MOHAMMED HUSSEIN AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS AND ITALY

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Guido Raimondi;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant is PERSON , a NORP national , who was born in DATE . The application is also brought also on behalf of her children PERSON and Nowal , born in DATE and DATE , respectively . The applicant and her children are currently staying in the GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Ms M. Pals , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG are represented by their Agent , Mr R.A.A. Böcker , of ORG . ORG are represented by their Agent , PERSON , and their CoAgent , PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicant and ORG , may be summarised as follows . Some of the facts are in dispute between the parties .

The applicant hails from GPE and belongs to the ORG clan . She is divorced from her first husband and the son , born out of this marriage , resides with his father . In DATE , the applicant married a man belonging to the PERSON clan , considered inferior by ORG clan and for this reason her family had opposed this marriage . After having been ill - treated by a cousin , the applicant fled GPE as – belonging to a powerful clan and having acted contrary to the norms of this clan – she could turn to no one for protection and certainly not to her husband .

The applicant entered GPE on DATE . DATE , her fingerprints were taken at the GPE police headquarters ( questura ) where she was registered as having illegally entered the territory of ORG . She was registered as PERSON , born in GPE on DATE . According to the applicant , she had been registered in GPE under an incorrect name as another NORP woman had helped her to register at that time and had given her father ’s surname instead of her own surname .

On DATE she was transferred to a reception centre ( FAC di PERSON per PERSON ; “ ORG ” ) in LOC di Massa ( PERSON province , GPE ) , made available by ORG . On DATE , the applicant applied for international protection at the LOC police headquarters . Her fingerprints were taken again and she was registered as an asylum seeker under the name PERSON , born on DATE in GPE . On DATE , the applicant was provided with a temporary residence permit as an asylum seeker . This renewable permit had a validity of DATE and specified that the applicant was allowed to work in GPE .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG for ORG ( PERSON GPE della Protezione ORG ) granted the applicant a residence permit for the purpose of subsidiary protection . This decision was served on the applicant in person on DATE at the LOC police headquarters . At the same time , she was provided with a residence permit for an alien having been granted subsidiary protection and a travel document for aliens ( Titolo di viagggio per stranieri ) . Both the residence permit and the travel document were valid until DATE .

On DATE , the applicant left the PERSON asylum seekers reception centre .

The applicant applied for asylum in the GPE on DATE . She was DATE pregnant at the time . The examination and comparison of her fingerprints by the GPE authorities generated a Eurodac “ hit ” report on DATE , indicating that she had been registered in GPE ( GPE ) on DATE .

In the applicant ’s first interview with the NORP immigration authorities , held on DATE , she stated inter alia that she was DATE pregnant and due to give birth on DATE . She further stated she already had a son , ORG , who was born out of her first marriage to PERSON with whom this son was staying . This marriage had ended in a divorce shortly after ORG ’s birth in DATE . In DATE , she had married her present spouse PERSON , a NORP national like herself . She explained that she had travelled to GPE via GPE , GPE and GPE . On DATE she and others had travelled from GPE to GPE by boat and had been intercepted at sea by the NORP authorities . They had been taken to a refugee camp in GPE where her fingerprints had been taken and where she had stayed for DATE . She had left the refugee camp and travelled to PERSON where she had stayed until DATE , sleeping at the GPE train station where she had been raped by drunken men . In DATE she had travelled by train to the GPE , accompanied by a young man .

In her written comments on the record drawn up on her first interview , the applicant stated that , although her fingerprints had been taken , she had not been enabled to apply for asylum , neither in GPE nor elsewhere . After DATE , she had been taken to GPE where she had been dumped at the railway station where she had been raped by drunken men . She had not been provided with accommodation or food . Only the church had given her food . She had also not been provided with any medical care , not even when she turned out to be pregnant . The first medical examination of her condition and that of her baby had taken place in the GPE .

In the applicant ’s further interview with the NORP immigration authorities , held on DATE , she stated inter alia that , after having taken her fingerprints , the NORP authorities had provided her with a temporary residence permit with a validity of DATE . She had signed for this form . She further stated that she had not wished to apply for asylum in GPE as she had intended to travel on to the GPE , because she had heard that it was safe there and the people nice . She further stated that she had fallen pregnant in DATE after she had been raped by a NORP man who had promised her food and a shower . She did not know his name . During the period she had been sleeping at the railway and other stations in GPE , she had not sought help from the NORP authorities or from private organisations . She had also not reported the rape to the NORP authorities .

On DATE , the applicant gave birth to a son , named PERSON .

On DATE the GPE authorities asked the NORP authorities to accept responsibility for the applicant ’s asylum request under LAW ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ the Dublin II Regulation ” ) . On DATE the NORP authorities acceded to that request .

The applicant ’s asylum request filed in the GPE was rejected on DATE by the Minister of ORG ( Minister PERSON ) who found that , pursuant to the Dublin II Regulation , GPE was responsible for the processing of the asylum application . The Minister rejected the applicant ’s argument that the GPE could not rely on the principle of mutual interstate trust ( interstatelijk vertrouwensbeginsel ) in respect of GPE as there were , according to the applicant , sufficient concrete indications that GPE failed to respect its international treaty obligations in respect of asylum seekers and refugees .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision and her accompanying request for a provisional measure were rejected on DATE by the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE sitting in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE , the applicant requested the President of ORG to issue a provisional measure , i.e. to stay her transfer to GPE pending the proceedings on the further appeal . On DATE , having found no grounds to assume that the impugned ruling would be quashed , the President refused the request for a provisional measure . No further information has been submitted about the outcome of the applicant ’s further appeal to ORG .

On DATE , the GPE immigration authorities informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the applicant ’s transfer had been scheduled for DATE .

On DATE , at the request of the applicant , the President of the ORG decided to indicate to the Government of the GPE that it was desirable in the interests of the parties and the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG not to expel the applicant to GPE ( Rule CARDINAL of ORG ) .

On DATE , the applicant gave birth to a daughter named Nowal . She is suffering from a hereditary skin condition which , according to a medical specialist , will not affect her normal development and life expectancy .

On DATE the applicant filed a second asylum request in the GPE . During her interview on this request with the NORP immigration authorities , held on DATE , she stated inter alia that she was single and that she had been married in GPE but did not know the whereabouts of her then husband with whom she had not had any contact for a long time . She did not mention the name of this former husband . She explained that since , according to NORP law , she could remarry after having heard nothing from her husband for DATE , she had contracted a traditional marriage in the GPE in DATE with another man , PERSON , who was PERSON father . They had since separated . Since her discharge from hospital after Nowal ’s birth , she had not seen him anymore and did not know his whereabouts . She further stated that she feared that her daughter would not be provided with medical treatment in GPE . Nowal needed a Vaseline application on her skin thrice DATE .

On DATE , the immigration authorities informed the applicant that her second asylum request would be examined in the socalled prolonged asylum procedure ( verlengde asielprocedure ) and that a determination of her request could be expected by DATE at the latest . No further information about the proceedings on this second asylum request has been submitted .

On DATE , a number of factual questions were put to ORG Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) ) , which concerned the applicant ’s situation in GPE before her arrival in the GPE . ORG submitted their replies on DATE and the applicant ’s comments in reply were submitted on DATE .

A written statement concerning the applicant ’s stay in the LOC reception centre , drawn up on DATE by ORG of the NORP ORG formed part of the submissions of ORG . It reads :

“ From DATE the ORG ( NORP ORG ) hosted at ORG and Training ; hereinafter “ FAC ” ) of LOC di ORG over CARDINAL refugees of NORP origin providing them with various kinds of assistance as envisaged by the LAW signed with ORG PERSON .

Specifically , during their stay at the facilities of LOC di ORG all refugees could benefit from the following services :

Room and board , hygiene products , clothing , social and psychological assistance , cultural / linguistic mediation , entertainment activities , laundry , barber , medical and sanitary care ( performed by ORG ( local health service ) staff and by medical / nursing staff of the GPE which also ensured transfer to hospital where necessary ) .

