considerazione, nell’interesse superiore del minore, dell’insieme delle circostanze del caso di specie. Qualora tale genitore coabiti stabilmente con l’altro genitore, cittadino dell’Unione, di detto minore, vi è la presunzione relativa che sussista un siffatto rapporto di dipendenza. L’articolo 20 TFUE deve essere interpretato nel senso che sussiste un rapporto di dipendenza, di natura tale da giustificare la concessione di un diritto di soggiorno derivato ai sensi di detto articolo a favore del figlio minorenne, cittadino di un paese terzo, del coniuge, a sua volta cittadino di un paese terzo, di un cittadino dell’Unione che non ha mai esercitato la sua libertà di circolazione qualora dall’unione tra tale cittadino dell’Unione e il coniuge sia nato un figlio, cittadino dell’Unione che non abbia mai esercitato la sua libertà di circolazione, e quest’ultimo si vedrebbe costretto a lasciare il territorio dell’Unione, considerato nel suo insieme, ove il figlio minorenne, cittadino di un paese terzo, fosse obbligato a lasciare il territorio dello Stato membro di cui trattasi.


Procedura di emersioneCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 9 maggio 2022, n. 3578

Il termine entro il quale deve essere concluso il procedimento avviato con l’istanza di emersione del rapporto di lavoro irregolare è di 180 giorni, trattandosi di materia esclusa dall’intero sistema dei termini per il procedimento amministrativo previsto dai tre commi dell’art. 2, l. n. 241/1990, a maggior ragione da quello più breve previsto dal secondo comma. Infatti, l’ultimo periodo del quarto comma della disposizione citata riguardante i soli procedimenti in materia di cittadinanza e immigrazione, nel non subordinare la sua applicazione a condizioni procedurali espresse e specifiche, rivela una immediata e incondizionata portata applicativa, nel senso che non occorre l’emanazione di disposizioni regolamentari affinché si ritenga senz’altro applicabile il termine di 180 giorni per la durata del procedimento. 


Protezione specialeTrib. Roma, ordinanza 2 maggio 2022

Non è preclusa la possibilità di richiedere in via diretta alla Questura il riconoscimento della protezione speciale, alla luce della circolare della Commissione Nazionale per il Diritto di Asilo emessa nel luglio del 2021. Inoltre, in base all’art. 5, co. 9, TUI, ogniqualvolta rifiuti il rilascio o il rinnovo di un permesso di soggiorno (nel caso di specie si trattava di una domanda di conversione del permesso di soggiorno per motivi umanitari in permesso di lavoro), l’autorità amministrativa è tenuta a verificare se sussistano i requisiti di un permesso di soggiorno a diverso titolo. Ai fini del riconoscimento della protezione speciale ex art. 32, co. 3, d.lgs. n. 25/2008, alla luce dell’art. 19 TUI, rientra tra le ipotesi di inespellibilità il caso in cui l’allontanamento del cittadino straniero dal territorio nazionale possa dare luogo a una violazione del suo diritto alla vita privata e familiare sancito dall’art. 8 CEDU; diritto che alla luce della giurisprudenza nazionale (in particolare Cass., Sez. Un., n. 24413/2021) e sovranazionale concerne l’intera rete delle relazioni familiari, ma anche affettivi e sociali, lavorative e più genericamente economiche che il richiedente ha costruito in Italia.


EstradizioneECtHR, Grand Chamber, Judgment of 29 April 2022, Khasanov and Rakhmanov v. Russia, Applications nos. 28492/15 and 49975/15 

The case concerned two Kyrgyz nationals who were charged in absentia of crimes relating to the 2010 violence in southern Kyrgyzstan, while living in Russia. Both applicants complained that due to their Uzbek ethnicity, they risked persecution and ill-treatment if extradited to Kyrgyzstan. In its analysis, the Court firstly clarified that in a case regarding an extradition, Contracting States have an obligation to both cooperate in international criminal matters and to respect the absolute nature of the prohibition under Article 3 of the Convention, and so claims of ill-treatment must be subject to the same level of scrutiny regardless of the legal reasons for the removal. It continued that this assessment should focus on the foreseeable consequences of the applicant’s removal in light of both the general situation there and their personal circumstances. Regarding the general situation for ethnic Uzbeks in Kyrgyzstan, the Court noted that although the ethnic clashes in 2010 resulted in a heightened risk of ill-treatment for ethnic Uzbeks, recent reports no longer suggested that this was the case. It elaborated that although concerns remain regarding the insufficient action by Kyrgyz authorities to prevent torture and ill-treatment, the available international material does not show that the general situation has deteriorated in such a way as to preclude all removals and extraditions to Kyrgyzstan. It thus determined that there was no basis for concluding that ethnic Uzbeks constituted a group who are still systematically exposed to ill-treatment. The Court then turned to the examination of the personal circumstances of the applicants and their claims that the charges brought against them were related to their ethnicity. In regards to the first applicant who was charged with aggravated misappropriation, the Court considered that no solid evidence had been presented in support of the ethnic bias underlying him and that the charges against him were sufficiently detailed. It therefore held that as none of the first applicant’s assertions were supported by evidence or reached beyond the level of speculation, an existence of a real, individual risk of ill-treatment could not be reliably demonstrated.  The second applicant according to the Court had failed to substantiate similar assertions or to reasonably account for his repeated travel to and from Kyrgyzstan after June 2010. The Court therefore considered that the Russian courts had engaged with their Convention obligations by carefully and appropriately examining the existence of the individual risks capable of preventing the applicant’s extradition. It thereby concluded that the applicants had failed to demonstrate the existence of ulterior political or ethnic motives behind their charges or further special distinguishing features which would expose them to a real risk of ill-treatment and that therefore the applicants’ rights under Article 3 would not be violated in the event of their extradition to Kyrgyzstan. 


Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, 2 maggio 2022, n. 3505

Non appare condivisibile la tesi secondo cui l’art. 26, comma 3, TUI, facendo riferimento al lavoratore autonomo e al relativo reddito, impone di considerare il limite di reddito di €. 36.151,98 ai fini del rilascio e del rinnovo del titolo di soggiorno in quanto, così come ritenuto dalla giurisprudenza del Consiglio di Stato, ed anche di questa Sezione, il predetto articolo deve essere letto alla luce dell’art 39 del DPR n. 394/99 (regolamento attuativo del TUI) che differenzia, riducendolo, il requisito di reddito previsto al momento del rinnovo del titolo di soggiorno. In particolare, la soglia di reddito annuo richiesta per il rilascio del primo permesso di soggiorno per motivi di lavoro autonomo può essere espressamente fissata in una misura più alta rispetto a quella fissata per il lavoro dipendente, secondo una ragionevole logica di cautela, in presenza di una minore garanzia circa la futura stabilità dell’attività lavorativa e del conseguente reddito, maggiormente esposti agli effetti della libera iniziativa dell’interessato ed alle fluttuazioni di mercato rispetto al lavoro dipendente. Una tale ragione viene però meno al momento in cui il lavoratore extracomunitario, ormai presente da tempo nel contesto nazionale, deve procedere al rinnovo, confermando le proprie attitudini quanto ad impegno e capacità lavorativa e garantendo che non sarà un peso per la comunità, mediante la dimostrazione di essere stato fino a quel momento, storicamente, munito di un reddito ritenuto (anche in visione prospettica) adeguato alle sue esigenze ed a quelle del suo nucleo famigliare. Al momento del rinnovo del titolo la soglia di reddito ritenuta adeguata alla sussistenza del lavoratore potrà quindi considerare, se del caso, le ulteriori esigenze derivanti dal ricongiungimento dell’eventuale nucleo famigliare ma, essendo riferita ad un dato storico riferito al periodo trascorso, non potrà essere differenziata secondo il tipo di lavoro, autonomo ovvero dipendente, che svolgerà in futuro (e che in futuro potrebbe anche variare) senza causare una irragionevole e quindi inammissibile disparità di trattamento. Ne consegue che il reddito minimo da considerare ai fini del rinnovo del titolo nella fattispecie in esame non poteva differenziarsi da quello previsto dall’art 26, comma 3, TUI (pari ad Euro 8.263,31) ai fini del rilascio del titolo per lavoro dipendente, ovvero dal diverso e ancora minore reddito minimo “non inferiore alla capitalizzazione, su base annua, di un importo mensile pari all’assegno sociale” (pari ad €. 5.830,75) previsto dall’art. 39, comma 3, del DPR n. 394/99 per il rinnovo del medesimo titolo.


Procedura di emersioneTAR Toscana, sez. I, sentenza 9 maggio 2022, n. 635

Ai sensi dell’art. 103, comma 1, del d.l. n. 34 del 2020, sono legittimati a presentare la domanda di regolarizzazione i datori di lavoro di cittadinanza italiana, i cittadini di uno Stato UE, oppure gli stranieri titolari del permesso di soggiorno UE per soggiornanti di lungo periodo. Si tratta tuttavia di un requisito (di cittadinanza/titolarità di permesso di soggiorno di lungo periodo) che, come evidenziato dal ricorrente, è riferibile solo alle persone fisiche datrici di lavoro ma non alle persone giuridiche, e nella fattispecie, ad una società di capitali che è un soggetto giuridico diverso rispetto ai soci e al legale rappresentante. Infatti, l’esistenza di uno stabile collegamento con il territorio dello Stato nel caso delle società potrebbe essere evinta da altri criteri — quali la sede legale (nella fattispecie comunque presente in Italia), la residenza fiscale della società o lo svolgimento dell’attività di impresa nel territorio dello Stato mediante stabile organizzazione — che non sono stati presi in considerazione dall’art. 103 del d.l. n. 34 del 2020, il quale, riferendosi alla cittadinanza/titolarità del permesso di soggiorno di lungo periodo, è appunto calibrato solo sui datori di lavoro che siano persone fisiche. Pertanto, per le persone giuridiche, dotate di propria autonomia soggettiva e patrimoniale, l’unico requisito da valutare ai fini della procedura di emersione in questione è la capacità reddituale per l’assunzione di un nuovo dipendente.


Permesso di soggiornoTAR Piemonte, sez. I, sentenza 5 maggio 2022, n. 424

Al compimento della maggiore età, lo straniero che ha fatto ingresso in Italia come minore non accompagnato può accedere al rilascio tout court di un titolo di soggiorno a prescindere dal previo conseguimento del permesso per minori nel rispetto delle condizioni dettate dall’art. 32 TUI, spettando inoltre all’Amministrazione acquisire il parere del Comitato per i minori stranieri, in applicazione dei principi generali dell’attività amministrativa.


Immigrazione clandestinaCass. pen., sez. I, sentenza 21 aprile 2022, n. 1556

Sussiste la giurisdizione italiana nel procedimento penale che vede imputato lo scafista straniero: (i) per aver procurato l’ingresso illegale di oltre 300 migranti tratti in salvo dai soccorritori e trasportati in Italia a seguito del naufragio in alto mare del peschereccio privo di bandiera che li trasportava, nonché (ii) per morte come conseguenza di altro delitto (art. 586 c.p.). Per quanto riguarda il reato di procurato ingresso illecito nel territorio dello Stato di cittadini extracomunitari, vale ad attestare la giurisdizione italiana il fatto che la traversata in mare di una imbarcazione sovraffollata e priva delle condizioni di sicurezza
rendeva ampiamente prevedibile l’eventualità, nel corso della navigazione, di un malfunzionamento o di un problema di altra natura ma, comunque, tale da richiedere ausilio in mare da parte di terzi.


EspulsioneCass. pen., sez. III, 11 maggio 2022, n. 18523

L’applicazione della misura dell’espulsione dello straniero che ha commesso reati in materia di stupefacenti (art. 86 d.P.R. n. 309/1990) richiede sia di accertarne previamente e in concreto la pericolosità sociale in conformità all’art. 8 CEDU in relazione all’art. 117 Cost., sia di procedere all’esame comparativo della sua condizione familiare con i criteri di valutazione di cui all’art. 133 c.p., adottando la prospettiva di bilanciamento tra interesse generale alla sicurezza sociale e interesse del singolo alla vita familiare.

EspulsioneECtHR, Akkad v. Türkiye, Judgement of 21 June 2022, Application no.1557/19

This case concerned the applicant’s allegation that he had been subjected to forced and unlawful expulsion to Syria by the Turkish authorities under the guise of a “voluntary return”. In 2018 the applicant – who had a valid residence permit in Türkiye and had been granted “temporary protection” status – was arrested near the Meriç river while attempting to enter Greece. He was removed to Syria two days later. The Court held, unanimously, that there had been two violations of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights: (1) on account of the applicant’s removal to Syria, and (2) on account of the handcuffing of the applicant during his transfer from Edirne to Hatay. Furthermore, the Court found that substantial grounds had been shown for believing that the applicant faced a real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 in Syria and that the Turkish authorities had exposed him, in full knowledge of the facts, to the risk of treatment in breach of the Convention. The Court of Strasbourg also held that the handcuffing of the applicant – in pairs with other single Syrian men during a bus journey lasting around 20 hours – amounted to degrading treatment. Moreover, the Court stated that there had been a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) taken in conjunction with Article 3, on account of the applicant’s inability to challenge his removal to Syria. The Court noted that the Turkish authorities had denied the applicant the opportunity to make use of the remedies provided for by Turkish law in order to challenge his forced return to Syria. In addition, the Court stated that there had been a violation of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 4 and 5 (right to liberty and security) as well. Indeed, the Court found that the applicant had been deprived of his liberty from the time of his arrest close to the Greek border at Meriç until his removal to Syria. It noted that the legal safeguards provided for by domestic law in relation to the detention of persons facing expulsion had not been complied with.


