Italy

Court of Justice of the European Union August 1, 2025 ECLI:EU:C:2025:591 Third country: Albania. Held in the Gjadër detention centre under the protocol between Italy and Albania, under which Albania made available two areas of its territory “which fall entirely within the competence of the Italian authorities” (paragraph 20). They applied for international protection there on 16 October 2024 (paragraph 21).

Disposition The Court (Grand Chamber) ruled that Articles 36 and 37 and Article 46(3) of Directive 2013/32, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, do not preclude a Member State “from designating third countries as safe countries of origin by means of a legislative act, provided that that designation can be subject to judicial review” by any court hearing an action against a decision taken under the special scheme for applicants from such countries; that the Member State must ensure “sufficient and adequate access” to the sources of information on which the designation is based, for the applicant and for the court, and that the court may take account of information it has gathered itself, provided that it is reliable and the adversarial principle is observed; and that Article 37 precludes a Member State “from designating as a safe country of origin a third country which does not satisfy, for certain categories of persons, the material conditions for such a designation”. The two cases go back to the Tribunale ordinario di Roma for decision.

LC and CP were rescued at sea by the Italian authorities and “taken to Albania, where they were placed in the Gjadër detention centre” (paragraph 20). On 17 October 2024 their applications were rejected under an accelerated border procedure “on the ground that LC and CP came from a safe country of origin”. “The detention orders were not validated by the court having jurisdiction and the applicants were, therefore, released” (paragraph 22). In Italy they challenged the decisions before the Tribunale ordinario di Roma (paragraph 23). Since Italy’s Decree-Law No 158/2024 of 23 October 2024, the list of safe countries of origin, which includes Bangladesh, has appeared in a legislative act rather than in an interministerial decree (paragraphs 18, 19 and 25). The Rome court was uncertain whether that designation was compatible with EU law, in the Court’s summary because it “stems from a legislative act, that the Italian legislature did not disclose its sources of information and that it maintained the option to make that designation even though that third country may not be ‘safe’ for certain categories of its population” (paragraph 39). The Court of Justice held that designation by legislation is allowed only if a court can review it, that the sources behind it must be accessible, and that under the directive a country may be designated safe only if it is generally safe for its whole population: the directive expresses “the choice of the EU legislature to make the designation of a safe country of origin subject to the condition that the third country is generally safe for its entire population and not only for a part of it” (paragraph 96).

Safe country of origin Border procedure Accelerated procedure Offshore processing Effective remedy Judicial review Detention

Caution A preliminary ruling interprets EU law; the Tribunale ordinario di Roma decides the two cases. The Court did not decide whether Bangladesh is safe. Its third point applies Directive 2013/32. Regulation 2024/1348, which applies to applications lodged from 12 June 2026, allows a designation “with exceptions for specific parts of its territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons”, and the Court said it was for the EU legislature to choose when that rule takes effect (paragraphs 15, 17, 106 and 107). The case concerns the designation applied in the centres in Albania, not detention there; the opinions of two Advocates General on detention in the centres are reported in the Coalition’s story of 11 June 2026.

European Court of Human Rights May 20, 2025 Third country: Libya. Two of the applicants, R.J. and E.R.O., remained on the Libyan ship Ras Jadir; they said the crew bound them with ropes, beat and threatened them, and that they were taken to a detention camp in Tajura, Libya, where they were ill-treated. They were later returned to Nigeria under the voluntary humanitarian return programme run by the IOM (paragraph 15). The other fifteen were taken to Italy by the rescue ship Sea-Watch 3 (paragraph 16).

Disposition Unanimously, the Court decided “to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it concerns the applicants I.A., E.E.A., E.K., V.M and J.O.”, with whom their representatives had lost contact (paragraph 17), and declared “the remainder of the application inadmissible”. It held that “the applicants were not under the jurisdiction of Italy within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention in respect of the facts complained of under Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4” (paragraph 114). The decision was notified in writing on 12 June 2025.

At 6.15 a.m. on 6 November 2017 the Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre in Rome received a distress signal from the dinghy, thirty-three nautical miles north of Tripoli; the coordination centre in Tripoli instructed the Libyan ship Ras Jadir to direct the rescue (paragraphs 5 to 8). According to the applicants, the Libyan ship’s manoeuvres caused the death of several people, who were flung into the water, and its crew struck those in the water with ropes and threatened them with weapons; Sea-Watch 3 pulled dozens aboard and recovered the dead, among them the sons of S.S. and R.J. (paragraphs 11 and 13). The Court found that Italy did not control the area: its support to Libya under the 2017 agreements, which included vessels such as the Ras Jadir, did not mean that “the international maritime area off the Libyan coast was under the effective control and decisive influence of Italy” (paragraphs 94 and 97). Nor did Italian agents control the applicants: “none of the ships involved in the rescue operation was flying the Italian flag or was under the de facto control of Italian agents” (paragraph 101), and “the mere fact that the search and rescue procedure was initiated by the Rome MRCC cannot have resulted in bringing the applicants under the jurisdiction of the Italian State” (paragraph 106). The Court added that “all the reports in its possession from international bodies and NGOs demonstrate that, at the material time, asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants in Libya were at risk of torture, slavery and discrimination, such that the situation in that country was no more favourable than it was found to have been in the Hirsi Jamaa and Others case” (paragraph 109), and that “problems with managing migratory flows cannot justify having recourse to practices which are incompatible with their obligations under the Convention” (paragraph 111).