It is considered worthwhile to highlight that Dr. [ A. ] and Dr. [ B. ] ( respectively psychologist and social assistant at FAC ) , who have been consulted at the request of GPE PERSON , stated that during sessions with [ the applicant ] , no reference was ever made to the fact that she had suffered a rape and there was no indication that there might be cause for concern .

Moreover Dr. [ B. ] added that “ [ the applicant ] said that she was pregnant only when her pregnancy was already in an advanced stage ( DATE of pregnancy ) and she was immediately accompanied to ORG to undergo the routine visits and analysis . On that occasion [ the applicant ] stated that she already had a baby ( of young age ) in her country of origin and that Mr. PERSON ( who was also staying at the facility in LOC di Massa ) was the father of the child she was carrying . The man , questioned on the matter by the personnel of FAC , immediately took responsibility for the pregnancy of the woman expressing joy about the event ... ”

Furthermore it is necessary to specify that during DATE of the operation C.A.R.A. personnel of ORG identified – in particular for women – other accommodation facilities which could allow them to integrate more easily in the socio - economic reality of the country .

These alternative facilities were located across the national territory and the women were divided into small groups taking into account their country of origin and personal ties developed during their stay at ORG .

Nevertheless [ the applicant ] refused any type of accommodation she had been offered and expressed the wish to move abroad DATE to GPE – where her partner had contacts with some acquaintances . Also Mr. PERSON , questioned on the matter , repeatedly stated that the couple ’s plan was to move abroad and he expressed his wish to take care of the woman and the baby .

Finally , from the documents ( attached ) available to this ORG it emerges that [ the applicant ] spontaneously and voluntarily left the Reception Centre on DATE . ”

In her written comments in reply , the applicant admitted that she had been granted an NORP residence permit valid for DATE and not , as stated by her to the GPE authorities , only for DATE . She further confirmed that she had received medical care in the reception centre . She maintained that she had not left the reception centre voluntarily but had been told to leave without having been told what to do , how or where to find work , education , shelter , subsistence , medical care etc . She also maintained that she had been raped in GPE when she had visited this town during her stay in the reception centre . Fearing the reaction from the NORP community she had not told the medical staff of the rape and made up the story that a man in the centre was the father . The applicant lastly denied that she had been informed of any , more suitable , alternative facilities during her stay in the reception centre . On DATE and after receiving her residence permit , she had signed a form which she could not read for returning the key to her room .

The relevant instruments and principles under ORG law have been set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ) , in particular :

Council Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers in the Member States ( “ the Reception Directive ” ) ;

ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL of DATE , establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State of ORG responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of GPE by a third - country national ( “ the Dublin II Regulation ” ) ;

Council Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE , on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted : ( “ the LAW ” ) ; and

Council Directive CARDINAL of DATE on minimum standards on procedures in Member GPE for granting and withdrawing refugee status in the Member GPE ( “ the Procedures Directive ” ) .

Under the Dublin II Regulation , GPE must determine , based on a hierarchy of objective criteria ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) , which Member ORG bears responsibility for examining an asylum application lodged on their territory . The aim is to avoid multiple applications and to guarantee that each asylum seeker ’s case is dealt with by a single Member ORG . Where it is established that an asylum seeker has irregularly crossed the border into a Member ORG having come from a third country , the Member ORG thus entered is responsible for examining the asylum application ( LAW ) .

Where the criteria in the regulation indicate that another Member ORG is responsible , that ORG is requested to take charge of the asylum seeker and examine the application for asylum ( LAW ) .

In its ruling of DATE in the cases of ORG v. Secretary of ORG for ORG and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ORG Commissioner , Minister for Justice , LAW , ORG and ORG , ORG of ORG of ORG considered in respect of transfers under the terms of the Dublin II Regulation that although ORG is based on mutual trust and the presumption of compliance by other Member GPE law and fundamental rights in particular , such a presumption is rebuttable . In this ruling , it held inter alia :

“ DATE . Consideration of the texts which constitute ORG shows that it was conceived in a context making it possible to assume that all the participating GPE , whether Member LAW or GPE , observe fundamental rights , including the rights based on LAW and LAW , and on LAW , and that the Member GPE can have confidence in each other in that regard . ...

In those circumstances , it must be assumed that the treatment of asylum seekers in all Member GPE complies with the requirements of the LAW , LAW and the ORG .

It is not however inconceivable that that system may , in practice , experience major operational problems in a given Member ORG , meaning that there is a substantial risk that asylum seekers may , when transferred to that Member ORG , be treated in a manner incompatible with their fundamental rights .

Nevertheless , it can not be concluded from the above that any infringement of a fundamental right by the Member ORG responsible will affect the obligations of the other Member GPE to comply with the provisions of Regulation No CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

At issue here is the raison d’être of ORG and the creation of an area of freedom , security and justice and , in particular , ORG , based on mutual confidence and a presumption of compliance , by other Member GPE , with ORG law and , in particular , fundamental rights .

In addition , it would be not be compatible with the aims of Regulation No CARDINAL/CARDINAL were the slightest infringement of Directives CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL/CARDINAL to be sufficient to prevent the transfer of an asylum seeker to the Member ORG primarily responsible . Regulation No CARDINAL/CARDINAL aims – on the assumption that the fundamental rights of the asylum seeker are observed in the Member ORG primarily responsible for examining the application – to establish ... a clear and effective method for dealing with an asylum application . In order to achieve that objective , Regulation No CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides that responsibility for examining an asylum application lodged in a ORG country rests with a single Member ORG , which is determined on the basis of objective criteria .

If the mandatory consequence of any infringement of the individual provisions of Directives CARDINAL , CARDINAL or CARDINAL/CARDINAL by the Member ORG responsible were that the Member ORG in which the asylum application was lodged is precluded from transferring the applicant to the first mentioned ORG , that would add to the criteria for determining the Member ORG responsible set out in LAW No CARDINAL/CARDINAL another exclusionary criterion according to which minor infringements of the abovementioned directives committed in a certain Member ORG may exempt that Member ORG from the obligations provided for under Regulation No CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Such a result would deprive those obligations of their substance and endanger the realisation of the objective of quickly designating the Member ORG responsible for examining an asylum claim lodged in ORG .

By contrast , if there are substantial grounds for believing that there are systemic flaws in the asylum procedure and reception conditions for asylum applicants in the Member ORG responsible , resulting in inhuman or degrading treatment , within the meaning of LAW [ of LAW of ORG ] , of asylum seekers transferred to the territory of that Member ORG , the transfer would be incompatible with that provision . ...

NORP ... , the presumption underlying the relevant legislation , stated in paragraph CARDINAL above , that asylum seekers will be treated in a way which complies with fundamental rights , must be regarded as rebuttable .

In the light of those factors , ... ORG law precludes the application of a conclusive presumption that the Member ORG which LAW No CARDINAL/CARDINAL indicates as responsible observes the fundamental rights of ORG .

DATE of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of ORG must be interpreted as meaning that GPE , including the national courts , may not transfer an asylum seeker to the ‘ Member State responsible’ within the meaning of Regulation No CARDINAL/CARDINAL where they can not be unaware that systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers in that Member ORG amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of that provision . ”

The domestic law and practice as regards asylum proceedings and enforcement of removals are set out in PERSON the GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and § § DATE , DATE ) .

As regards transfers to GPE under LAW , the GPE authorities decide in consultation with the NORP authorities how and when the transfer of an asylum seeker to the competent NORP authorities will take place . In principle CARDINAL working days’ notice is given , in accordance with article LAW ( ORG ) No . DATE . Requests by the NORP authorities for a longer period of notice are respected .

If the transfer involves a vulnerable person , such as an unaccompanied alien minor or an unaccompanied mother with small children , the GPE authorities will explicitly bring this to the attention of the NORP authorities and give the latter CARDINAL days’ notice . The same period of notice is in principle given where a transfer involves exceptional medical circumstances . If a doctor sets conditions for a transfer , such as the presence of a wheelchair , a doctor or an ambulance for the asylum seeker ’s transport to a hospital or other institution , arrangements are made with the NORP authorities prior to the transfer in order to fulfil this condition . Only after confirmation has been received that the condition will be met , will the transfer be actually carried out .