Accordo Regno Unito/Ruanda ECtHR, press release 14 June 2022 concerning the application of an interim measure, K.N. v. the United Kingdom, Application no. 28774/22

On 13 April 2022 the UK Government entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of the Republic of Rwanda for an asylum partnership arrangement. Under that arrangement, asylum seekers whose claims were not being considered by the UK could be relocated to Rwanda. The applicant, K.N., an Iraqi national, left his country in April 2022, and, alleging that he was in danger in Iraq, he claimed asylum upon arrival in the UK. On 24 May 2022 the applicant was served with a “Notice of Intent” indicating that the authorities were considering deeming his asylum claim in the UK inadmissible and relocating him to Rwanda. On 27 May 2022 a medical doctor in the Immigration Removal Centre issued a report indicating that the applicant might have been a victim of torture. On 6 June 2022 K.N. was notified that his asylum claim had been deemed inadmissible. He was served with removal directions to Rwanda for 14 June 2022. The UK High Court refused to grant the applicant’s request for interim relief, either by preventing the relocation of all asylum seekers to Rwanda under the asylum partnership agreement or by preventing the applicant’s removal there. It assumed that Rwanda would comply with the Memorandum of Understanding, even though it was not legally binding, but in any event, it considered that the interim period was likely to be short (it plans to hear the applicant’s judicial review challenge in July) and it found that if the applicant’s judicial review challenge was successful, he could be returned to the UK. In examining the request for an interim measure, the European Court decides to indicate to the Government of the United Kingdom, under Rule 39, that the applicant should not be removed until the expiry of a period of three weeks following the delivery of the final domestic decision in the ongoing judicial review proceedings. The Court has regard to the concerns that asylum-seekers transferred from the United Kingdom to Rwanda will not have access to fair and efficient procedures for the determination of refugee status as well as the finding by the High Court that the question whether the decision to treat Rwanda as a safe third country is irrational or based on insufficient enquiry gives rise to “serious triable issues”. In light of the resulting risk of treatment contrary to the applicant’s Convention rights as well as the fact that Rwanda is outside the Convention legal space – and the absence of any legally enforceable mechanism for the applicant’s return to the United Kingdom in the event of a successful merits challenge before the domestic courts – the Court decides to grant this interim measure to prevent the applicant’s removal until the domestic courts have the opportunity to first consider those issues.


Brexit e cittadinanza UE CGUE, sentenza 9 giugno 2022, E.P. c. Préfet du Gers and Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques, C-673/20

Il giudice del rinvio, con ricorso in via pregiudiziale alla Corte di Giustizia dell’Unione europea, chiede se i cittadini britannici che hanno trasferito la loro residenza in uno Stato membro prima della fine del periodo di transizione previsto dall’accordo di recesso continuino a beneficiare dello status di cittadino dell’Unione e, più nello specifico, del diritto di voto e di eleggibilità alle elezioni comunali nel loro Stato membro di residenza. Se così non fosse, tale giudice invita la Corte a valutare, in particolare alla luce del principio di proporzionalità, la validità dell’accordo di recesso. Con tale sentenza, la Corte di giustizia risponde che, dal momento del recesso del Regno Unito dall’Unione europea, il 1° febbraio 2020, i cittadini di tale Stato che hanno trasferito la loro residenza in uno Stato membro prima della fine del periodo di transizione non beneficiano più dello status di cittadino dell’Unione né, in particolare, del diritto di voto e di eleggibilità alle elezioni comunali nel loro Stato membro di residenza, anche qualora siano altresì privati, in forza del diritto dello Stato di cui sono cittadini, del diritto di voto alle elezioni indette da quest’ultimo Stato. La Corte ricorda che la cittadinanza dell’Unione richiede il possesso della cittadinanza di uno Stato membro. Mentre la cittadinanza dell’Unione conferisce ai cittadini dell’Unione residenti in uno Stato membro di cui non sono cittadini il diritto di voto e di eleggibilità alle elezioni comunali nello Stato membro in cui risiedono, alle stesse condizioni dei cittadini di quest’ultimo Stato membro, nessuna disposizione dei trattati sancisce, invece, tale diritto a favore dei cittadini di Stati terzi. Di conseguenza, la circostanza che un singolo, quando lo Stato di cui è cittadino era uno Stato membro, abbia trasferito la propria residenza nel territorio di un altro Stato membro non è idonea a consentirgli di conservare lo status di cittadino dell’Unione e l’insieme dei diritti ad esso collegati dal diritto dell’Unione se, a seguito del recesso del suo Stato di origine dall’Unione, egli non è più in possesso della cittadinanza di uno Stato membro.  Poiché i cittadini del Regno Unito sono, dal 1° febbraio 2020, cittadini di uno Stato terzo, essi hanno perso, da tale data, lo status di cittadino dell’Unione. Pertanto, non beneficiano più del diritto di voto e di eleggibilità alle elezioni comunali nel loro Stato membro di residenza. Si tratta di una conseguenza automatica della sola decisione sovrana adottata dal Regno Unito di recedere dall’Unione.


Permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 1° giugno 2022, n. 4467

Di norma, la legittimità del provvedimento impugnato va appurata al momento della sua adozione, in quanto sono irrilevanti le circostanze sopravvenute. Tuttavia, nell’ambito dell’immigrazione, il giudizio amministrativo viene in considerazione quale giudizio sulla situazione giuridica soggettiva e non solo sull’atto impugnato; proprio per tali motivi, è necessario compiere una valutazione approfondita anche degli elementi verificatesi nel periodo di tempo che intercorre tra l’istanza presentata, il suo esame da parte dell’amministrazione e il giudizio dinanzi al giudice, soprattutto nel caso in cui emergano elementi per il riconoscimento di un differente titolo di soggiorno. Invero, tali elementi di certo non possono intaccare la legittimità formale dell’atto, ma possono comunque incidere sulla situazione giuridica dell’interessato, la quale può essere irrimediabilmente compromessa nel caso in cui siffatti elementi non vengano esaminati, arrecando pregiudizi significativi ai diritti fondamentali dell’individuo. Il Consiglio di Stato, pertanto, afferma che la P.A. nell’esercizio del suo potere, deve tenere in conto tutte le circostanze sopravvenute, le quali – anche se non conoscibili perché non sussistenti al momento dell’adozione dell’atto – comunque hanno modificato la situazione giuridica dell’interessato e potrebbero essere in grado di condurre a un diverso esito del procedimento.


