Cronaca - ANSA.it

Immigration : un tribunal italien invalide la rétention des migrants envoyés en Albanie, un camouflet pour Giorgia Meloni

Les douze migrants envoyés en Albanie doivent être transférés en Italie, mais le ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Piantedosi a annoncé que le gouvernement ferait appel.

Un revers cinglant pour le gouvernement d’extrême-droite de Giorgia Meloni. Un tribunal italien a invalidé, vendredi 18 octobre, la rétention dans des centres albanais des premiers demandeurs d’asile que Rome y a transférés cette semaine. La Première ministre a aussitôt réagi : « les Italiens m’ont demandé d’arrêter l’immigration illégale, et je ferai tout ce qui est possible pour tenir parole », a-t-elle promis dans un message posté sur X.

Le gouvernement dirigée par la cheffe du parti d’extrême droite Fratelli d’Italia (FDI) a signé fin 2023 avec Tirana un accord prévoyant la création de deux centres en Albanie, d’où les migrants secourus en Méditerranée pourront effectuer une demande d’asile.

Giorgia Meloni et ses alliés de droite et d’extrême droite ont présenté cet accord comme un modèle pour l’Europe et la dirigeante italienne en a détaillé le contenu jeudi à Bruxelles lors d’une réunion informelle avec la Hongrie, les Pays-Bas, l’Autriche ou encore la Grèce, en présence de la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen.
Le gouvernement fait appel

La décision des juges de la section des affaires migratoires du tribunal de Rome constitue donc un revers pour l’exécutif italien, qui a fait de la lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière un de ses principaux chevaux de bataille politiques. Les seize premiers migrants sont arrivés mercredi en Albanie, mais quatre d’entre eux ont immédiatement été ramenés en Italie, deux affirmant être mineurs et deux autres ayant besoin de soins médicaux.

Le tribunal italien ayant invalidé la rétention des 12 autres demandeurs d’asile, originaires du Bangladesh et d’Égypte, a invoqué un récent arrêt de la Cour européenne de justice sur les pays de provenance considérés « sûrs » par les pays d’accueil. Rome a récemment étendu la liste des pays d’origine « sûrs », définis comme des États où il n’y a pas de persécution, de torture ou de menace de violence aveugle, à 22 pays.

Mais cette liste comprend des pays dont certaines régions ne sont pas jugées « sûres ». Or la Cour européenne de justice estime que les États membres de l’UE ne peuvent désigner comme sûrs que des pays entiers, et non des parties de pays. Les douze migrants doivent donc être transférés en Italie, mais le ministre italien de l’Intérieur Matteo Piantedosi a annoncé que le gouvernement ferait appel.

▻https://www.francetvinfo.fr/societe/immigration/immigration-un-tribunal-italien-invalide-la-retention-des-migrants-envo

Op-ed: Does the Rome court’s refusal to validate the detention order of the first asylum seekers brought to Albania mark the end of the Italy-Albania deal?

On 18 October, the Civil Court of Rome blocked the detention of 12 asylum seekers from Bangladesh and Egypt, who had been transferred to Albania under a new migration deal between the two countries. While significant, the ruling might not be the end of the story.

What is the Italy-Albania deal?

The Italy-Albania deal, which was signed in November 2023 and ratified in February 2024, as part of Italy’s broader efforts to hinder arrivals from the Central Mediterranean route, allows Italy to send migrants rescued in international waters to Albania for asylum processing under an accelerated border procedure and for return operations. The procedures happen under Italian jurisdiction and are regulated by Italian law transposing the relevant EU legislation. The administrative and judicial authorities competent to deal with the matter are those in Rome. Migrants are first screened at the port of Shëngjin, and vulnerable individuals, such as minors or victims of trafficking, who are exempted from the border procedure, are returned to Italy. The rest are transferred to a centre in Gjadër, where their asylum claims are processed, and potential return operations for rejected applicants are arranged. Those who instead qualify for protection are transferred to Italy.

On 14 October, the first transfer took place, with 16 migrants from Bangladesh and Egypt being sent to Albania after initial screening aboard an Italian Navy ship. Of the 16 people who were transferred, 12 were deemed eligible for accelerated border processing and detained in Albania. Italian judges were then asked to validate the detention orders.

What did the Italian judges say?

