Italy - Court of Turin, 28 January 2011, RG 528/2011
| Country of Decision: | Italy |
| Court name: | Court of Turin, Civil Division 9 |
| Date of decision: | 28-01-2011 |
| Citation: | Court of Turin, Decision of 28.01.2011, case No RG 528/2011 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Dublin Transfer
Description
"The transfer of responsibility for the examination of an asylum application from one Member State to another Member State. Such a transfer typically also includes the physical transport of an asylum applicant to the Member State responsible in cases where the applicant is in another Member State and/or has lodged an application in this latter Member State (Article 19(3) of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003). The determination of the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application is done on the basis of objective and hierarchical criteria, as laid out in Chapter III of Council Regulation (EC) 343/2003." |
|
Health (right to)
Description
Member States shall ensure that applicants receive the necessary health care which shall include, at least, emergency care and essential treatment of illness. Member States shall also ensure that beneficiaries of refugee or subsidiary protection status have access to health care under the same eligibility conditions as nationals of the Member State that has granted such statuses. |
|
Vulnerable person
Description
Persons in a vulnerable position, such as"Minors, unaccompanied minors, disabled people, elderly people, pregnant women, single parents with minor children and persons who have been subjected to torture, rape or other serious forms of psychological, physical or sexual violence. Note: Directive 2011/36/EU defines a position of vulnerability as a situation in which the person concerned has no real or acceptable alternative but to submit to the abuse involved." |
Headnote:
European Directive 115/2008 (the ‘Return Directive’) should be applied to the detention of asylum seekers – that is, with all the restrictions on the detention system, which is not to be used automatically but only in cases where there is considered to be a risk of absconding or a threat to society, and with an obligation to state the reasons for the detention – because otherwise there could be an unjustifiable disparity in the treatment of those who are to be returned (and who do not necessarily have to be detained) and asylum seekers who are already destined for return or expulsion (who should always be detained).
Facts:
The judgment concerns the case of an asylum seeker detained in a CIE after entering Italy illegally. The detention was validated by a Justice of the Peace and then extended by a Court of First Instance. On 21 January the applicant was informed that his asylum application had been rejected. During the time allowed for appeals, a request to extend the detention was presented to the Justice of the Peace, who declared that this was outside his powers because the asylum procedure was still under way and the 15 days permitted for submitting appeals against a refusal to grant international protection had not yet elapsed. For this reason the Civil Court was asked to rule on this matter.
Decision & reasoning:
The Court decided that it should not extend the detention period as it had not been suggested or proven that there was a risk of absconding, which is a pre-condition for detention under the Return Directive. In addition, according to the Court, it cannot be assumed that there is a risk of absconding just because a person has entered the country illegally.
Outcome:
Applicant’s appeal upheld – no extension of detention.