Accesso civico e accordi internazionali di cooperazioneCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza non definitiva 10 giugno 2022, n. 4735

Ai fini della decisione sull’azione volta alla tutela del diritto di accesso civico agli accordi internazionali di cooperazione  in materia di controllo delle frontiere, la lotta al traffico di migranti e all’immigrazione clandestina tra Italia e Gambia, l’eventuale natura politica e non amministrativa di tale tipologia di accordi non rileva ai fini della sottrazione di suddetta azione dalla giurisdizione amministrativa. Siffatta esclusione è, infatti, prevista per gli atti politici dall’art. 7, comma 1, seconda parte del codice di procedura amministrativa, e riguarda l’impugnazione dei medesimi atti politici, ossia il sindacato giurisdizionale sull’esercizio del potere politico e sul suo mancato esercizio; tale sindacato, tuttavia, come sottolineato dai giudici amministrativi, non è esercitato nell’ipotesi di azione volta alla tutela del diritto di accesso civico.


Detenzione in zone di transito ECtHR, H.M. and Others v. Hungary, Judgement of 2 June 2022, Application no. 38967/17

The applicants are an Iraqi couple, born in 1978 and 1980, and four of their children who were born between 2001 and 2013. The applicant family left Iraq after the father had allegedly been tortured by the national security services. After travelling through several countries, they arrived at the Tompa transit zone at the border between Hungary and Serbia and submitted asylum requests. At the transit zone, they were housed in a container in the family section which they were only allowed to leave in order to attend medical or other appointments, and always under police escort. The mother was pregnant and, as there were some complications, her pregnancy was considered to be high risk. She had to be taken into hospital several times. On one such occasion, ten days after their arrival in the transit zone, her husband went with her and was handcuffed and attached to a leash in full view of their children. He was made to remain in handcuffs throughout the hospital visit while acting as interpreter for his wife. The applicants complained about the conditions and the unlawfulness of their confinement and the way they had been treated in the transit zone. The Court considered that, while the mother appeared to have received the necessary medical attention, the constraints she had suffered throughout her advanced stage of pregnancy had to have caused anxiety and mental health issues which, given her vulnerability, were serious enough to engage Article 3 of the Convention. As regards the children, in keeping with previous case-law, the Court found a violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions they had faced during their more than four-month-long stay in the transit zone. The Court found that, in contrast to the mother, the father had been no more vulnerable than any other adult asylum-seeker confined to the transit zone. However, the fact that he had been handcuffed and publicly attached to a leash on one occasion was humiliating. The key was to determine whether the use of restraints had been necessary, as resorting to physical force when it was not called for diminished human dignity and was in principle an infringement of the rights set forth under Article 3 of the Convention. The Court found that the applicants had been detained in the transit zone as a matter of course, and not due to a legal decision depriving them of their liberty. It concluded therefore that the use of handcuffs and leash had not been “imposed in connection with lawful arrest or detention” and that there was no basis to think that the measure had been justified. For those reasons, the Court considered that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention also in the father’s case. Moreover, in accordance with its previous case-law, the Court found that the family’s stay for over four months in the transit zone had amounted to deprivation of liberty. It concluded that their detention could not be considered “lawful” and that it had not been possible for them to have their situation examined in a timely way by a court. There had therefore been a violation of Article 5, §1 and §4 of the Convention.


Ricongiungimento familiare ECtHR, Bahoumou Totopa contre l’Espagne, Décision du 2 juin 2022, Requête no. 74048/17

Le 2 juin 2022, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a publié une décision rejetant la requête d’une mère qui invoquait une violation du droit à la vie familiale et l’absence de recours effectif (articles 8 et 13 de la Convention) en raison du retard dans le regroupement familial avec son fils après son arrivée en Espagne. Après avoir introduit sa demande, elle a pu retrouver de facto son fils. Pour cette raison, la Cour a considéré que la réunification de l’enfant avec la requérante constitue un remède adéquat au grief tiré de l’article 8 de la Convention. Concernant l’article 13, la Cour a jugé qu’elle n’avait pas épuisé toutes les voies de recours internes disponibles pour demander une indemnisation à l’administration publique.


Rilascio di documenti di viaggio — ECtHR, Judgment 14 June 2022, L.B. v. Lithuania, Application no. 38121/20

The applicant, a Russian national of Chechen origin, came to Lithuania in 2001 and was granted subsidiary protection on several occasions between 2004 and 2008, in view of the ongoing war and widespread human rights violations in the Chechen Republic. His applications for asylum were refused. In 2008 he obtained a permanent residence permit on the grounds of his uninterrupted lawful residence in Lithuania for five years. Earlier, in 2004, he was also issued with an alien’s passport. Each time this expired he was issued with a new one until 2018. The Lithuanian authorities then rejected his requests for the issuance of a such a passport finding that he had not met one of the three conditions under the relevant law, namely that he had been unable, for objective reasons, to obtain a valid passport or equivalent travel document from the authorities of his country of origin. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the domestic courts. The Court states that there had been an interference with the applicant’s right to freedom of movement. In particular, even though according to the relevant EU law, the applicant, being a permanent resident of Lithuania, had had the right to cross the borders between EU Member States without a travel document; such a document might, under certain circumstances, be necessary even when travelling within the Schengen zone. Moreover, without a valid travel document he had been precluded from going to countries outside the Schengen zone and outside the EU, including the United Kingdom where his children lived. Moreover, in the present case, the Lithuanian’s authorities had not sought to restrict the applicant from going abroad; their refusal to issue him with an alien’s passport had been based on the fact that he could have obtained a travel document from the Russian authorities. The Court notes that, the Lithuanian authorities had acknowledged during a certain period of time and on a number of occasions, that the applicant could not safely return to his country of origin. Following the last such decision in 2008, the applicant had availed himself of the opportunity provided by law to obtain a more favourable residence permit. Therefore, the interruption in the regular granting of subsidiary protection to the applicant had resulted from circumstances unrelated to the situation in his country of origin or the reasons for which he had previously sought that status. Indeed, at no point had the domestic authorities decided, after assessing the situation in the applicant’s country of origin and his individual circumstances, that he had no longer been in need of subsidiary protection and that he could have approached the Russian authorities without fear. Further, significant importance had been given to the fact that the applicant’s requests to grant him refugee status had been rejected and that he had not demonstrated any persecution directed at him personally. His claim, however, that he had been afraid to contact the Russian authorities, owing to the reasons for which he had previously been granted subsidiary protection, had not been adequately addressed in the domestic proceedings. Moreover, Lithuanian law had since acknowledged, albeit at a time when it no longer availed the applicant, that beneficiaries of subsidiary protection might have a well-founded fear to contact their national authorities; such fear was now considered an objective reason for not being able to obtain a travel document from those authorities. In addition, for nearly ten years the Lithuanian authorities had accepted that the applicant had been unable to obtain a passport from the Russian authorities. Although the Government maintained that the subsequent refusal to issue him with a travel document had been based on the changed practice of the Russian authorities regarding the issuance of passports to Russian nationals residing abroad, there was no indication that the Lithuanian authorities had assessed whether that possibility had been accessible in practice to the applicant in the light of his individual circumstances, including the fact that he had lived in Lithuania for almost twenty years and had not had any valid Russian identity documents during that entire time. Consequently, the Court states that the refusal to issue the applicant with an alien’s passport had been taken without carrying out a balancing exercise and without ensuring that such a measure had been justified and proportionate in his individual situation.