Relying on a recent ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU, on 18 October, the Civil Court of Rome decided that an accelerated border procedure could not be applied to the 12 asylum seekers detained in Albania. Under Italian law, asylum seekers who arrive at the border without meeting entry conditions can undergo an accelerated process if they come from a “safe country of origin”. These individuals can also be detained if they do not provide a passport or refuse to deposit a financial guarantee. Without even looking into the detention question, the Rome court said that Italy’s designation of Bangladesh and Egypt as safe countries of origin was improper, because both countries were listed as safe with exceptions for certain groups, such as LGBTQI+ people, victims of female genital mutilation, and political opponents. On 4 October, the EU court had clarified that EU member states cannot classify third countries as safe countries of origin if there are exceptions. On the contrary, the third country should be free from the risk of persecution, torture and indiscriminate violence due to conflicts in its entirety. As a result, the Italian judges determined that the accelerated border procedure could not be applied to the 12 asylum seekers. The Rome court thus ordered them to be redirected to the ordinary asylum process in the territory. The 12 were transferred back to Italy on the same day, reaching the port of Bari in the afternoon of 19 October.

Is the Italy-Albania deal dead?

Not necessarily. As a response, the Italian government passed a law-decree, published on 24 October, to modify its list, removing countries deemed safe with territorial exceptions. However, countries with exceptions based on at-risk groups, including Egypt and Bangladesh, remained on the list. The government’s strategy is to claim that the EU court ruling only applies to territorial exceptions. However, this argument is unconvincing. The amendment to the 2005 Asylum Procedures Directive, used by the EU court as a basis to demonstrate the intention of the legislator to identify third countries of origin as safe only if they are entirely safe, removed the possibility of using both territorial and categories of people-based exceptions. We will soon see how the judges respond to this further change, given that the government, which is appealing the Rome court’s decision, will most likely attempt new transfers. However, even if the judges reject further detention orders, the deal could still survive.

The ruling only focused on how Italy implements the EU border procedure in general, and not on the situation in Albania specifically. This means that, in practice, asylum applicants from safe countries of origin without territorial limitations or exceptions based on at-risk groups could nonetheless be transferred. Furthermore, future EU regulations could provide loopholes for Italy. The forthcoming Asylum Procedure Regulation explicitly provides that third countries can be listed as safe countries of origin even when there are exceptions for specific parts of their territory or clearly identifiable categories of persons. Additionally, it expands the scope of accelerated border procedures, and renders them applicable not only to asylum seekers coming from safe countries of origin, but more broadly to applicants coming from a country with a recognition rate below 20%.

The road ahead?

The Italy-Albania deal is seen as a test case for EU member states seeking to manage migration flows through external partnerships. Its replicability is, however, questionable. The possibility of transferring migrants rescued on the high seas to Albania is based on the fact that the Asylum Procedure Directive only applies to applications made at the border, in transit zones or in territorial waters – but not in international waters, and that it can thus be unilaterally extended to procedures conducted in a third country. This means that, in practice, EU member states which do not face irregular border crossings at their external borders would not be able to copy it. However, in addition to creating unnecessary and unreasonable costs to process asylum applications outside the territory, it also sets a dangerous precedent. It deals yet another heavy blow to the right to territorial asylum, already under attack with discussions concerning “novel” ideas to manage migration inflows, including through the removal of the connection criteria to dismiss asylum applications based on the safe third country concept, and the ongoing discussions about creating “return hubs” in the context of the revision of the Return Directive. While the Italian authorities committed on paper to apply the same standards “as if” the applicants were in Italy, there are serious doubts that processing outside the EU can guarantee fair procedures and effective access to protection. For instance, in-person meetings with lawyers in Albania are permitted only if remote counselling is not possible, raising serious concerns relating to the right of defence. Given the legal, logistical, and humanitarian challenges behind external partnerships to shift responsibility to third countries or lower procedural guarantees, EU member states would do better if they if they invested in efficient asylum systems, integration measures and regularisation mechanisms in their territories instead.