Pushbacks Extraterritorial jurisdiction Search and rescue Bilateral agreements Outsourcing of migration control Article 3 ECHR

Caution The decision turns on jurisdiction and does not decide whether the events breached the Convention; the facts are as the applicants submitted them (paragraph 3). It distinguishes Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy (see that entry), where the applicants were on Italian military ships. The Court said that the situation “is nonetheless governed by other rules of international law, in particular those regarding the rescue of persons at sea, the protection of refugees and State responsibility” (paragraph 112). The decision was adopted in French; this entry quotes the English text on HUDOC.

European Court of Human Rights December 15, 2016 ECHR 2016 (extracts)

Disposition Unanimously: violations of Article 5 §§ 1, 2 and 4; no violation of Article 3 on account of the conditions at the Contrada Imbriacola early reception and aid centre or on the ships Vincent and Audace; and a violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 3. By sixteen votes to one, no violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and no violation of Article 13 taken together with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4. By fifteen votes to two, EUR 2,500 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage; unanimously, EUR 15,000 jointly for costs and expenses.

The applicants left Tunisia by boat on 16 and 17 September 2011, were intercepted by the Italian coastguard and taken to Lampedusa (paragraph 11). They were held at the early reception centre at Contrada Imbriacola until a revolt and fire on 20 September, then flown to Palermo on 22 September and held on the ships Vincent and Audace (paragraphs 14 and 15). On 27 and 29 September 2011 they were taken to Palermo airport and removed to Tunisia, after being received by the Tunisian consul before they boarded (paragraphs 17 and 18). The Grand Chamber held their confinement unlawful: “the applicants’ deprivation of liberty did not satisfy the general principle of legal certainty and was not compatible with the aim of protecting the individual against arbitrariness” (paragraph 107). They had no remedy for the conditions in which they were held, because an appeal against the refusal-of-entry orders “would have served only to challenge the lawfulness of their removal” (paragraphs 270 and 271). It found no collective expulsion: “To sum up, the applicants underwent identification on two occasions, their nationality was established, and they were afforded a genuine and effective possibility of submitting arguments against their expulsion” (paragraph 254). It left open whether the April 2011 agreement between Italy and Tunisia, “which has not been made public”, could be regarded as a readmission agreement within the meaning of the Return Directive (paragraph 255).

Collective expulsion Detention Detention conditions Readmission agreement Effective remedy Article 3 ECHR Article 5 ECHR

Caution The applicants did not claim that they faced ill-treatment in Tunisia. The Court held that the lack of suspensive effect of an appeal against removal did not in itself breach Article 13 “where, as in the present case, the applicants do not allege that there is a real risk of a violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 2 or 3 in the destination country” (paragraph 281). The Grand Chamber departed from the Chamber on the conditions at Contrada Imbriacola, on Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 and on Article 13 taken with it; it confirmed the Chamber on Article 5, on Article 13 taken with Article 3 and on the ships (concurring opinion of Judge Raimondi, paragraphs 1 and 2).

European Court of Human Rights October 21, 2014 Third country: Greece. At the port of Ancona the border police handed them to the captains of the ferries for return to Greece (paragraph 242). According to their lawyer’s letter of 13 April 2011, recorded in the judgment, Reza Karimi was later sent from Italy to Norway under the Dublin II Regulation, by a decision of 28 December 2010, and on arriving in Norway was sent straight back to Afghanistan (paragraph 39).

Disposition The operative part is in French; this is the Coalition’s summary translation. Unanimously: the application struck out for thirty-one applicants; for Reza Karimi, Yasir Zaidi, Mozamil Azimi and Najeeb Heideri (also known as Nagib Haidari), a violation by Greece of Article 13 taken with Article 3; a violation by Italy of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; a violation by Italy of Article 3, because by returning them to Greece the Italian authorities exposed them to the risks arising from the failures of the asylum procedure there; and a violation by Italy of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No. 4, for the lack of access to the asylum procedure or any other remedy in the port of Ancona. No need to examine the complaints under Article 2 or Article 34; the remainder of the application inadmissible as against each State. Greece to pay the four EUR 5,000 jointly for costs and expenses; the remainder of the claim dismissed.