TAR Veneto, sez. I, 6 giugno 2022, n. 932

In materia di emersione, l’indicazione nelle FAQ ministeriali dello straniero familiare di cittadino UE tra i datori di lavoro abilitati all’inoltro dell’istanza non è idonea a creare un legittimo affidamento nel soggetto familiare di cittadino UE ma titolare di un permesso di durata limitata a cinque anni. L’art. 103, co. 1, d.l. n. 34/2020 è infatti chiaro nel richiedere al datore di lavoro il possesso di un permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo, oppure la cittadinanza italiana o di uno Stato membro UE. In generale, le FAQ non possono in alcun modo integrare o modificare il testo normativo e non sono nemmeno idonee a fondare un legittimo affidamento laddove siano chiaramente contrarie allo stringente dettato normativo. Di conseguenza, non è possibile nemmeno censurare il provvedimento impugnato per difetto di motivazione, trattandosi di diniego vincolato in considerazione di quanto sopra indicato.


TAR Emilia-Romagna, sez. I, sentenza 6 giugno 2022, n. 484

La disposizione di cui all’art. 9, co. 1, TUI è chiara nel rinviare unicamente alla legislazione regionale per gli alloggi di edilizia residenziale pubblica ai fini della determinazione dei parametri minimi di idoneità dell’alloggio. Di conseguenza, la P.A non può negare il permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo in forza di una circolare ministeriale che, ai fini dell’idoneità alloggiativa per il nucleo familiare, impone di tener conto anche dei figli minori conviventi, laddove gli stessi non siano computabili per la normativa regionale.


Emersione TAR Lombardia, sezione staccata di Brescia, sez. I, ordinanza 10 giugno 2022, n. 427

La P.A. ha il compito di riesaminare l’istanza di emersione rigettata “automaticamente” in applicazione di un atto di indirizzo che fissa al 1° gennaio 2018 la data a partire dalla quale possono essere considerate valide le prove della presenza dello straniero in Italia in data anteriore all’8 marzo 2020 (si veda anche la nota prefettizia n. 31188 del 26 aprile 2021). Nel caso di specie, il locale Sportello Unico per l’Immigrazione aveva rigettato l’istanza di emersione dei ricorrenti perché, in base al già menzionato atto di indirizzo, non sarebbe stato dimostrato il soggiorno della straniera ricorrente in Italia precedentemente all’8 marzo 2020, in quanto la ricorrente avrebbe prodotto certificazione medica datata 17 gennaio 2017 e, pertanto, troppo risalente nel tempo. Tuttavia, la ricorrente, all’esito del preavviso di rigetto, avrebbe integrato detta certificazione con ulteriori documenti. Il giudice amministrativo stabilisce che la data della certificazione medica prodotta non sembra, allo stato, da sola idonea ad escludere il soggiorno della ricorrente in Italia prima del 8 marzo 2020. Inoltre, l’onere motivazionale dell’Amministrazione sul punto non può limitarsi a un mero richiamo a un atto di indirizzo (a sua volta non puntualmente motivato) ma deve essere adeguatamente circostanziato in relazione alle peculiarità della vicenda in esame. I giudici amministrativi, pertanto, ordinano all’Amministrazione di riaprire il procedimento e di concluderlo nel termine di 60 giorni dalla comunicazione dall’ordinanza in esame con l’adozione di un nuovo provvedimento espresso e congruamente motivato, eventualmente preceduto da un’integrazione istruttoria, da cui si desuma per quali motivi – ulteriori rispetto alla sola data dell’attestazione prodotta – la P.A.  ritenga indimostrato l’utile soggiorno in Italia della ricorrente prima del giorno 8 marzo 2020.

Espulsioni collettiveECtHR, A.B. and Others Poland, Judgement 30 June 2022, Application no. 42907/17

The present case concerned six Russian nationals from Chechnya who travelled to the Polish-Belarusian border crossing at Terespol on twenty-four occasions. According to them, on each occasion they expressed a wish to lodge an application for international protection. According to the applicants, when talking to the border guards they expressed fears for their safety. They told the border guards that they were from Chechnya, highlighting that they could not remain in Belarus and that it would be impossible for them to obtain international protection there. The border guards then summarily turned them away, sending them back to Belarus. Regarding Article 3 of the Convention, the Court noted that there was no guarantee that their asylum applications would be seriously examined by the Belarusian authorities and that their return to Chechnya could violate the Convention. Indeed, according to the Court, the assessment of those claims should have been carried out by the Polish authorities acting in compliance with their procedural obligations under Article 3 of the Convention. Moreover, the Polish State was under an obligation to ensure the applicants’ safety, in particular by allowing them to remain within Polish jurisdiction until such time as their claims had been properly reviewed by a competent domestic authority. The Court concluded that the decisions refusing entry into Poland issued in the applicants’ case were not taken with proper regard to the individual situation of each of the applicants and were part of a wider policy of not receiving applications for international protection from persons presenting themselves at the Polish-Belarusian border and of returning those persons to Belarus, in violation of domestic and international law. According to the Court, this kind of decisions constituted a collective expulsion of aliens within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4.


Respingimenti ECtHR, Safi and Others v. Greece, Judgement of 7 July 2022, Application no. 5418/15

The application was lodged by a group of 16 applicants, and it concerned the sinking in 2014 of a fishing boat transporting 27 foreign nationals in the Aegean Sea, off the island of Farmakonisi. The applicants were on board the boat, the sinking of which resulted in the death of 11 people, including relatives of the applicants.  According to the applicants, the coastguard vessel was travelling at very high speed in order to push the refugees back towards Turkish waters, and this caused the fishing boat to capsize. According to the national authorities, the boat was being towed towards the island of Farmakonisi to rescue the refugees, and it capsized because of panic and sudden movements among those on board. The Court observed that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the coastguards involved in the events in question. Such proceedings were in principle capable of shedding light on the circumstances of the case and leading to the establishment of the facts and, where appropriate, the punishment of those responsible. However, in the Court’s view, it was highly questionable whether the applicants had been able to participate properly in the proceedings, which had concerned extremely serious events, without the recordings they had requested. In the Court’s point of view, these were obvious lines of inquiry which had not been pursued, thus undermining the ability of the investigation to determine the exact circumstances in which the boat had sunk. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention under its procedural head in respect of all the applicants. In addition, the Court noted that the Government had not provided any explanation as to the specific omissions and delays in the present case and that serious questions arose as to the manner in which the operation had been conducted and organised. There had therefore been a violation of that Article 2 in respect of all the applicants. Regarding Article 3 of the Convention, the Court found that the search could have caused these applicants to experience feelings of arbitrariness, inferiority and anxiety resulting in a degree of humiliation exceeding the – unavoidable and hence tolerable – level that strip-searches inevitably involved. It concluded that the search that these applicants had undergone in such circumstances had amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.


