Brussels – Rescue and safe third country: the former must never be denied; the latter must be verified and designated only under certain conditions. With two different rulings, the Court of Justice of the EU tries to bring order to the management of migratory flows concerning the legal aspects of the issue. In the first ruling, the Luxembourg judges affirm the supremacy of the protection of asylum seekers’ fundamental rights, saying that “a member state may not plead an unforeseeable influx of
applicants for international protection in order to evade its obligation to
cover asylum seekers’ basic needs.” In other words, a migratory crisis, such as a high influx of foreign nationals, cannot be a reason for disrespectful and undignified treatment, nor justify a lack of access to basic services.
Violating this minimum reception obligation in its forms of services, facilities, and rights, “may trigger the liability of the member state concerned,” the EU Court adds. This means that national governments could face infringement proceedings for failing to comply with the directive setting the standards for the reception of applicants seeking international protection, according to which Member States must “in any event cover the basic needs of the persons concerned, in accordance with the
obligation to respect human dignity enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights.”
This clarification of the law is of particular interest to countries of first arrival, such as Italy, which are most vulnerable to a possible mass influx of migrants like the one witnessed in 2015. Following the past crisis, the current Italian government, led by Giorgia Meloni, has agreed with Albania to host temporary reception centers in the Balkan country to process asylum applications in Italy, without asylum seekers setting foot on Italian soil. Precisely in Albania, under this agreement, two Bangladeshi citizens applied for protection in Italy, which rejected it because the country of origin is considered safe.
In a judgment, the EU Court of Justice stated that EU law does not prevent a Member State from designating a third country of origin as “safe” through a legislative act provided that the act “can be subject to effective judicial
review.” In this specific case, the October 11, 2024 legislative decree on entry into Italy does not specify the sources of information on which the Italian legislature relied to assess the safety of the country. In any event, “a Member State may not include a country in the list of safe countries of origin if that country does not offer adequate
protection to its entire population,” the Court underlined.
Italy, therefore, may have acted too hastily. “The EU Court rejects the Meloni government. The Italy-Albania protocol is also a legal flop, as well as a useless and dangerous agreement, good only for internal propaganda,” said Re MEP Sandro Gozi.
(Emanuele Bonini collaborated).
English version by the Translation Service of Withub
