President: M. Acierno
Speaker: L. Tricomi
The First Civil Section – in the context of a judgment challenging the provision with which the Dublin Unit had disposed, pursuant to art. 1, par. 1, letter. d), of EU Regulation no. 604 of 2013, the transfer of the foreign citizen to another country, in which the aforementioned had already submitted a previous application for international protection (rejected by said member state, alleging that the transfer to that country would have entailed a concrete risk of violation of the art. 3 of the ECHR and art. 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) – has provided, pursuant to art. 374, paragraph 2, cpc, the transmission of the appeal to the First President for the possible assignment to the United Sections of the following issues of particular importance:
if “the derogation from the general principles of determining the competence of a Member State pursuant to EU Reg. no. 604 of 2013, deducible from the combined provisions of the art. 3 of EU Reg. n. 604 of 2013 and art.4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU also in light of the answer to question no. 2 by the Court of Justice in the ruling of 30 November 2023, may lead to verifying not the need to proceed with a comparison between the two States (the applicant, in this case Italy and the requested or the one taking back charge) on the assessment of the risk of indirect non-refoulement due to the danger of repatriation following the rejection of the application for international protection, but the legitimacy of the interference of our system of constitutional rank of national protection with the transfer decision, based on a case-by-case investigation case or for certain categories of people, taking into account the legally qualified vulnerability to which the applicant would be exposed in the event of forced repatriation to the third country, within the hypotheses protected by our national protection system”; if “the complex internal national protection system, based… on the need to complete the implementation of the constitutional right of asylum, the Euro-unitary international protection system being insufficient in this regard, can be qualified as a method of exercising the discretionary clause , so as to believe that the transfer decision by the state authority which has the power to apply the sovereignty clause highlights a tacit refusal to make use of it and allows it to be reviewed, as actually carried out by the judge of merit in the decision to annulment”.