The applicants said they had reached Greece in 2007 and 2008 from countries in armed conflict, boarded vessels for Italy at Patras, and were sent straight back to Greece by the border police at Bari, Ancona and Venice (press release). The Court found that at Ancona “les requérants ont été remis sur-le-champ par les autorités des frontières aux capitaines des ferry-boats et n’ont pas eu accès à un interprète ni à des agents pouvant leur fournir les informations minimales nécessaires à propos du droit d’asile et de la procédure pertinente” (paragraph 242; the Coalition’s translation: “the applicants were handed over immediately by the border authorities to the captains of the ferries and had no access to an interpreter or to officials who could give them the minimum information needed about the right to asylum and the relevant procedure”). It held that the measures taken against them at Ancona “s’analysent en des expulsions collectives et indiscriminées” (paragraph 225; the Coalition’s translation: “amount to collective and indiscriminate expulsions”). The Dublin system did not alter that. In the words of the Court’s English press release, “no form of collective and indiscriminate returns could be justified by reference to that system, and it was for the State carrying out the return to ensure that the destination country offered sufficient guarantees in the application of its asylum policy to prevent the person concerned being removed to his country of origin without an assessment of the risks faced.” Against Greece, the Court found a violation of Article 13 with Article 3 because of “l’absence d’accès à la procédure d’asile et du risque d’expulsion des requérants vers l’Afghanistan, où ils étaient susceptibles de subir des traitements inhumains et dégradants” (paragraph 233; the Coalition’s translation: “the lack of access to the asylum procedure and the risk of the applicants’ expulsion to Afghanistan, where they were liable to suffer inhuman and degrading treatment”). Against Italy, it found that by returning them to Greece the Italian authorities exposed them to the risks arising from the failures of the Greek asylum procedure.

Collective expulsion Dublin system Chain refoulement Access to asylum Effective remedy Article 3 ECHR Pushbacks

Caution The judgment was delivered in French only; the English item on HUDOC is a placeholder without text. Quotations from the judgment are given in French with the Coalition’s translation, and English quotations from the Registry’s press release are marked as such; the press release does not bind the Court. The press release says the Court held “by a majority”; the operative part of the judgment says “À L’UNANIMITÉ”, unanimously, and this entry follows the judgment. Thirty-one applicants were struck out under Article 37 § 1 (c); that is not a ruling on the merits of their complaints. The risk of onward expulsion to Afghanistan grounded the finding against Greece, not the findings against Italy.

European Court of Human Rights February 23, 2012 ECHR 2012 Third country: Libya. Intercepted on 6 May 2009, taken to Tripoli on Italian military ships and handed over to the Libyan authorities, under bilateral agreements between Italy and Libya that had entered into force on 4 February 2009 (paragraphs 10 to 13). The Court also found a risk that Libya would send them on to Somalia and Eritrea.

Disposition By thirteen votes to four, the application struck out for two applicants who had died. Unanimously: the applicants “were within the jurisdiction of Italy for the purposes of Article 1 of the Convention”; violations of Article 3 “on account of the fact that the applicants were exposed to the risk of being subjected to ill-treatment in Libya” and “on account of the fact that the applicants were exposed to the risk of being repatriated to Somalia and Eritrea”; a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; violations of Article 13 taken with Article 3 and with Article 4 of Protocol No. 4; the government’s preliminary objections rejected. EUR 15,000 to each applicant for non-pecuniary damage, to be held in trust by their representatives, and EUR 1,575.74 for costs and expenses.

The applicants were part of “a group of about two hundred individuals who left Libya aboard three vessels with the aim of reaching the Italian coast” (paragraph 9). On 6 May 2009, 35 nautical miles south of Lampedusa, ships of the Italian Revenue Police and Coastguard intercepted them; they were transferred onto Italian military ships and returned to Tripoli, where they were handed over to the Libyan authorities (paragraphs 10 to 12). The Minister of the Interior said that between 6 and 10 May 2009 “more than 471 irregular migrants had been intercepted on the high seas and transferred to Libya” under the agreements (paragraph 13). The Court held that “in the period between boarding the ships of the Italian armed forces and being handed over to the Libyan authorities, the applicants were under the continuous and exclusive de jure and de facto control of the Italian authorities” (paragraph 81), and that “by transferring the applicants to Libya, the Italian authorities, in full knowledge of the facts, exposed them to treatment proscribed by the Convention” (paragraph 137). It found a second violation of Article 3 in the risk of onward return: “indirect refoulement of an alien leaves the responsibility of the Contracting State intact” (paragraph 146). “It is a matter for the State carrying out the return to ensure that the intermediary country offers sufficient guarantees to prevent the person concerned being removed to his country of origin without an assessment of the risks faced. The Court observes that that obligation is all the more important when, as in the instant case, the intermediary country is not a State Party to the Convention” (paragraph 147). And it found a collective expulsion: “the transfer of the applicants to Libya was carried out without any form of examination of each applicant’s individual situation” (paragraph 185), so that “the removal of the applicants was of a collective nature, in breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention” (paragraph 186).

Pushbacks Extraterritorial jurisdiction Chain refoulement Collective expulsion Effective remedy Article 3 ECHR Bilateral agreements

Caution The judgment decides Italy’s responsibility for people its own ships took to Libya and handed over. In S.S. and Others v. Italy, decided on 20 May 2025 (no. 21660/18), about an incident at sea off Libya on 6 November 2017, the Court declared the application inadmissible, holding that “the applicants were not under the jurisdiction of Italy within the meaning of Article 1 of the Convention” (paragraph 114). The Coalition’s page on Italy sets out both.