Unlike unaccompanied minor asylum seekers , families are in principle not escorted . They are considered capable on their arrival at the airport of reporting on their own initiative to the NORP authorities who – having received notice DATE are aware of the family ’s impending arrival . An escort may be provided if the parent or parents are unable to look after the children themselves . ORG ( ORG ) , who carry out the actual transfer and are present in person at the airport to turn the family over to the NORP authorities , are responsible for deciding whether an escort is needed . Whenever a transfer takes place , the person in question is informed that he or she should report to the border police ( polizia di frontiera ) at the airport .

A person wishing to apply for asylum in GPE should do so with the border police or , if already in GPE , with the police ( questura ) immigration department . As soon as an asylum request has been filed , the petitioner is granted access to GPE as well as to the asylum procedure , and is authorised to remain in GPE pending the determination of the asylum request by ORG for ORG .

For petitioners who do not hold a valid entry visa , an identification procedure ( fotosegnalamento ) is carried out by the police – if need be – with the assistance of an interpreter . This procedure comprises the taking of passport photographs and fingerprints . The fingerprints are checked for matches in ORG and the domestic ORG ( Automated Fingerprint Identification System ) database . At DATE procedure , the petitioner is given a notice confirming the first registration ( cedolino ) , on which future appointments are noted , in particular the appointment for the formal registration of the request .

The formal asylum request will be made in writing . On the basis of an interview held with the petitioner in a language which he or she understands , the police will fill out the “ Standard form C/CARDINAL for the recognition of refugee status according to LAW ” ( ORG C/CARDINAL per il riconoscimento dello status di rifugiato ai sensi della PERSON di PERSON ) , which contains questions on the petitioner ’s personal data ( name , surname , date of birth , citizenship , name and surname of parents / spouse / children and their whereabouts ) as well as the details of the journey to GPE and reasons for fleeing the country of origin and for seeking asylum in GPE . The petitioner will be asked to provide a written paper , which will be appended to the form , containing his or her asylum account and written in his or her own language . The police will retain the original form and provide the petitioner with a stamped copy .

The petitioner will then be invited by a notification served in writing by the police for a hearing before the competent ORG for ORG . During this hearing , the petitioner will be assisted by an interpreter . ORG can :

- grant asylum by recognising the petitioner as a refugee within the meaning of the DATE LAW relating to ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) ;

- not recognise the petitioner as a refugee under LAW but grant subsidiary protection under the terms of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as implemented by LAW ( decreto legislativo ) no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ;

- not grant asylum or subsidiary protection but grant a residence permit for compelling humanitarian reasons under the terms of LAW ( decreto legge ) nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE ; or

- not grant the petitioner any form of protection . In this case the petitioner will be provided with an order to leave GPE ( foglio di via ) within DATE .

A person recognised as refugee under LAW will be provided with a renewable residence permit with a validity of DATE . He or she is further entitled , inter alia , to a travel document for aliens ( Titolo di viaggio per stranieri ) , to work , to family reunion and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance , health care , social housing and education under NORP domestic law .

A person granted subsidiary protection will be provided with a residence permit with a validity of DATE which can be renewed by ORG that granted it . This permit can further be converted into a residence permit for the purposes of work in GPE , provided this is requested before the expiry of the validity of the residence permit and provided the person concerned holds an identity document . A residence permit granted for subsidiary protection entitles the person concerned , inter alia , to a travel document for aliens , to work , to family reunion and to benefit from the general schemes for social assistance , health care , social housing and education under NORP domestic law .

A person granted a residence permit for compelling humanitarian reasons will be provided with a residence permit with a validity of DATE which can be converted into a residence permit for the purposes of work in GPE , provided the person concerned holds a passport . A residence permit granted on humanitarian grounds entitles the person concerned to work , to health care and , in case he or she has no passport , to a travel document for aliens .

An appeal against a decision by ORG not to grant international protection can be lodged with the civil law tribunal ( sezione civile del Tribunale ) and further appeals can be filed with ORG ( Corte di appello ) and , in last instance , ORG ( Corte di cassazione ) . Such appeals must be presented by a lawyer and the asylum seeker concerned can apply for legal aid for this purpose .

An asylum seeker can withdraw his or her asylum request at any stage of the proceedings on the determination of that request by completing a form to that effect . This form can be obtained at the police immigration department . A formal withdrawal entails the end of the proceedings without a determination of the asylum request by ORG . However , there is no automatic assumption of withdrawal of an asylum request when the petitioner has left the asylum ORG reception centre , has left for an unknown destination or has left the country . In case a petitioner fails to appear before ORG , it will formally indicate his or her absence and determine the request on the basis of the contents of the case file . In most cases , it will reject the asylum request for “ untraceability ” ( diniego per irreperibilità ) . In such a situation , the person concerned can request a fresh hearing and the procedure is reactivated when a date for a fresh interview has been communicated to him or her .

Pursuant to LAW no . PERSON , implementing ORG of DATE on laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers , asylum seekers in GPE are entitled to reception facilities . According to article LAW , reception arrangements are to be made on the basis of the specific needs of asylum seekers and their families , in particular the needs of vulnerable persons , i.e. unaccompanied minors , disabled persons , pregnant women , single parents with minor children , and persons who have been subjected to torture , rape or other forms of serious psychological , physical or sexual violence . NORP domestic law provides for special guarantees for such vulnerable persons , including a reserved quota of places in the ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) reception scheme .

In the “ ORG on important aspects of refugee protection in GPE ” of DATE by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) , the arrangements for reception of asylum seekers in GPE is described as follows :

“ Legislative Decree No . PERSON ... is the main law underpinning the NORP reception system . The decree foresees that those who apply for protection in GPE , but lack the means to ensure a dignified standard of living for themselves , are , in principle , hosted in adequate reception facilities . The reception system currently includes the following types of facilities : ORG for ORG ( ORG ) , ORG for migrants ( ORG ) , local projects established in the context of ORG ) and centres in so - called ‘ metropolitan ORG , which have been set up in large cities . The system has recently been complemented by an emergency reception plan managed by ORG which was rolled out to address migratory flows from GPE from DATE .

Based on a series of requirements set out in LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , some asylum - seekers who arrive in GPE are initially referred to CARAs , mainly for identification purposes . CARAs are open facilities which are run by organisations selected through a public tender procedure managed by the local Prefecture . The QUANTITY CARAs which are currently operational in various NORP regions have a total capacity of CARDINAL places . At times , however , reception facilities for migrants , or CDAs , are also used to host asylum - seekers , bringing the total capacity in GPE to CARDINAL regular places . Asylum - seekers falling into specific categories ( namely those previously served with an expulsion order ) may also be detained in ORG ( ORG ) .

The ORG network of reception and integration projects , whose members include municipalities , provinces and non - profit organisations , is coordinated by ORG and currently managed by ORG ( ORG ) . Funding is provided through a public tender procedure managed by ORG . ORG ’s CARDINAL projects have a total capacity for CARDINAL persons . CARDINAL places are set aside for vulnerable individuals , including CARDINAL for individuals suffering from serious mental disorders . ORG projects host beneficiaries of international protection and of national humanitarian protection as well as asylum - seekers . With regard to asylum - seekers , places in the ORG network are usually for vulnerable or destitute asylum - seekers whose identification procedures have been completed or who have spent DATE in a ORG .

In DATE , due to the limited capacity of the ORG network , asylum - seekers who could have been hosted in this type of reception facility have often been referred to CARAs . Asylum - seekers who would , according to the policy , have spent a maximum of DATE in a ORG have therefore stayed on in these facilities until their asylum procedures were completed , or , in some cases , DATE , without being able to access ORG projects . As regards the length of their stay , asylum - seekers hosted in ORG projects may , in a number of given circumstances , extend their stay for DATE after they are granted a form of international protection .

In general terms , those hosted in CARAs should benefit from a series of services beyond food and accommodation , which include health care and mental health care , training and recreational activities , and legal assistance . The relevant legal framework defines common minimum standards for CARAs at the national level , which are now included in all contracts for the management of these reception facilities . Services in ORG reception facilities are less homogeneous and accommodation is generally foreseen in small to medium - sized facilities such as flats where services are geared towards facilitating local integration .