Situazioni di emergenza e afflusso massiccio di stranieriCGUE, sentenza 30 giugno 2022, M.A. c. Valstybės sienos apsaugos tarnyba, C-72/222 PPU

La Corte di Lussemburgo, pronunciandosi nell’ambito di un procedimento pregiudiziale d’urgenza, ha stabilito che gli articoli 6 e l’articolo 7, paragrafo 1, della direttiva 2013/32/UE (c.d. Direttiva Procedure) non permettono alla normativa di uno Stato membro –  in caso di dichiarazione dello stato di guerra o dello stato di emergenza o in caso di proclamazione di una situazione di emergenza a causa di un afflusso massiccio di stranieri – di consentire che i cittadini di paesi terzi, i quali si trovano in situazione di soggiorno irregolare, possano essere effettivamente privati della possibilità di avere accesso, nel territorio di tale Stato membro, alla procedura di esame di una domanda di protezione internazionale. Inoltre, la Corte ha stabilito che l’articolo 8, paragrafi 2 e 3, della direttiva 2013/33/UE (c.d. Direttiva Accoglienza) osta alla normativa di uno Stato membro secondo la quale, in caso della soprammenzionata dichiarazione, un richiedente asilo può essere trattenuto per il solo motivo di trovarsi in una situazione di soggiorno irregolare nel territorio di tale Stato membro.


Cura della prole in diversi Stati membriCGUE, sentenza 7 luglio 2022, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Périodes d’éducation d’enfants à l’étranger), causa C-576/20

Dopo aver svolto un’attività autonoma in Austria, CC si è stabilita in Belgio, dove ha dato alla luce due figli. Fin dalla nascita del primo figlio, si è dedicata alla loro cura, senza esercitare alcuna attività lavorativa, senza maturare alcun periodo di assicurazione e senza percepire prestazioni per la loro cura. Al suo ritorno in Austria, CC ha continuato a prendersi cura dei figli per tredici mesi, rimanendo al contempo iscritta obbligatoriamente e versando contributi al regime previdenziale austriaco. Ha poi lavorato e versato contributi in tale Stato membro fino al suo pensionamento. A seguito della sua richiesta di concessione di una prestazione di pensionamento, l’ufficio pensionistico austriaco le ha riconosciuto tale diritto. I periodi di cura della prole svolti in Austria sono stati equiparati a periodi di assicurazione e presi in considerazione ai fini del calcolo dell’importo della sua pensione, mentre quelli maturati in Belgio e in Ungheria, invece, non sono stati presi in considerazione. CC ha contestato tale decisione sostenendo che i periodi dedicati alla cura della prole maturati in altri Stati membri dovevano essere assimilati a periodi di assicurazione sulla base dell’articolo 21 TFUE, il quale istituisce il diritto alla libera circolazione dei cittadini dell’Unione, dal momento che ella lavorava ed era iscritta alla previdenza sociale austriaca prima e dopo tali periodi. La Corte di Lussemburgo, analizzando a fondo il regolamento n. 987/2009 in materia di coordinamento dei sistemi di sicurezza sociale, ha affermato che l’interpretazione secondo cui le disposizioni di tale regolamento disciplinerebbero la presa in considerazione dei periodi di cura della prole maturati in diversi Stati membri in via esclusiva equivarrebbe a consentire allo Stato membro debitore della pensione di vecchiaia di una persona – all’interno del quale quest’ultima ha esclusivamente lavorato e versato contributi – di negare la presa in considerazione dei periodi di cura della prole maturati da tale persona in un altro Stato membro e, pertanto, di porla in una situazione di svantaggio per il solo fatto di aver esercitato il proprio diritto alla libera circolazione. Una siffatta interpretazione sarebbe quindi contraria agli obiettivi perseguiti da tale regolamento, in particolare alla finalità di garantire il rispetto del principio della libera circolazione, sancito all’articolo 21 TFUE, e rischierebbe così di mettere a repentaglio l’effetto utile delle disposizioni di tale regolamento. In tal senso, la Corte rileva che, laddove una lavoratrice abbia versato la contribuzione nel solo Stato membro di residenza, tale paese è tenuto a prendere in considerazione i periodi di cura della prole dalla stessa maturati in altri Stati membri.


Lo straniero (o l’apolide) che, in conseguenza del matrimonio con un cittadino italiano, abbia maturato i requisiti legali per chiedere la cittadinanza, non può vedersi negare il relativo provvedimento a causa della morte del coniuge verificatasi nel corso del procedimento per il riconoscimento del suo diritto. Nella presente sentenza la Corte costituzionale ha dichiarato l’illegittimità dell’articolo 5 della legge 5 febbraio 1992, n. 91 “nella parte in cui non esclude, dal novero delle cause ostative al riconoscimento del diritto di cittadinanza, la morte del coniuge del richiedente, sopravvenuta in pendenza dei termini previsti per la conclusione del procedimento di cui al successivo articolo 7, comma 1”. Nella motivazione della sentenza, la Corte ha spiegato che è intrinsecamente irragionevole e, dunque, in contrasto con l’articolo 3 della Costituzione, negare la cittadinanza allo straniero (o all’apolide) sposato con un cittadino italiano ma rimasto vedovo dopo aver presentato l’istanza e prima della definizione del relativo procedimento. La morte è, infatti, un evento del tutto indipendente sia dalla sfera di controllo del richiedente sia dalla ragion d’essere dell’attribuzione della cittadinanza. Si legge, in particolare, nella sentenza della Corte, che, “la morte, pur se scioglie il vincolo matrimoniale, non fa venire meno, tuttavia, la pienezza delle tutele, privatistiche e pubblicistiche, fondate sull’aver fatto parte di una comunità̀ familiare, basata sulla solidarietà coniugale, e dunque non può inibire la spettanza di un diritto sostenuto dai relativi presupposti costitutivi”; tale è il diritto a ottenere la cittadinanza qualora siano maturati i prescritti requisiti di durata del matrimonio: due anni, se i coniugi risiedono in Italia, tre anni se risiedono all’estero, con un dimezzamento dei termini in presenza di figli. La norma che, dopo il decorso di questo periodo di tempo e dopo la presentazione dell’istanza di cittadinanza, ne inibisce il riconoscimento a causa dello scioglimento del vincolo matrimoniale derivante, durante il procedimento amministrativo, dalla morte del coniuge, è, dunque, del tutto irragionevole e risulta totalmente estranea anche all’esigenza di evitare possibili utilizzi strumentali del matrimonio.


