Migrants, for the Supreme Court the assessment on 'safe' countries is up to the competent ministers. "Wait for the EU Court of Justice"

On the definition of safe countries, "the validation judge, guarantor, in the examination of the individual case, of the effectiveness of the fundamental right to personal freedom, does not replace himself in the assessment that is the responsibility, in general, only of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and of the other Ministers who intervene in concert". This is what the judges of the Court of Cassation wrote in an 'interlocutory order' on the appeals lodged by the government against the first non-validations of the detention of migrants in Albania issued by the immigration section of the Court of Rome on 18 October.

The European Court of Justice's ruling of 4 October, on the subject of Safe Countries, "deals exclusively with territorial exceptions, clarifying that the existence of internal areas of conflict and indiscriminate violence is incompatible with the designation of a third country as safe". The Supreme Judges state that 'the exceptions for categories of persons were not the specific subject of the ECJ's decision and were not examined by the Court as to their impact'. And again: from the EU ruling "it would not seem to derive - we read - as an implicit corollary, the exclusion of the compatibility with the notion of safe country, also, of personal exceptions, where, that is, the insecurity concerns categories of persons". On this point, the Supreme Court adds that 'there does not seem to be room, in other words, for any automatic fallout, in the sense that the indication, in the Country-Card, of a category of insecure persons would be destined to overwhelm the overall designation of security of the entire Country'.

The Court of Cassation, accepting the request of the General Prosecutor's Office, on the subject of the definition of safe countries, has 'suspended all measures' pending the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union. For the ermellini, 'in the dialogue between jurisdictions, the Court of Cassation participates by offering, in the spirit of loyal cooperation,' reads the 35-page document, 'its own working hypothesis, without, however, translating it either into a decision of the appeal or into a principle of law capable of guiding future applications.