In DATE , following a significant number of arrivals from GPE and the ensuing declaration of a state of ‘ humanitarian emergency’ , regional governments were asked to identify additional reception facilities , given that the existing reception capacity was deemed to be insufficient . An agreement was then reached between the central Government and the relevant local authorities ( regions , provinces governed by a special statute and municipalities ) , setting out criteria for the distribution of CARDINAL persons across the country , with regional quotas based on population size . Responsibility for the management of this ‘ Migrant Reception Plan’ was assigned to the Head of ORG , who was designated Emergency Administrator . As of DATE , over CARDINAL forced migrants have been hosted in the framework of the plan , mostly in small to medium - sized facilities spread out throughout GPE ( with the exception of the GPE region ) .

ORG expresses its appreciation for the improvements to the reception system which have been carried out in DATE . Overall , the CARAs , CDAs and ORG projects are able to provide for the reception needs of a significant number of asylum - seekers . However , ORG believes that a number of issues continue to be of concern , namely the following : i ) when significant numbers of arrivals take place , CDAs , CARAs and ORG projects alone are unable to host all asylum - seekers who can not provide for themselves ; ii ) the actual level of assistance and the quality of services provided vary significantly depending on the type of facility , with ORG projects offering reception in a multitude of small facilities , many of which have established strong ties to the local area , whilst CARAs and CDAs are larger facilities with capacities ranging from a minimum of CARDINAL places to a maximum of CARDINAL places ; ( iii ) the criteria and procedures for referring individual asylum - seekers to a ORG or a ORG project are not always set out formally in writing ; ( iv ) there have been a number of instances in which reception in a ORG was limited to a maximum of DATE , a practice which does not appear to be in line with the ORG Directive on reception conditions , when applied to asylum - seekers who are unable to provide for themselves and have not received a decision on their applications within this period ; however , recently , ORG has received assurances from ORG that this restrictive practice will be discontinued ; ( v ) CARAs do not all offer the same reception services , with the quality of assistance varying between facilities and sometimes failing to meet adequate standards , especially regarding the provision of legal and psycho - social assistance ; ( vi ) there is still room for improvement in the CARAs , in particular with regard to community participation , the creation of efficient complaints mechanisms and regarding gender and diversity perspectives ; ( vii ) care provided to vulnerable individuals is often inadequate due to low levels of coordination among stakeholders , an inability to provide adequate legal and social support as well as the necessary logistical follow - up , and a poor referral system ; ( viii ) monitoring of reception conditions by the relevant authorities is generally not systematic and complaints often remain unaddressed ; ( ix ) regarding the ‘ GPE , which enabled accommodation for significant numbers of asylum - seekers ex - GPE to be found within a short space of time , monitoring activities falling under the remit of the regional Implementing Authorities in the framework of the national reception plan have been delayed . Moreover , most of the new facilities established by regional governments to host arrivals from GPE do not currently offer the range of services foreseen by national legislation on minimum reception standards in CARAs . ”

A report published on DATE by ORG for Human Rights , Mr PERSON , following his visit to GPE from DATE ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , states in respect of reception of migrants including asylum seekers :

“ CARDINAL . The framework for the reception of migrants remains largely unchanged since the last visit of the Commissioner ’s predecessor to GPE in DATE . As noted in the DATE report , asylum seekers in GPE can be referred to different types of accommodation , including CARAs ( ORG d’accoglienza per richiedenti asilo , open first - reception centres for asylum seekers ) , CDAs ( ORG di accoglienza , reception centres for migrants ) and ORG ( ORG di primo soccorso ed accoglienza , first aid and reception centres ) .

Concerns have been raised about the conditions in some of the reception centres . For example , having visited a ORG during its visit in DATE , ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( ORG ) criticised the fact that this centre was located in prison - like LOC . While the Commissioner is aware that the NORP government defined minimum standards for tenders for the management of these facilities , interlocutors voiced their concern about the high variability in the standards of reception centres in practice , which may manifest itself in , for example : a numerical shortage and a lack of adequate training of staff ; overcrowding and limitations in the space available for assistance , legal advice and socialisation ; physical inadequacy of the facilities and their remoteness from the community ; or difficulties in accessing appropriate information .

The inconsistency of the standards in reception centres , as well as the lack of clarity in the regime applicable to the migrants kept in them , became a major concern following the declaration of the “ NORP emergency ” in DATE . Under the emergency plan , the existing reception capacity was enhanced in co - operation with NORP regions in order to deal with the sharp increase in arrivals from the coasts of GPE ( CARDINAL asylum applications were submitted in GPE in DATE , a more than threefold increase compared to the CARDINAL applications in DATE ) . The Commissioner acknowledges the strain put on the NORP reception system in DATE and commends the efforts of the central and regional authorities to provide the additional reception capacity needed to cope with the effects of the significant increase in migratory flows .

NORP However , the efficiency and viability of an emergency - based approach to asylum and immigration has been questioned by many interlocutors . The DATE report had already expressed particular concerns over the provision of legal aid , adequate care and psychosocial assistance in the emergency reception centres , and over difficulties relating to the speedy identification of vulnerable persons and the preservation of family unity during transfers . These concerns are still valid , and human rights NGOs pointed to reports of significant problems at some of these facilities , in particular in GPE and GPE . Delays and a lack of transparency in the monitoring of these centres have also been reported , both by NGOs and ORG .

As regards the effects of the end of the emergency period foreseen on DATE , the Commissioner welcomes the information provided by the Minister of the ORG that the examination of the outstanding asylum applications ( estimated at CARDINAL ) will be concluded before that date . He was informed that PERCENT of applicants having arrived during the emergency period were granted protection . The Commissioner also commends the significant efforts of the NORP authorities to improve the examination procedure applied by ORG , within which ORG is represented , noting however that the lack of expertise of some members of these commissions is perceived to be a problem .

NORP However , the Commissioner understands that there will be no further support for recognised beneficiaries of international protection beyond this date , the authorities considering that the vocational training they will have received by then will allow them to integrate if they choose to remain in GPE . The Commissioner is concerned about this eventuality , in the light of the serious shortcomings he identified in the integration of refugees and other beneficiaries of international protection ( see below ) . He received no information about the position of persons whose judicial appeals to a negative asylum decision will still be ongoing by DATE .

As noted in the DATE report , an additional feature of the NORP system is the ORG ( ORG di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati ) , a publicly funded network of local authorities and non - profit organisations , which accommodates asylum seekers , refugees or other beneficiaries of international protection . In contrast to CARAs and emergency reception centres , which tend to be big institutions hosting significant numbers of persons at CARDINAL time , the ORG is composed of CARDINAL smaller - scale projects and was seen by the Commissioner ’s interlocutors to function much better , as it also seeks to provide information , assistance , support and guidance to beneficiaries to facilitate socio - economic inclusion .

NORP However , the capacity of this network , which represents a second level of reception after the frontline reception centres , is extremely limited ( CARDINAL places ) in comparison to the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in GPE . As a result , asylum seekers are often kept in CARAs for extended periods of time , as opposed to being transferred to a ORG project after the completion of identification procedures as originally intended . In some cases this could last DATE , whereas it has been reported to the Commissioner that asylum seekers received under the emergency reception plan have stayed in reception centres even beyond DATE .

The Commissioner observes that the problem of the living conditions of asylum seekers in GPE has been receiving increasing attention in other ORG member states , due to the growing number of legal challenges by asylum seekers to their transfer to GPE under LAW . He notes that a series of judgments by different administrative courts in GPE have suspended such transfers , owing notably to the risk of homelessness and a life below minimum subsistence standards . ORG has also been receiving applications alleging possible violations of LAW as a result of GPE transfers to GPE . ... ”

In their written comments on this report , the NORP authorities stated :

“ As far as the interventions in favour of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of international protection are concerned , GPE has implemented a strategy aimed at granting the highest possible level of autonomy to beneficiaries which is necessary to their integration in the territorial context . This was achieved thanks to actions aimed at strengthening the existing system . The strategy also meets the requirement of strengthening social cohesion , which is one of the specific priorities of the national strategic framework underlying all ordinary and extraordinary public investments .