Espulsione Cassazione penale, sez. I, sentenza 30 giugno 2022, n. 24973

L’art. 13, comma 13 T.U.I., incrimina la trasgressione al divieto di reingresso nel territorio nazionale, commessa da soggetto che ne sia stato espulso a seguito di provvedimento ritualmente adottato dall’Autorità amministrativa. La rinnovata espulsione, in tal caso, consegue necessariamente, e non all’esito di valutazione discrezionale, all’accertamento di penale responsabilità, o anche alla definizione del procedimento. Trattandosi di misura di obbligatoria adozione, è irrilevante, in questa seconda ipotesi, il fatto che essa fuoriesca dal perimetro dell’accordo, né è richiesta, almeno sull’an, alcuna specifica motivazione. Nel caso di specie sottoposto all’attenzione degli Ermellini, l’imputato era invece tratto a giudizio per il reato di cui all’art. 13, comma 13-bis, T.U.I., che incrimina la trasgressione al divieto di reingresso nel territorio nazionale, commessa da soggetto che ne sia stato espulso a seguito di rituale provvedimento giudiziale. Trattasi di fattispecie criminosa autonoma, distintamente sanzionata, che non contempla la sanzione accessoria dell’espulsione. La ratio della diversa previsione risiede nel fatto che, al rientro non autorizzato nel territorio nazionale, sono qui direttamente configurati meccanismi di reviviscenza della pena detentiva in origine sostituita, o cui era subentrata la sanzione alternativa.


Stupefacenti e rilascio/rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno Cons. Stato, sez. III, ordinanza 1° luglio 2022, n. 5492 

Con la presente ordinanza, il Consiglio di Stato ha rimesso alla Corte costituzionale la questione della legittimità della previsione che osta al rilascio/rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno in caso di condanna per ogni tipologia di reato in materia di stupefacenti, sulla base di una ritenuta violazione degli artt. 3 e 117 Costituzione, tale ultimo con riferimento all’art. 8 CEDU. Di fatto, il Collegio ha ravvisato nel meccanismo automatico previsto dall’art. 4, comma 3 del TUI, una violazione della Convenzione EDU. L’automatismo, secondo il collegio, non permetterebbe il necessario bilanciamento tra la condotta penalmente rilevante e tutte quelle circostanze che attengono alla vita privata per come tutelata dall’art. 8 CEDU e interpretata dalla Corte di Strasburgo. Il Consiglio ha ricordato che l’automatismo ha come unica eccezione la presenza sul territorio di legami familiari in assenza dei quali, quindi, la P.A. non deve valutare la pericolosità in concreto e non è tenuta a operare alcun bilanciamento. Tuttavia, nel caso di specie il ricorrente non aveva alcun legame familiare in Italia, ma il Supremo Giudice amministrativo ha ritenuto che, anche nell’ipotesi in oggetto, l’automatismo della previsione normativa sopracitata potesse comportare un pregiudizio nonché una violazione delle norme costituzionali e della CEDU, in quanto la disposizione in esame contrasterebbe con il canone di ragionevolezza e con quello di proporzionalità.


Rilascio del titolo di viaggioCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 13 luglio 2022, n. 05947

Il Consiglio di Stato ha stabilito che la rigorosa condizione per il rilascio del titolo di viaggio dell’aver lo straniero dimostrato di essere nell’impossibilità di ottenere un passaporto dalle autorità del suo paese non trova più giustificazione, posto che le categorie alle quali è riconosciuto ora il titolo di viaggio non sono più le «persone cui le Autorità Italiane riterranno opportuno rilasciare il detto titolo», ma sono espressamente coloro i quali sono titolari dello status di protezione sussidiaria (come si desume da direttiva n. 2004/83/CE e art. 10 e 11 Cost.) e coloro che sono titolari di status di protezione umanitaria (tutelati ex art. 10 Cost.). Di conseguenza, tale prova rigorosa non è più prevista: infatti l’art. 24 del D. Lgs. 251/2007 prevede solo «fondate ragioni che non consentono al titolare dello status di protezione sussidiaria di chiedere il passaporto alle autorità diplomatiche del Paese di cittadinanza». In particolare, l’impossibilità di avere contatti con il proprio paese non può essere intesa nel solo senso di ricomprendervi quei casi in cui il contatto o il rientro dello straniero nel proprio paese d’origine lo esporrebbe a gravi rischi per la propria incolumità ma deve essere ritenuto elemento rilevante in fatto in tutte quelle circostanze in cui gli apparati burocratici del paese di appartenenza rendono impossibile al cittadino di conseguire il documento richiesto.


Diniego del rinnovo del permesso di soggiornoCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 7 luglio 2022, n. 5660

In materia di diniego del rinnovo del permesso di soggiorno, la tutela rafforzata di cui di cui all’art. 9 del D.lgs. n. 286/1998 non si applica solo a coloro i quali hanno richiesto il permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo, ma anche a chi ha maturato la condizione per il rilascio di siffatto titolo, trovandosi in Italia da oltre cinque anni e svolgendovi attività lavorativa, come chiarito anche dalla Corte costituzionale. Di fatto, la Corte costituzionale nel 2014 ha ribadito l’orientamento della giurisprudenza amministrativa secondo cui l’art. 9 del d.lgs. n. 286 del 1998, esige che «l’eventuale diniego di rilascio del “permesso per soggiornanti di lungo periodo” sia sorretto da un giudizio di pericolosità sociale dello straniero, con una motivazione articolata non solo con riguardo alla circostanza dell’intervenuta condanna, ma su più elementi, ed in particolare con riguardo alla durata del soggiorno nel territorio nazionale e all’inserimento sociale, familiare e lavorativo dell’interessato, escludendo l’operatività di ogni automatismo in conseguenza di condanne penali riportate».


