Access Denied

CPR in Albania. Paesi “sicuri” per decreto legge

I fatti sono noti: il fermo dei primi migranti, che la Libra, nave della Marina militare italiana, aveva portato in Albania non è stato convalidato dal tribunale di Roma. Nel CPR albanesi, secondo quanto stabilito dagli accordi con il governo di Tirana, potrebbero finire solo uomini adulti provenienti da paesi “sicuri”.
Paesi “sicuri” sono quelli inclusi in una lista stilata dal governo.
In base al parere della Corte europea giustizia sulla direttiva UE in materia di paesi “sicuri” che stabilisce che non possono esservi paesi assolutamente sicuri per tutt*, il tribunale di Roma ha obbligato il governo a trasferire in fretta in Italia e furia il gruppetto di uomini provenienti da Bangladesh ed Egitto, rinchiusi nel CPR di Gjader.
La risposta del governo non si è fatta attendere. Ieri è stato emesso un decreto legge, quindi immediatamente in vigore, sino alla scontata convalida del parlamento, in cui viene definita per legge la lista dei paesi “sicuri”.
Nei fatti il governo se ne infischia del merito e va dritto allo scopo: selezionare, rinchiudere e deportare esseri umani in eccesso per mantenere il consenso nel proprio elettorato.

►https://radioblackout.org/2024/10/cpr-in-albania-paesi-sicuri-per-decreto-legge

L’Italie publie un nouveau décret sur les « pays sûrs » pour sauver son accord avec l’Albanie

Le gouvernement italien a publié lundi un nouveau décret visant à sauver son accord avec l’Albanie, qui prévoit l’externalisation des demandes d’asile dans ce pays voisin. L’exécutif a dévoilé une nouvelle liste de pays considérés comme « sûrs » pour envoyer les ressortissants originaires de ces États vers l’Albanie, sans être contrecarré par une décision de justice. Mais les juristes estiment que cette modification législative risque quand même de poser de nouvelles questions juridiques.

Le gouvernement italien contre-attaque. La coalition au pouvoir, alliant droite et extrême droite, a adopté lundi 21 octobre en Conseil des ministre un décret qui inscrit dans la loi 19 pays considérés comme « sûrs » par Rome pour y rapatrier les migrants.

Un moyen pour le gouvernement de sauver son accord avec l’Albanie, mis à mal par une décision de justice vendredi. Un tribunal romain a en effet invalidé la rétention des 12 premiers migrants arrivés sur le sol albanais mercredi 16 octobre, après avoir été interceptés en Méditerranée par les autorités italiennes. Ces hommes, originaires d’Égypte et du Bangladesh, ont dû être rapatriés en Italie trois jours plus tard.

Les juges italiens se sont appuyés sur un récent arrêt de la Cour européenne de justice (CJUE), qui estime que le Bangladesh et l’Égypte ne sont pas des pays sûrs, contrairement à l’Italie.

Nouvelle liste de pays « sûrs »

Afin de se conformer à la législation européenne, l’exécutif italien a exclu aujourd’hui trois pays parmi les 22 de sa liste précédente de « pays sûrs ». Désormais, le #Cameroun, la #Colombie et le #Nigeria en sont exclus. Toutefois, la nouvelle liste, qui a vocation à être mise à jour annuellement, comprend toujours le #Bangladesh, la #Tunisie et l’#Egypte.

Le décret ministériel, dont l’entrée en vigueur est immédiate, vise « à garantir que le recours à la demande de protection ne soit pas largement exploité pour échapper à la justice », a déclaré le ministre de l’Intérieur, Matteo Piantedosi.

Mais ce nouveau texte suffira-t-il à contrer la justice, comme le souhaite la Première ministre Giorgia Meloni ? Selon des juristes, cette modification législative risque de poser de nouvelles questions juridiques, et même avec ce décret, c’est bien la législation européenne qui prévaut malgré tout.

« Magistrats politisés »

La décision de la justice italienne est un revers cinglant pour la cheffe du gouvernement, qui a fait de la lutte contre l’immigration irrégulière sa priorité.

« Je ne crois pas qu’il soit de la compétence des juges de décider quels pays sont sûrs et lesquels ne le sont pas, c’est une compétence du gouvernement », avait-t-elle déclaré, alors que son parti avait dénoncé une décision « absurde » et fustigé des « magistrats politisés ».