The general objective identified by GPE is therefore unifying the various reception measures existing on the territory ( ORG for Asylum Seekers and Refugees , Territorial Projects of the Protection System for Asylum Seekers and Refugees , Metropolitan Multifunctional Reception Centres , as well as any other type of resource existing on the territory ) in a single national system .

More specifically , the reception system of asylum seekers is mainly subdivided into CARDINAL phases – a first reception phase provided by a type of government facilities , namely ORG ) and a second one provided by the facilities of ORG ) , which are run by ORG .

The resources necessary to finance the entire system are drawn from ORG ( ORG ) run by ORG , established by Law No . CARDINAL of DATE ( the resources of the ORG are allocated with a decree of the Minister of the ORG ) and , to a lesser extent , from ORG ( ORG ) .

THE RECEPTION CENTRES FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS ( ORG )

ORG were established by means of Legislative Decree No . CARDINAL of DATE implementing Directive PERSON and replaced the identification centres envisaged by LAW . CARDINAL and by the subsequent implementing regulation No . CARDINAL .

The ORG centres in operation are the following : ... [ CARDINAL locations with a total capacity of CARDINAL places ] ...

The ORG centres accommodate international protection seekers who are in special conditions ( e.g. without documents ; individuals who entered GPE violating frontier checks ; individuals who have been found in an irregular position by law enforcement bodies ) for the time needed to be identified ( maximum DATE ) or to enable ORG for the Recognition of International protection to take a decision on the applications for international protection ( maximum DATE ) .

When the latter term has expired without a decision of ORG , the asylum seeker is granted a renewable residence permit based on his / her asylum application with a DATE validity , which however does not allow the concerned person to work .

Once the ordinary identification and photographical identification procedures are completed , the asylum seeker can leave the Centre during DATE ( TIME ) or on account of special personal conditions for DATE , upon authorization of the Director of the Centre .

In case the concerned individual leaves the centre without justification the reception ceases and the protection / asylum application may be processed without having to comply with the obligation to interview the applicant ; in these cases , each ORG can take a decision on the basis of available documents .

According to LAW . PERSON ( which incorporated in the national legislation directive No . CARDINAL ) asylum seekers without means of support may continue to be accommodated in ORG centres even beyond the envisaged DATE , in case it is ascertained that no places are available in the GPE services funded by ORG and belonging to ORG ) .

According to LAW . PERSON , in case the decision on the asylum application is not taken within DATE from its submission , the stay permit based on the asylum application is renewed for DATE and it enables the applicant to work until ORG takes its decision .

The system of reception envisages that a range of services must be provided to migrants and the Manager of the ORG must guarantee them as provided for by a convention concluded with the competent LOC according to the tender specifications adopted by means of a decree of the Minister of the ORG on DATE .

These services can be summed up as follows :

a ) ORG assistance and free legal aid when applicable ;

b ) General assistance to persons :

Linguistic - cultural mediation ;

Information on immigration legislation and on the rights and duties of aliens in GPE as well as on the rules of conduct that have to be complied with at the centre ;

ORG and laundry services ;

Socio - psychological support with special attention for persons belonging to vulnerable categories ;

Organization of free time by providing cultural activities , sports and social and religious activities ;

Teaching of NORP ;

Guidance to the territory and information on the opportunities to be included in the protection system for asylum seekers and refugees .

c ) ORG assistance :

Administering of medicines ;

First aid carried out by nurses and possibility to be accompanied to local medical stations ;

Reservation of visits with consultants and assistance during medical consultations and while the individual is hospitalized .

d ) Cleaning up and environmental hygiene service ;

e ) Provision of essential goods :

CARDINAL meals a day ;

A personal set of clothing adequate to the DATE and sex of the concerned person ;

Products for personal hygiene ;

Telephone card ;

A LAW voucher DATE to be spent within FAC .

Furthermore , asylum seekers accommodated in ORG centres are entitled to receive visits of ORG representatives , representatives of other ORG promoting the protection of the rights of asylum seekers , of lawyers , family members or NORP citizens upon authorization of the ORG .

More generally speaking , the above mentioned tender specifications have introduced further improvements of the services provided in the centres for refugees ( and in general for all government centres for migrants ) enhancing the services to the persons on the one hand and strengthening the measures aimed at controlling the management as well as expenditures on the other .

The reception conditions described above are guaranteed to all asylum seekers , including to those transferred to GPE following a “ GPE ” procedure . The latter receive a preliminary form of reception upon arrival when the services present in the main airports are activated ; subsequently they are accommodated in the government reception centres . When the transferring country reports the existence of vulnerability conditions of the asylum seeker , appropriate medical measures are taken in the centres aimed at an adequate reception . ...

Special attention is paid to migrants with physical or [ psychological ] traumas and to the victims of torture , who are entrusted to the medical stations of the reception centres or at local level to receive treatment and support in a professional and adequate way . ...

THE PROTECTION SYSTEM FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS AND REFUGEES ( ORG )

The second phase of reception is provided for by ORG ) .

The system was established by means of law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and it consists of a network of ORG ) which provides services of protection , guidance and integration in favour of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of CARDINAL of the forms of international protection ( refugee status , subsidiary protection , humanitarian protection ) , they are funded with resources of the ORG .

The selection of the local authorities who are to enjoy the state funding occurs through a public call for the submission of funding requests based on specific guidelines providing information on the standards of the services to be supplied by the local authorities in collaboration with ORG organizations and cooperative societies with proven experience in this sector .

The funded projects are submitted for ordinary categories , for vulnerable categories ( unaccompanied minors , the disabled , victims of torture or violence , the elderly , expectant mothers , single parent families ) and for individuals with a mental condition who need medical and in - house assistance either specialized or extended .

In the territorial projects of ORG food , accommodation , pocket money , legal information , social - psychological support and notions of territorial orientation are provided . In order to favour the individual process of integration of asylum seekers and persons granted international protection , ORG and the Third sector associations , that run the activities , carry out their interventions at local level and activate in synergy all services existing on the territory : courses of NORP , medical assistance through ORG , support and guidance in the processing of administrative files , schooling of minors , vocational training , traineeships , work subsidies , introduction into the housing market through helpdesks or agencies .

These are integration pathways on a local basis , which are in keeping with the minimum reception measures envisaged by the NORP directives ( Directive GPE ) , and whose level has gradually increased over DATE , thanks to the dissemination and sharing of best practices within the system itself .

In the management of ORG special attention is paid to the training of the staff who carry out reception services at local level : training programmes addressing project personnel newly entering the System are promoted as are meeting opportunities for more experienced personnel in order to satisfy the need to be informed , to delve into the matter and to exchange views .

The training activity also aims at strengthening the skills of local staff in connection with reception and the process of taking charge of vulnerable persons as well as at improving the skills of the staff working at the governmental reception centres and at the ORG centres .

As was the case in DATE , in DATE , ORG funded the reception and integration activities of ORG through the ORG .

For the period DATE the ORG network consists of CARDINAL local projects traceable to CARDINAL ORG , with a yearly total cost of MONEY and a reception capacity of CARDINAL places for DATE . Out of these , CARDINAL places are devoted to the so called “ ordinary categories ” ( single men , single women , families ) and CARDINAL places are devoted to the reception of vulnerable individuals ( foreign unaccompanied minors , single parent families , victims of torture and violence , persons in need of extended medical and specialized assistance ) . The remaining CARDINAL places are specifically devoted , for the first time , to persons with a mental condition .

The funded places are at the disposal of the beneficiaries for an overall period of DATE , renewable in case of need ; thus , the resulting ordinary turn over provides for a total reception of CARDINAL places DATE . However , in DATE , following the LOC emergency , ORG accommodated CARDINAL migrants .

In this connection , the possibility of developing the ORG is being studied , although the necessary financial resources will have to be found .

As far as the use of the ORG is concerned , the programme for DATE included allocations amounting to MONEY for innovative interventions of reception and social - economic integration of asylum seekers and refugees . MONEY out of the total amount are devoted to urgent measures for reception and support interventions capable of dealing with the humanitarian emergency connected with the political - social crisis existing in some countries of GPE .