Permesso di soggiorno per motivi di studioCons. Stato, sez. III, sentenza 7 luglio 2022, n. 5646

Nel caso di specie, la ricorrente cittadina iraniana era entrata in Italia per la frequenza di un corso singolo di lingua italiana presso un Istituto padovano; Sulla base dell’avviato percorso di formazione e di integrazione nel territorio dello stato italiano, le è stato rilasciato un permesso di soggiorno per motivi di studio di durata semestrale, e quindi rinnovato per la durata di un anno. Una volta terminato l’anno di frequenza, la ricorrente si è iscritta ad un altro corso di insegnamento della lingua italiana presso l’Università degli Studi di Milano. Il Collegio ha ricordato che le due vie formative, in realtà, si distinguono solo per la collocazione fisica delle rispettive sedi, trattandosi per il resto di corsi entrambi accreditati dal MIUR e riconosciuti al fine del rilascio del visto per studi dal Ministero degli Affari Esteri e della Cooperazione Internazionale, ai sensi dell’art. 39 D.lgs. 286/1999 e 44 bis Dpr 394/1999. I giudici hanno osservato che: a) tra i corsi di formazione che consentono il rilascio del permesso per motivi di studio sono pacificamente inclusi anche i corsi di lingua italiana; b) Quanto alla circolare n. 1477 del Ministero dell’Interno del 22 febbraio 2011, essa afferma che “[…] non si possa procedere al rinnovo dell’autorizzazione al soggiorno nel caso in cui lo straniero si iscriva ad un corso singolo diverso da quello che ha reso possibile il suo ingresso in Italia”. La ratio della circolare è evidentemente quella di garantire una continuità tra i percorsi di studio. Nel caso di specie, tuttavia, i giudici hanno affermato che non può certo dirsi che la ricorrente abbia mutato il percorso di studi inizialmente intrapreso al momento del suo ingresso in Italia. Al contrario, entrambi i corsi frequentati dalla ricorrente si ponevano all’interno della medesima traiettoria scolastica, finalizzata all’apprendimento della lingua italiana. Il Supremo giudice amministrativo ha, quindi, concluso escludendo qualunque fondatezza della tesi per cui la sola diversa collocazione geografica delle due istituzioni formative varrebbe in sé a differenziare i due corsi di studi al punto da renderli eterogeni e, quindi, non in linea con l’unitarietà del percorso formativo: la ratio della menzionata circolare non è infatti quella di imporre allo studente straniero di non cambiare istituto scolastico o città in cui svolgere i suoi studi, ma quella di evitare che egli cumuli percorsi formativi tipologicamente e contenutisticamente differenziati, ovvero tra di loro incoerenti.


EmersioneTAR Puglia, sez. III, ordinanza 8 luglio 2022, n. 315

Con tale ordinanza, i giudici amministrativi regionali hanno stabilito di dover concedere la tutela cautelare contro il diniego di emersione motivato sull’esistenza di una “segnalazione SIS” la quale riveste carattere meramente amministrativo, perché attinente a una mera irregolarità nell’ingresso e soggiorno dell’interessato sul territorio di un altro Stato membro dell’UE (la Francia) che, ove avvenuta in Italia, non avrebbe dato alcun rilievo. Secondo i giudici, infatti, al ricorrente non era stata assentita l’emersione dal lavoro irregolare, in quanto lo stesso risultava segnalato dalla Francia ai fini della non ammissione nel territorio dello Stato, ai sensi dell’art. 214 del regolamento SIS II. I giudici hanno rilevato, inoltre, che appariva fondata la censura di difetto di istruttoria e di motivazione, nonché quella relativa all’inosservanza, da parte della P.A., delle garanzie partecipative, essendo stato emesso il censurato provvedimento senza assolvere nei confronti del lavoratore all’onere di cui agli artt. 7, 8, 10 e 10-bis legge n. 241/1990, risultando detto onere adempiuto esclusivamente nei confronti del suo datore di lavoro. Quanto al presupposto cautelare del periculum in mora, il TAR Puglia ha altresì concluso che la mancata sospensione del gravato provvedimento avrebbe potuto comportare l’obbligo per lo straniero di abbandonare il territorio italiano e il posto di lavoro.


Revoca delle misure di accoglienzaTAR Abruzzo, sezione staccata di Pescara, sez. I, sentenza 2 luglio 2022, n. 286

È legittima la revoca delle misure di accoglienza (ex art. 23 lett. a, d.lgs. n. 142/2015) disposta nei confronti della madre di un minore piccolo di età che rifiuta più volte di trasferirsi dalla prima struttura ospitante, priva dei requisiti per accogliere famiglie con minori, verso una di quelle idonee a tale scopo individuate dalla Prefettura. Dalla ricostruzione in fatto, secondo il TAR, emerge in modo evidente l’insistito e sempre vano tentativo da parte delle autorità competenti di persuadere entrambi i coniugi stranieri ad accettare il trasferimento verso strutture ad hoc abilitate ed organizzate nell’accoglienza di stranieri con famiglia, per evitare promiscuità nella gestione del centro, anche nel precipuo interesse del piccolo figlio minore. Nel caso di specie, i giudici amministrativi hanno sottolineato come il documentato rapporto sui fatti di causa predisposto dalla Prefettura di Chieti avesse riportato con puntuale chiarezza il continuo, ostinato rifiuto dei due coniugi stranieri ad accettare ciò che in realtà la legge prevede come un dovere collaborativo dello straniero ospitato, vale a dire quello di trasferirsi verso le strutture più idonee (per capienza, specializzazione organizzativa etc.), via via individuate dall’amministrazione. Secondo il TAR, i comportamenti in questione si caratterizzano come un sistematico e spregiudicato atteggiamento di sfida verso le autorità gestionali e di polizia, da parte loro peraltro continuamente protese a convincere ad accettare – rifiuto dopo rifiuto – la destinazione alternativa volta per volta proposta; senza considerare che il sistema dell’accoglienza nella soggetta materia non può ragionevolmente tollerare poteri di scelta se preclusivi da parte del singolo beneficiario, diretti a negoziare, sulla base di preferenze soggettive, le destinazioni che di volta in volta le autorità di polizia predispongono.


Revoca delle misure di accoglienzaTAR Calabria, sez. I, sentenza 4 luglio 2022, n. 1207

Ai sensi dell’art. 23 del D. Lgs. 142/2015, può procedersi a revoca delle misure di accoglienza qualora vi sia violazione grave o ripetuta delle regole delle strutture in cui è accolto da parte del richiedente asilo. Infatti, i comportamenti accertati all’esterno della struttura, in taluni particolari casi, come quello in esame (spaccio di sostanze stupefacenti), hanno in via presuntiva un riflesso immediato e diretto sul rispetto delle regole interne alla struttura. Al riguardo, è stato infatti notato dai giudici amministrativi che “10. Neppure è a dubitarsi della circostanza che lo spaccio di sostanza stupefacente, a maggior ragione ove connotato, come nel caso di specie, da indici di particolare gravità, possa costituire in quanto tale evenienza incompatibile con la permanenza dello straniero all’interno della struttura ricettizia e causa di revoca delle misure di accoglienza, ai sensi dell’art. 23, comma 1, lett. e del d.lgs. 142/2015” (cfr. Consiglio di Stato, sentenza n. 1138/2021).