De son côté, le ministre de la Justice Carlo Nordio a dénoncé « un arrêt de la Cour de Justice européenne qui est complexe, très détaillé et qui n’a probablement pas été bien compris ni bien lu ».

L’accord avec Tirana, qui a du plomb dans l’aile, était pourtant présenté comme un exemple à suivre au sein de l’Union européenne (UE). Depuis quelques jours, les États membres - dont certains veulent appliquer le modèle italien - ont les yeux rivés sur l’Italie, et sur sa possibilité ou non d’externaliser les demandes d’asile dans un pays hors UE.

►https://www.infomigrants.net/fr/post/60711/litalie-publie-un-nouveau-decret-sur-les-pays-surs-pour-sauver-son-acc

Italy: What next for the government’s Albania plan?

The Italian government’s plan to process asylum seekers in Albania has hit a stumbling block. The government insists it will go ahead anyway, but if it is contrary to EU law, can it really proceed? InfoMigrants asked an expert from the Italian juridical association ASGI.

Italy claims its Albania plan is in step with European policy, but Italian judges have ruled that legally, it contravenes European and human rights law. Where does the plan go from here?

An Italian naval ship, the Libra, is currently docked in Sicily. According to the Italian news agency ANSA, the ship is waiting for orders to move just outside Italy’s national waters, to take more migrants rescued on their way to Italy towards the centers in Albania.

But given the decision by Rome’s tribunal last week, ordering migrants taken to Albania back to Rome to have their claims processed, can the Albanian system really work?

Lucia Gennari is a lawyer and associate with ASGI, the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration. InfoMigrants put some of its questions to her:

IM: The Italian government says it wants to go ahead, but can it, legally speaking?

LG: Well, they passed a new decree on Monday. So, it seems that the way they are hoping to move ahead is to enshrine a list of safe countries of origin in law. But we know that judges are not obliged to apply [Italian] laws that might go against European Union principles and judgments and directives.

To us the passing of this decree seems to be less about substantially changing things, from a legal perspective, and more about signaling that if there is a decision in the future where a judge rules that the person who comes from a country on the list should have their asylum claim heard anyway, they can accuse the courts of being politicized and trying to interfere with the policies of government.

What they did with this decree was remove countries from the list that had territorial exceptions, arguing that the EU Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling referenced by the Rome Tribunal applied only to these territorial restrictions. This is true, but also the ECJ was very clear that for a country to be considered safe, it has to “uniformly and systematically respect” human and civil rights.

There is also an ongoing case before the ECJ on this very topic. It is very likely that there will be a second [European] decision that will exclude the possibility of considering a country safe when there are exceptions for certain categories of people. We have for example Bangladesh, which has a lot of exempted categories of people.

The other thing they did, was to include the possibility of appealing at the court of appeal the possibility of administrative detention. Before you could only appeal at the high court, and that takes a long time. So previously, if a judge decided to revalidate the detention of someone, there was no way for the state to restart that detention. The new decree would make that possible.

So, I think this is how they are hoping to keep going with the Albania protocol.

IM: The navy has a ship waiting in Augusta, is it possible for the Italian government to send that ship out and pick up more people? Or are they perhaps waiting for nationals from countries that are not Egypt and Bangladesh to try and take them to Albania?

LG: I don’t know why they are waiting. Perhaps it is because there is currently bad weather in the Mediterranean and perhaps there are not so many departures. I don’t think it is about trying to find nationals from other countries, because the logic will be the same.

The mechanism is that they collect people who were rescued by other smaller Italian ships. The people are selected on board the rescue ship and some are brought to the Libra and some are sent to Lampedusa and others are sent back to Albania, but they have to be in international waters.

IM: Does the Italian government’s decree regarding safe countries remind you of the former British government’s attempts to declare Rwanda safe above the ruling of the supreme court?

LG: Yes, I don’t know in detail the mechanism for Rwanda. I think there are some differences, and perhaps the Italian government learned from the Rwanda plan, which failed completely. There is one crucial difference between Rwanda and Albania, and that is that in the Italian government’s plan, everyone who is brought to Albania, there is this fiction that they are still on Italian territory. All the laws that apply are the same as in Italy. It’s Italian law, the procedures are the same, at least theoretically. I think in practice there are probably a lot of differences, but, the UK wanted to hand over their responsibility of assessment of asylum claims to the Rwandan authorities, and this is a very big difference.

▻https://www.infomigrants.net/en/post/60808/italy-what-next-for-the-governments-albania-plan