Furthermore , the multiannual programme includes actions ranging from interventions focused on the intensive learning of NORP to interventions focused on the specific support of vulnerable categories .

More specifically , actions aimed at asylum seeking unaccompanied minors have been adopted ; in favour of this category pathways of schooling , training and social - psychological support are envisaged , as are other actions aimed at individuals with a mental condition as a consequence of torture or violence .

OTHER RECEPTION MEASURES

The reception system is completed by ORG created in DATE in some metropolitan cities like GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . Their activation is based on agreements signed by the municipalities and ORG in order to “ carry out joint activities in favour of asylum seekers , refugees and beneficiaries of humanitarian protection ” .

This is a new organization pattern , specifically designed for the cities that have to handle a more serious state of emergency brought about by the large number of foreigners who benefit from international protection or who belong to vulnerable categories and who are attracted to the opportunities offered by that type of urban system .

In these facilities the aim was a unitary project blending the basic services provided in the governmental reception centres with those aimed at integration and autonomy provided by the Municipalities . Actually , in addition to reception medical and psychological assistance services have been provided for , including in cooperation with ORG and hospitals , furthermore vocational training and tutoring services have also been provided for in order to support possible pathways of social inclusion of the guests in the urban texture thanks to network synergies .

Furthermore with the call for tenders of DATE , issued by ORG in agreement with ORG ( ORG ) , the municipalities of the convergence objective area were invited to submit projects for the renovation or enlargement of facilities devoted to the reception of asylum seekers .

This intervention is part of the ... action plan falling under the responsibility of ORG with special reference to the operational objective CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( Activities in favour of migrants regularly present on the national territory ) and to action CARDINAL ( Reception and inclusion ) concerning the upgrading and enlargement of facilities devoted to the reception of third country migrants who seek asylum , who are refugees or benefit from humanitarian protection .

At present various projects have been submitted , CARDINAL of which are eligible for funding . The maximum budget for the intervention linked to the above mentioned action amounts to CARDINAL .

Finally , the Reception Services existing at frontier posts are also worth mentioning , their aim is providing information and assistance to aliens and they are envisaged by ORG ( article CARDINAL , Legislative Decree No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . They are active at frontier posts in ports and airports in GPE , PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ; they address the needs of aliens that enter GPE to seek asylum or anyway for stays longer than DATE .

The local Prefects have been charged with the organization of the above mentioned services ( article CARDINAL of Ministerial decree DATE ) either directly or by means of conventions .

The main objective of the reception services is providing assistance to aliens seeking protection with special attention for the most vulnerable .

In particular the following is provided for :

Interpretation and cultural mediation , including to support ORG present at the frontier posts ;

When needed , social - legal guidance interventions and preliminary assistance ;

Information on the asylum and immigration legislation in force in GPE , on the reception facilities existing in GPE and on the offices charged with the protection of asylum seekers and refugees ;

Filling in of the asylum application in the applicant ’s language and subsequent translation into NORP ;

Handing over of the statement of the asylum seeker to the frontier police authorities ;

Assistance to the above mentioned Public Security personnel who are provided with useful elements for an adequate understanding of the Countries of origin of asylum seekers .

MEDICAL ASSISTANCE

In GPE , foreign citizens , even those not complying with the provisions regulating their presence , are entitled to ordinary and/or urgent treatment through ORG .

In the government centres for migrants the psychic / physical health of guests is recognized as an unalienable right of the individual , which is safeguarded by article CARDINAL of LAW and it has always been put at the forefront when the regulatory and management system of the centres is being prepared .

More specifically , the medical assistance service provided for in the centres for migrants must grant guests the following :

Visit upon entry and medical first aid , carried out in a consulting room set up within the facility with medical staff and nurses , whose shifts must be based on the ratio guests / staff as indicated in the tables of the tender specifications ;

When the need arises , possible transfer of guests to hospitals outside the centres , in compliance with LAW as migrants hosted in ORG centres can benefit from the services of ORG by showing their ORG cards ( Temporarily Present Alien ) , issued by ORG , whereby they can enjoy treatment in the consulting room or in hospitals , when it is urgent or essential in case life is in peril ;

Administering of medicines and medical devices necessary for first aid and for ordinary medical assistance , including for generic conditions of psychological type ;

Recording of a personal medical file , a copy of which must be handed over to the guest . In this connection it is worth mentioning that doctors , when screening the guests upon entry must also evaluate their psychic - social situation as well as the presence of vulnerability factors ( serious psychic - psychological conditions , including previous ones , victims of mistreatment / torture , substance addiction , etc . ) in order to prescribe possible drug treatment or psychological counselling .

It is further specified that as provided for by the above mentioned LAW ( ORG ) , foreign citizens who are on the national territory but do not comply with provisions regulating their presence are anyway entitled to treatment in public health care facilities either in consultation rooms and/or in hospital ( both urgent and continuing treatment ) because of illness or accident and they also benefit from the programmes of preventive medical treatment aimed at safeguarding individual and collective health .

Regardless of the possession of a residence permit , the NORP legislation provides for the social protection and medical assistance to expectant mothers and to mothers , the protection of the psychic - physical health of minors ( as a result of ORG , interventions of prevention , diagnosis and treatment of infectious diseases and the decontamination of the related centres of infection .

Finally , when aliens not complying with provisions regulating their presence visit public medical facilities , they are not reported to ORG .

As far as social services are concerned , the principle enshrined in LAW DATE LAW according to which the status of a refugee is equal to that of a national DATE is embodied in the NORP legislation also as a consequence of article CARDINAL of the above mentioned Legislative Decree No . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which lays down that individuals benefiting from refugee status and from subsidiary protection have the same status as NORP citizens and thus they have access to all services and benefits , including economic ones , covered by the social and medical assistance system .

Furthermore , the projects funded through resources of the ORG include measures to ease the access to social security , particularly on the part of vulnerable groups . ”

The “ Dublin II Regulation National Report ” on GPE , drawn up on DATE by ORG for technical cooperation of the application of the Dublin II Regulation , a NORP - wide network of non - governmental organisations ( NGO ) assisting and counselling asylum seekers subject to a GPE procedure , describes the NORP reception system in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . ... The NORP reception system for the international protection seekers is characterized by the existence of several actors which are not coordinated by a central service . In particular , there are governmental centres - Reception Centres for Asylum Seekers ( hereafter : CARAs ) , the national ORG ( hereafter : ORG ) , the facilities set up by ORG ( Protezione Civile ) and the reception system in the big cities managed by the GPE . ...

The system has always been characterized by a chronic lack of places that has brought to the creation of parallel reception systems run by ORG and established to tackle emergencies . Emergencies are the massive flows that disembarked on the NORP coasts in DATE the most recent arrivals refer to the so - called “ LOC Emergency ” . ...

In order to describe the reception system and how it works , it is deemed necessary to talk about the phenomenon of self - organized settlements that have mushroomed in big cities to face the lack of places . Such insufficiency has always characterized the reception system , in particular in metropolitan areas .

It must be said that the access to the reception system is not immediate since it occurs only after the formal registration of the international protection request – that takes place very often after DATE with respect to the fotosegnalamento . While waiting for the formal registration , above all in the metropolitan areas , the asylum seeker finds him / herself without any accommodation .

THE CARAs

The [ currently CARDINAL ] CARAs [ spread around GPE with a total of CARDINAL places ] ... host international protection seekers for DATE . However , in practice , the period is prolonged to DATE since the international protection procedure is stretched over the foreseen end of the reception in the ORG . ...

CARAs are not a form of detention : the law itself establishes that international protection seekers are to be granted the opportunity to get out and to ask the permission to temporary leave . ... According to Art . CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , the reception ends if the international protection seekers leave the CARAs without well - founded reasons .

In general CARAs are big buildings that can host high numbers of people and are , therefore , not adequate to house persons for long periods of time . ..

THE ORG

In addition to these governmental centres , there is the ORG which was set up by LAW in DATE . The ORG is promoted by ORG and funded by ORG . It consists of a network of voluntary local authorities that carry out projects of integrated reception coordinated by ORG : the staff provides beneficiaries with assistance in beginning the process of integration on the NORP territory . The service ’s targets are both international protection seekers and people who have already been granted a form of protection .

