Italy - Court of Rome, 20 January 2013, R.G. 6534/2011
| Country of Decision: | Italy |
| Country of applicant: | Afghanistan |
| Court name: | Court of Rome, Civil Division I |
| Date of decision: | 23-01-2013 |
| Citation: | Court of Rome, Decision of 20.01.2013, case No R.G. 6534/2011 |
Keywords:
| Keywords |
|
Freedom of movement (right to)
Description
Generally: “This right is made up of three basic elements: freedom of movement within the territory of a country, right to leave any country and the right to return to his or her own country." In an EU context: "A fundamental right of every citizen of an EU Member State or another European Economic Area (EEA) State or Switzerland to freely move, reside and work within the territory of these States. Notes: 1. This is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2. Whilst initially one of the founding rights in the establishment of the European Union, it has also been extended, via various acquis and agreements (e.g. see Protocol 19 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU), to other EEA states (i.e. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway) plus Switzerland and certain categories of third-country nationals (as outlined in Notes 4. and 5. below). 3. Some Member States have applied transitional arrangements that currently restrict freedom of movement of workers/(citizens) of EU-2 Member States (see http://ec.europa.eu). 4. Whilst third-country nationals have the right to travel freely within the Schengen area, taking up residence in another Member State is covered by specific legal instruments, detailed below. 5. Third-country nationals may take up residence in another Member State depending on their status and subject to the necessary conditions being met. For third-country nationals who are long-term legal residents in an EU Member State, this is covered by Chapter III of Council Directive 2003/109/EC, whilst for third-country nationals with highly qualified employment, this is covered by Article 18 of Council Directive 2009/50/EC.” |
Headnote:
It was unlawful to refuse to issue a travel document to the holder of subsidiary protection status on the assumption that the person had provided false information prior to the decision on the asylum application and because identity documentation in his file was incomplete.
Facts:
The applicant, an Afghan citizen benefiting from subsidiary protection had asked for a travel document from the police headquarters in Rome.
The police had decided not to issue the travel document on the assumption that, before the decision on the asylum application, the applicant had provided false information and because identity documentation in his file was incomplete.
The applicant appealed this decision.
Decision & reasoning:
According to the Court of Rome, the refusal by the police ran counter to the procedure under which the appellant had been granted a residence permit on subsidiary protection grounds. If the identity of the appellant had not been established, the Territorial Commission for awarding international protection would not have been able to grant this protection and the police would not have been able to issue a residence permit.
Outcome:
The refusal by the police in Rome to issue a travel document was judged unlawful and was quashed.
Relevant International and European Legislation:
Cited National Legislation:
| Cited National Legislation |
| Italy - Legislative Decree No. 251/2007 - Art 24(1) |