▻https://ecre.org/op-ed-does-the-rome-courts-refusal-to-validate-the-detention-order-of-the-firs

Sentenza Cassazione: Consegnare gli immigranti alla guardia costiera libica è reato

La Libia è un paese canaglia: bocciati Minniti, Conte e Meloni. Dice la sentenza della Cassazione, è noto che in Libia i migranti subiscono vessazioni, violenze e tortura. Quindi è un reato violare la legge internazionale e il codice di navigazione che impongono di portare i naufraghi in un porto sicuro

Il governo italiano (sia questo in carica sia quelli di centrosinistra che avevano Marco Minniti come ministro dell’interno) potrebbe addirittura finire sotto processo sulla base di una sentenza emessa dalla Corte di Cassazione.

Dice questa sentenza che la Libia non è un porto sicuro, e che dunque non si possono consegnare alla Libia (o favorire la cattura da parte delle motovedette libiche) le persone salvate da un naufragio.

Dice la sentenza, è noto che in Libia i migranti subiscono vessazioni, violenze e tortura. Quindi è un reato violare la legge internazionale e il codice di navigazione che impongono di portare i naufraghi in un porto sicuro.

Che la Libia non fosse un porto sicuro era stranoto. Bastava non leggere i giornali italiani per saperlo. La novità è che questa evidente verità viene ora formalmente affermata con una sentenza della Cassazione che fa giurisprudenza. E che, come è del tutto evidente, mette in discussione gli accordi con la Libia firmati dai governi di centrosinistra e poi confermati dai governi Conte e infine dai governi di centrodestra.

Accordi che si basarono persino sul finanziamento italiano e sulla consegna di motovedette – realizzate a spese del governo italiano – alle autorità di Tripoli. Ora quegli accordi devono essere immediatamente cancellati e in linea di principio si potrebbe persino ipotizzare l’apertura di processi (se non è scattata la prescrizione) ai responsabili di quegli accordi.

I reati per i quali la Cassazione con questa sentenza ha confermato la condanna al comandante di una nave che nel luglio del 2018 (governo gialloverde, Salvini ministro dell’Interno) consegnò alla guardia costiera libica 101 naufraghi salvati in mezzo al Mediterraneo sono “abbandono in stato di pericolo di persone minori o incapaci, e di sbarco e abbandono arbitrario di persone”. La Cassazione ha dichiarato formalmente che la Libia non è un porto sicuro.

Tutta la politica dei respingimenti a questo punto, se dio vuole, salta in aria. La Cassazione ha stabilito che bisogna tornare allo Stato di diritto, a scapito della propaganda politica. E saltano in aria anche i provvedimenti recentemente adottati dalle autorità italiane sulla base del decreto Spazza-naufraghi varato circa un anno fa dal governo Meloni.

Ancora in queste ore c’è una nave della Ocean Viking che è sotto fermo amministrativo perché accusata di non aver seguito le direttive impartite dalle autorità libiche. Ovviamente dovrà immediatamente essere dissequestrata e forse c’è anche il rischio che chi ha deciso il sequestro finisca sotto processo. Inoltre bisognerà restituire la multa e probabilmente risarcire il danno.

E quello della Ocean Viking è solo uno di numerosissimi casi. Certo, perché ciò avvenga sarebbe necessaria una assunzione di responsabilità sia da parte del Parlamento sia da parte della magistratura. E le due cose non sono probabilissime.

▻https://www.osservatoriorepressione.info/sentenza-cassazione-consegnare-gli-immigranti-alla-guardia

Italy’s top court: Handing over migrants to Libyan coast guards is illegal

Italy’s highest court, the Cassation Court, has ruled that handing over migrants to Libyan coast guards is unlawful because Libya does not represent a safe port. The sentence could have major repercussions.

Handing over migrants rescued in the Central Mediterranean to Tripoli’s coast guards is unlawful because Libya is not a safe port and it is conduct which goes against the navigation code, the Cassation Court ruled on February 17. The decision upheld the conviction of the captain of the Italian private vessel Asso 28, which, on July 30, 2018, rescued 101 individuals in the central Mediterranean and then handed them over to the Libyan coast guards to be returned to Libya.

The supreme court judges ruled in sentence number 4557 that facilitating the interception of migrants and refugees by the Libyan coast guards falls under the crime of “abandonment in a state of danger of minors or incapacitated people and arbitrary disembarkation and abandonment of people.” This ruling effectively characterizes the 2018 incident as collective refoulement to a country not considered safe, contravening the European Convention on Human Rights.