The length of stay within ORG ’s projects varies according to the person ’s status :

international protection seekers have the right to stay until they receive ORG decision ;

people having an international protection ( refugee status ; subsidiary protection ) and permit of stay for humanitarian reasons have the right to stay up to DATE ;

applicants who received a negative decision from ORG and who appealed against such decision , have the right to stay in the reception project until they can work on the basis of LAW Legislative Decree PERSON .

The length of stay in ORG centres may be extended to DATE or longer periods in case of exceptional circumstances and well - grounded reasons . As far as vulnerable categories are concerned , this period may be prolonged DATE in cases of specific vulnerabilities .

Beneficiaries enter ORG ’s projects only if their cases have been reported to ORG by :

the staff of CARAs ;

PERSON ;

Prefecture ;

other reception centres .

In DATE , the number of places available within the ORG were CARDINAL . Within this broader category , CARDINAL were the places for vulnerable categories ( in particular , CARDINAL for unaccompanied minors and CARDINAL for people suffering from mental diseases ) . Such number is in strong contrast with the number of international protection requests lodged in GPE DATE . For instance , in DATE , the applications were CARDINAL . Therefore , there is a disproportion between the international protection requests ( CARDINAL ) and the availability of places in ORG projects ( CARDINAL ) . In order to face such discrepancy – especially in case of massive flows such as those arrived during DATE because of the uprisings in NORP countries – the ORG facilities ( CARDINAL places ) have been established . Thus , the disproportion may lead to a short length of stay which does not allow to complete the integration process and to people remaining for too long periods in reception projects hampering thus the turn - over foreseen .

ORG

Besides the governmental centres and the ORG , in order to tackle the massive flows of persons coming from the NORP countries , it has been established DATE as said previously – the system run by ORG . Such system has been appointed responsible for implementing a Plan to manage migrants’ reception through a decree declaring the existence of an emergency . Currently , such Plan is giving assistance to CARDINAL persons through facilities managed by the Regions as of DATE . The centres , set up by ORG funds , are working in parallel with the other reception centres .

THE FACILITIES IN METROPOLITAN AREAS

In many NORP cities , the ORG have established their own reception systems that concern international protection seekers , GPE cases and holders of international protection . This happens even if the FAC accommodations have not been set up to comply with the Reception Directive and its LAW . Each system has its own entry rules and capacity at local level . Therefore , it is not possible to describe them comprehensively as it is deemed necessary to focus on the fact that these facilities have been established to tackle the lack of the governmental centres and of the ORG . Although the GPE centres have assisted international protection seekers and holders of protection , it is not their aim and , therefore , such structures do not offer targeted services . Moreover , it must be considered that the entry in these systems is difficult because of the existing disproportion between the lacking of places and the requests of accommodation lodged in each GPE .

THE SELF - ORGANIZED SETTLEMENTS

Lacking a reception and assistance policy for the international protection beneficiaries and the asylum seekers , in practice a phenomenon has originated : the self - organized settlements . These have mushroomed to host both international protection seekers and migrants in big cities . With respect to GPE , where CARDINAL people are expected to live in these settlements , GPE hosts less people because the GPE has hampered the birth of new [ settlements ] ... [ GPE , for instance , runs CARDINAL reception centres providing around DATE places ; GPE offers CARDINAL places and GPE of ORG provides CARDINAL places ] . ”

According to the report “ Asylum procedure and reception conditions in GPE ” with a special focus on “ GPE returnees ” as released in DATE by PERSON , a joint NORP - Swiss NGO and based on a visit to GPE in DATE , persons who are returned to GPE in accordance with the Dublin II Regulation arrive by plane at international airports . GPE returnees will in general be reinserted in their previous asylum procedure at the stage when they left . To this end , the border police at the airport will identify the responsible police immigration department . The returnee will be asked to go there and must present him or herself there within DATE of arrival in GPE . Travel expenses are covered by ORG .

This report also explains that the majority of GPE returnees had already received an NORP residence permit before they left GPE for other NORP countries . It is possible to renew a residence permit issued to an accepted refugee or granted for subsidiary protection or compelling humanitarian reasons by filing a request with the competent police immigration department . However , as such a request must in principle be accompanied by the original permit paper , this can be a serious problem for GPE returnees who usually no longer have this permit in their possession when they are transferred to GPE . Although the NORP authorities generally display a restrictive approach where it concerns replacing missing permits in order to prevent improper use of such documents , stolen or lost permits can be replaced .

The “ Dublin II Regulation National Report ” on GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) states in respect of GPE Returnees :

“ Within this broader category , another distinction is deemed necessary according to whether the returnee had already enjoyed the reception system while s / he was in GPE .

If returnees ( international protection seekers , beneficiaries of international protection or of a permit of stay for humanitarian reasons ) had not been placed in reception facilities while they were in GPE , they may still enter reception centres . Due to the lack of available places in reception structures and to the fragmentation of the reception system , the length of time necessary to find again availability in the centres is DATE in most of the cases - too long . Since , there is no general practice , it is not possible to make a quantification of the time necessary to access to an accommodation . However , in DATE , temporary reception systems have been established to house persons transferred to GPE on the basis of the Dublin II Regulation . However , it concerns a form of temporary reception that lasts until their juridical situation is defined or , in case they belong to vulnerable categories , an alternative facility is found .

Such temporary reception has been set up thanks to targeted projects funded by ORG . For instance , in GPE , there are currently projects providing assistance to CARDINAL persons – within this broader category CARDINAL places are for vulnerable categories .

However , it happens that GPE returnees are not accommodated and find alternative forms of accommodation such as self - organized settlements .

If returnees , who have already been granted a form of protection , had already enjoyed the reception system when they were in GPE , they have no more right to be accommodated in CARAs . However , they may be accommodated in these centres in case places are available to allow them to restart the administrative procedure to obtain a permit of stay .

Frequently , the time foreseen in accommodation facilities is not enough for the beneficiaries of international protection to fully integrate themselves . ... ”

The NORP comparative report “ Dublin II Regulation , Lives on hold ” prepared in collaboration with PERSON , ORG , ORG and ORG ( ORG ) and published on DATE states under the heading “ Access to the asylum procedure in a take back situation ” in respect of GPE :

“ In GPE , if the asylum seeker has previously applied for asylum there , CARDINAL scenarios may arise : CARDINAL ) the applicant was granted protection in his / her previous asylum procedure but was not notified of this outcome ; if the permit of stay is still valid then a residence permit will be issued to the person concerned ; if the permit of stay is no longer valid then a procedure can be started to renew it . The applicant will be entitled to the same benefits as other beneficiaries of international protection ; CARDINAL ) If the applicant received a refusal on his / her first asylum application and was notified of this before leaving GPE and did not appeal against it , the asylum seeker will be notified of an expulsion order and possibly sent to a detention centre ( CIE : ORG ) . If the person was only informed of the first instance refusal upon return , then he / she has the possibility to lodge an appeal within DATE . If the person concerned decides not to submit an appeal , then he / she is required to leave GPE within DATE at the latest . CARDINAL ) If the applicant ’s asylum procedure in GPE is still pending , the NORP authorities will continue to examine his / her claim . ”

In DATE and DATE several NORP administrative courts granted interim relief in cases concerning transfers to GPE . According to the “ Dublin II Regulation National Report ” on GPE , published in DATE by the NORP network for technical cooperation on the application of the Dublin II Regulation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG ( ORG für ORG ) has appealed all of the few judgments which obliged it to invoke the sovereignty clause by taking over responsibility for an asylum request from the country of first abode and , so far , the NORP constitutional court has not suspended any transfer to GPE .

