Migrants, no CPR without proper information on rights

The migrant, even if formally irregular, must nevertheless beinformed of his rights in good time. The Court of Appeal of Turin, following the principles affirmed by the Court of Cassation, annulled the order of detention in the Piedmont Cpr of a Moroccan man who was the recipient of a deportation decree. The judges, upholding an appeal by his lawyers, noted thatthere was no proof that he had been adequately informed of his right to apply for international protection. The foreigner, who arrived in Italy through the Ventimiglia border crossing in early March, had been brought to the facility on 18 April.

The road taken by the territorial judges of Turin is the one indicated by the Supreme Court, which, with numerous rulings, has clarified thata foreigner who has not been informed of his right to seek international protection, in a transparent and exhaustive manner, cannot be expelled and detained in a CPR. Alreadyin 2023, with the sentence 32070, the Supreme Court clearly affirmed that the Public Administration has the duty to document 'the time and manner in which the information was administered'. Neither the information contained in the so-called disembarkation news sheet nor the style clause usually inserted in rejection decrees is sufficient.

On that occasion, the Supreme Court dictated a series of legal principles, which the judge must observe when validating an expulsion order or detention in a CPR. According to the Supreme Court, 'all foreigners who are taken to the special crisis points for rescue and first aid needs must be guaranteed complete and effective information on the international protection procedure, on the relocation programme in other EU Member States and on the possibility of resorting to assisted voluntary repatriation, since this is an obligation aimed at ensuring the correctness of the identification procedures and reducing the margins of operational error'. An obligation, the court of legitimacy specified, that exists also in the event that the foreigner has not expressed the need to apply for international protection "given that silence or a possible declaration incompatible with the will to apply for international protection, which must in any case be clearly expressed and not by ambiguous formulas, cannot take on importance if it does not appear that the person has been fully informed beforehand".

From the Supreme Court also came a clear indication on the correct path to follow in providing information. "It is not sufficient for the purpose of deeming fulfilled the obligation to provide information referred to in Article 10 ter of the Consolidated Act on Immigration that the decree of refoulement or detention generically states that the person has been fully informed, if, in the objection of the person concerned, nothing emerges, with regard to the information, from the information sheet or from other acts, documents or means of evidence offered by the administration; and, in particular, if it does not emerge when and how the information was given, with specific regard to the language used, in the presence of an interpreter or cultural mediator and this in order to allow verification of the comprehensibility of the information provided".

Principles applied several times by the Supreme Court, which, in Judgment 5797/2024, recalled that a foreigner rescued at sea cannot legitimately be the subject of a decree of refoulement nor can he be detained in a detention centre for repatriation, if there is no proof that the police forces requesting the validation of 'restrictive' measures have fully informed the migrant of all the rights - such as international protection - that he or she may legitimately exercise under national law. A notice that must be given already at the moment of disembarkation in Italy, but also in the immediate subsequent stages of the identification of the person detained at a CPR. Indeed, protection guarantees the right to an effective remedy.