Last Updated: Thursday, 24 October 2019, 17:23 GMT

Ordinanza n. 24388

Publisher Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione)
Publication Date 30 September 2019
Other Languages / Attachments Decision in Italian
Cite as Ordinanza n. 24388, Italy: Italian Supreme Court (Corte Suprema di Cassazione), 30 September 2019, available at:,ITA_CC,5da9aa5b4.html [accessed 26 October 2019]
DisclaimerThis is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.

Italy: Court must provide details of preliminary assessment of real risk present in countries of origin in return decisions

On 10 October 2019, the first civil section of the Italian Supreme Court published its ruling compelling first and second instance trial judges to cite the country of origin information examined in a cases denying subsidiary protection.

The applicant, a Gambian citizen, appealed a decision denying his subsidiary protection. On 2 September 2019, the Court rejected the applicant's appeal on the grounds that it did not meet the requirements for recognition of international protection status. In particular, the Court of Appeal found the applicant failed on the credibility test and the information provided did not sufficiently detail the possibility of serious harm in the event of his return to his country of origin.

Regarding the presence of indiscriminate violence in situations of armed conflict in the country of origin, the Court of Appeal found that there the general situation in the Gambia was not comparable to the examples of violence in more dangerous contexts. The applicant therefore complained that the Court had failed in its preliminary assessment of the real risk facing the applicant if he were to be returned to the Gambia.

The Supreme Court held that when the judge is assessing this matter, they must verify ex officio the situation in the country of origin in light of accurate and up to date information available at the time of making the decision. The Court must then cite the consulted sources in the judgment to allow the applicant to review how the decision was reached. The Supreme Court therefore annulled the decision and returned the case to the Court of Appeal for a re-examination of the merits.

Thank you to Francesca Zalambani, Legal Assistant at ECRE, for assisting us with the summary. Based on an unofficial translation by the EWLU team.

Source: ELENA Weekly Legal Update - 18 October 2019

Search Refworld