Italy - Tribunal of Palermo, 13 September 2018, R.G. no. 9994/2018
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Effective access to procedures
Description
Effective access to legal and administrative procedures undertaken by UNHCR and/or States in accordance with the Asylum Procedures Directive to determine whether an individual should be recognized as a refugee in accordance with national and international law. |
|
Country of origin information
Description
"Information used by the Member States authorities to analyse the socio-political situation in countries of origin of applicants for international protection (and, where necessary, in countries through which they have transited) in the assessment, carried out on an individual basis, of an application for international protection.” It includes all relevant facts as they relate to the country of origin at the time of taking a decision on the application, obtained from various sources, including the laws and regulations of the country of origin and the manner in which they are applied, regulations of the country of origin, plus general public sources, such as reports from (inter)national organisations, governmental and non-governmental organisations, media, bi-lateral contacts in countries of origin, embassy reports, etc. This information is also used inter alia for taking decisions on other migration issues, e.g. on return, as well as by researchers. One of the stated aims of the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is to progressively bring all activities related to practical cooperation on asylum under its roof, to include the collection of Country of Origin Information and a common approach to its use. |
|
Inadmissible application
Description
Member States may consider an application for asylum as inadmissible pursuant toArticle 25 of the Asylum Procedures Directive if: “(a) another Member State has granted refugee status; (b) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a first country of asylum for the applicant, pursuant to Article 26; (c) a country which is not a Member State is considered as a safe third country for the applicant, pursuant to Article 27; (d) the applicant is allowed to remain in the Member State concerned on some other grounds and as result of this he/she has been granted a status equivalent to the rights and benefits of the refugee status by virtue of Directive 2004/83/EC; (e) the applicant is allowed to remain in the territory of the Member State concerned on some other grounds which protect him/her against refoulement pending the outcome of a procedure for the determination of status pursuant to point (d); (f) the applicant has lodged an identical application after a final decision; (g) a dependant of the applicant lodges an application, after he/she has in accordance with Article 6(3) consented to have his/her case be part of an application made on his/her behalf, and there are no facts relating to the dependant’s situation, which justify a separate application.“ |
Headnote:
Neither the omission nor the delay of the Immigration Office can deprive an asylum applicant of the right to obtain the rehearing of their legal status in case of a change in the circumstances in their country of origin.
Facts:
The case originates from the refusal by the Immigration Office (Questura di Palermo) to register a request for international protection request because it was not lodged with the competent authority and due to a change in the circumstances of the applicant’s country of origin (Mali).
Decision & reasoning:
Firstly, the Tribunal states that the rehearing request on the basis of a change in circumstances in Mali was effectively proposed by the applicant but the Immigration Office never started the procedures.
Secondly, the judge states that, in accordance to Article 6 of the Directive 2013/32/EU, Member States have to ensure that the registration of applications for international protection takes place no later than three working days after the applications are made. The time limit is up to six working days for applications made before national authorities that are not competent to proceed with the registration of the application under national law.
In addition, the Tribunal states that, in accordance to Article 3 of the D.Lgs. 25/2008, police forces do not have any discretional power on international protection applications; actually they must register the application and send it to the competent authority that is the only one in charge to verify the validity.
In conclusion, the omission or the delay of the police forces to register the application for international protection deprives the applicant of the opportunity to have a rehearing of his case and, consequently, his right to be officially recognised as qualified of International Protection.
Outcome:
Appeal granted.
Observations/comments:
This case summary was written by Laura Palazzetti.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| D.Lgs. No. 25/2008 |
| L. no. 46/2017 |