NGOs announce class action lawsuit

Beyond its political implications, the Cassation’s decision could significantly impact ongoing legal proceedings, including administrative actions. NGOs have announced a class action lawsuit against the government, the interior minister, and the Italy-Libya memorandum.

The case, which was first examined by the tribunal of Naples, focuses on the intervention of a trawler, a support ship for a platform, to rescue 101 migrants who were on a boat that had departed from Africa’s coast.

According to investigators, the ship’s commander was asked by personnel on the rig to take on board a Libyan citizen, described as a “Libyan customs official”, who suggested sailing to Libya and disembarking the rescued migrants.

The supreme court judges said the defendant “omitted to immediately communicate, before starting rescue operations and after completing them, to the centres of coordination and rescue services of Tripoli and to the IMRCC (Italian Maritime Rescue Coordination Centre) of Rome, in the absence of a reply by the first,” that the migrants had been rescued and were under his charge.

The Cassation ruled that, by operating in this way, the commander violated “procedures provided for by the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) and by the directives of the International Maritime Organization,” thus carrying out a “collective refoulement to a port deemed unsafe like Libya.”

Furthermore, the Cassation emphasized the commander’s obligation to ascertain whether the migrants wanted to apply for asylum and conduct necessary checks on accompanying minors.
’Cassation should not be interpreted ideologically on Libya’, Piantedosi

“Italy has never coordinated and handed over to Libya migrants rescued in operations coordinated or directly carried out by Italy,” Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi said on February 19, when asked to comment the Cassation’s ruling. “That sentence must be read well — sentences should never be interpreted in a political or ideological manner,” he said.

Piantedosi contextualized the ruling within the circumstances prevailing in Libya at the time, citing efforts to assist Libya with EU cooperation. He highlighted the government’s adherence to principles governing repatriation activities and concluded by saying “there can be no spontaneity” and that “coordination” is essential.

▻https://twitter.com/InfoMigrants/status/1759901204501438649?t=ZlLRzR3-jQ0e6-y0Q2GPJA

Corte di Cassazione: la Libia non è un porto sicuro
▻https://seenthis.net/messages/1043753

Ventimiglia, migrante muore folgorato sul tetto di un treno mentre cerca di andare in Francia

Il corpo di un uomo è stato ritrovato semi-folgorato sul tetto di un treno, nei pressi della stazione ferroviaria di Mentone, in Francia, a poca distanza dal confine italiano. Il convoglio era partito da Ventimiglia.

L’incidente mortale è avvenuto questa mattina intono alle 9. Secondo una prima ricostruzione si tratterebbe di un migrante che avrebbe cercato di passare il confine aggrappandosi al pantografo che trasmette energia elettrica al treno, rimanendo folgorato.

Il convoglio francese, della società Sncf, era partito da Ventimiglia in direzione della Francia. Per permettere lo svolgimento dei rilievi la circolazione ferroviaria è stata sospesa per circa due ore. Dall’inizio del 2017 ad oggi questo è il quinto caso di migranti che muoiono così nel tentativo di superare il confine francese a Ventimiglia. Il primo caso si è registrato il 17 febbraio, il morto venne scoperto a Cannes. La seconda morte avviene il 19 maggio, la terza il 23 maggio, la quarta il 27 agosto. Il 15 maggio, invece, un migrante folgorato si salvò.

▻https://genova.repubblica.it/cronaca/2018/01/14/news/migrante_folgorato_tetto_treno-186497792

Un migrant mort électrocuté en gare de Menton

Ce dimanche matin vers 7h, le corps brûlé d’un migrant d’origine gambienne a été retrouvé sur le toit d’un train. Le jeune homme de 28 ans s’est électrocuté en grimpant sur le toit pour traverser la frontière franco-italienne.

Triste découverte ce dimanche matin vers 7h en gare de Menton. Le corps d’un migrant en feu a été aperçu sur le toit d’un train en provenance de Vintimille. Le conducteur du train et des voyageurs ont été alertés par plusieurs détonations.

La victime, un migrant originaire de Gambie, âgé d’une trentaine d’années était allongée sur le dos sur la catenaire. Il a été électrocuté. Son téléphone portable, retrouvé par les policiers montre des messages indiquant son intention de rejoindre les Alpes-Maritimes depuis l’Italie.

▻https://www.francebleu.fr/infos/faits-divers-justice/un-corps-en-feu-retrouve-en-gare-de-menton-1515920251