In its ruling no . CARDINAL given on DATE , concerning the complaint that the transfer from GPE to GPE of an NORP asylum seeker would breach the latter ’s rights under LAW , the Acting President of Chamber IV of ORG ( Conseil du contentieux des étrangers / PERSON vreemdelingen - betwistingen ) decided to suspend the removal order issued against the appellant . After having extensively cited the relevant principles in the ORG ’s case - law under the ORG , it held :

“ QUANTITY . ... The general information added to the file by the applicant shows – at this stage of the proceedings – to a sufficient degree that currently there are serious problems in GPE as regards the manner in which asylum seekers are being treated . Although press reports and/or general reports do not in itself suffice for finding a violation of LAW , it appears in the instant case that the [ NORP Deputy Minister for Asylum and Migration ] , in taking her decision in which she refers to the responsibility of GPE as to the processing of the asylum request , has not sufficiently taken into account the precarious situation of asylum seekers since the events in GPE .

The appellant further correctly points out that , since the NORP authorities failed to reply to the transfer request , there is no formal approval by the NORP authorities from which it could ( implicitly ) be derived that he will be given suitable reception .

It follows that the applicant seems to have an arguable claim based on LAW . The grounds for appeal , in so far as they allege a violation of LAW , thus appear to be serious at this stage of the proceedings . ”

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG and GPE examined – in the case of EM ( GPE ) and others v. the Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] EWCA Civ CARDINAL –whether the return of any of the CARDINAL appellants to GPE , either as an asylum - seeker or as a person already accepted as a refugee there , would entail a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of LAW . The appellants claimed that GPE ’s system for the reception and settlement of asylum - seekers and refugees is in large part dysfunctional , with the result that anyone arriving or returned there , even if they have children with them , faces a very real risk of destitution .

ORG considered this question in the light of the materials adduced by the parties , including “ Recommendations on Important Aspects of Refugee Protection in Italy ” as published in DATE by the ORG ; a report of PERSON , ORG Commissioner for Human Rights , issued in DATE following a formal visit to GPE in DATE ; reports from ORG ( deriving from a joint NORP and NORP NGO visit to GPE in DATE ) , from ORG ( a NORP NGO , based on the same visit in DATE ) , from ORG ( a NORP NGO which visited GPE at about the same time ) , from ORG ( in a report entitled ORG , sponsored by the ORG and ORG , updated to DATE ) , from a specialist lawyer , PERSON ( DATE ) , and from CARDINAL other specialist lawyers , PERSON and PERSON ( Critical Aspects of ORG in GPE , DATE ) . It summarised the parties’ position as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The Home Secretary has put a substantial body of evidence before the court describing GPE ’s system for the processing , reception , accommodation and support of asylum - seekers and refugees . We will come in due course to the legal materiality both of this evidence and of the countervailing evidence of the CARDINAL claimants which is summarised above . In essence , as set out in the NORP government ’s ORG exhibited to the witness statement made in [ CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cases ] by [ ... ] , ORG NORP liaison officer , it is as follows .

Asylum seekers are accommodated in a reception centre for long enough for ORG to evaluate their claims . If accepted as refugees , or while awaiting a decision , they are given an international protection order and assigned to a ‘ territorial project’ which forms part of ORG , the national system for the protection of asylum - seekers and refugees . ORG will either provide accommodation or transfer the claimant to a public or private local provider . Access to ORG is by referral only . It provides food and lodging and courses designed to assist integration , but ( with few exceptions ) the limit of stay there is DATE . On leaving , claimants can apply to charitable or voluntary providers but there is no guarantee of success . However , the international protection order affords access to free healthcare and social assistance ( which does not extend to social security ) equivalent to that enjoyed by nationals . This requires a fiscal code number , which in turn depends on having an address which can be verified by the police . An international protection order also allows the holder to take employment or undertake self - employment , to marry , to apply for family reunification , to obtain education , to seek recognition of foreign qualifications , to apply for public housing and , after DATE , for naturalisation . For those denied these rights , there is , says [ the representative of the ORG Secretary ] , access to the NORP courts .

The PERSON case is that this may be the system in theory , but their own experience and that of many others , to which independent reports attest , is that it is not what happens in reality to a very considerable number both of asylum - seekers and of recognised refugees . In short , they say , GPE ’s system for the reception and settlement of asylum - seekers and refugees is in large part dysfunctional , with the result that anyone arriving or returned there , even if they have children with them , faces a very real risk of destitution . ”

Although acknowledging that the NGO reports before it gave a great deal of support to the accounts given by CARDINAL of the appellants of their own experiences in GPE , ORG found :

“ CARDINAL . ... The decision of ORG of ORG in GPE v GPE has set a threshold in GPE II and cognate return cases which exists nowhere else in refugee law . It requires the claimant to establish that there are in the country of first arrival ‘ systemic deficiencies in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of asylum seekers ... [ which ] amount to substantial grounds for believing that the asylum seeker would face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment ... ’ .

In other words , the sole ground on which a second state is required to exercise its power under article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) Regulation CARDINAL/CARDINAL to entertain a re - application for asylum or humanitarian protection , and to refrain from returning the applicant to the state of first arrival , is that the source of risk to the applicant is a systemic deficiency , known to the former , in the latter ’s asylum or reception procedures . Short of this , even powerful evidence of individual risk is of no avail .

The totality of the evidence about GPE , although it is extremely troubling and far from uncritical , does not in our judgment come up to this mark . While undoubtedly at a number of points it either overtly alleges or powerfully suggests systemic failure , it is neither unanimously nor compellingly directed to such a conclusion . At least equal , if not greater , weight has to be accorded to the far more sanguine – and more recent - ORG report , echoed as it is , albeit more faintly , by the PERSON report . While what amounts to a systemic deficiency must to a considerable degree be a matter of judgment , perhaps even of vocabulary , the evidence does not demonstrate that GPE ’s system for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees , despite its many shortcomings and casualties , is itself dysfunctional or deficient . This is so whether one focuses on the body of available reports on GPE or the comparative findings in GPE about GPE .

It has to follow that the CARDINAL claims before the court , despite their supporting testimony of individual risk , are incapable of succeeding CARDINAL on the present evidence , and that the ORG Secretary is therefore justified in that respect in certifying them . ”


Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione materiae, victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE CARDINAL individuals , TIME , PERSON and GPE , the owners of a plot of land on the island of LOC , neighbouring another plot of land , allegedly owned by ORG , instituted proceedings for the determination of land borders ( uređenje međa ) before ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG because there was no agreement among them on the matter .

On DATE the applicant filed submissions with the court claiming that he should also be a party to these proceedings because already in DATE he had bought the plot of land in question from ORG , although he was not immediately entered as the owner in the land registry . However , he had been in possession of that plot of land ever since . By ORG judgment of DATE the applicant was established as the owner and on DATE he applied to the same court to enforce that judgment . The enforcement order to register the applicant as the owner of the plot of land in question into the land registry was issued on CARDINAL DATE .

It appears that ORG did not answer the applicant 's request to participate in the proceedings for the determination of the land borders by any formal decision .

From the transcript of the hearing held on DATE it transpires that PERSON was present at the hearing as the applicant 's legal representative and he repeated his previous request that the land borders be determined .

On DATE the court carried out an on the spot inquiry . The applicant was present in person and it was stated that the applicant was the successor of ORG

From the transcript of the inquiry it transpires that the parties could not agree on the determination of the land borders .

There was also an expert present at the inquiry who gave his report and on the same date the court adopted a decision determining the land borders . The text of the decision states that the land border among the parties was in dispute . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

In DATE the applicant filed a constitutional complaint concerning the length of the proceedings . On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared his complaint inadmissible for lack of capacity to conduct legal proceedings , establishing that the applicant had not been a party to the proceedings complained of . The relevant parts of ORG decision no . PERSON of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The present proceedings , conducted before ORG under the case file no . R.I.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , concern determination of the land borders . ...

Pursuant to LAW paragraph CARDINAL ) of LAW , ORG invited ORG to file their observations in respect of the constitutional complaint .

In their observations ORG stated : “ PERSON is not the legal representative of PERSON in the proceedings concerning determination of land borders which had been instituted before that court under case file no . GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL . PERSON has not filed an application for determination of land borders in these proceedings . Furthermore , PERSON has not been named the respondent party in these proceedings ... ”

The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON –Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ; “ the LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...

( CARDINAL ) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this Section is accepted , the ORG shall determine a time - limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the ORG budget within a term of DATE from the date when the party lodged a request