Regular procedure

Italy

Country Report: Regular procedure Last updated: 29/07/26

Author

ASGI Visit Website

General (scope, time limits)

Note: as this report focuses on the asylum practice in 2025, information on legal changes related to the legal changes brought about in June 2026 to adapt to the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum are compiled in Annex I to the report here.

According to the Procedure Decree in force before 12 June 2026, the Territorial Commission interviewed the applicant within 30 days after having received the application and decides within the 3 following working days. When the Territorial Commission was unable to take a decision in this time limit and needs to acquire new elements, the examination procedure had to be concluded within 6 months of the lodging of the application. The Territorial Commission could extend the time limit for a period not exceeding a further 9 months, where:

  1. Complex issues of fact and/or law are involved;
  2. Large number of asylum applications are made simultaneously; or
  3. The delay can clearly be attributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with his or her obligations of cooperation.

Exceptionally and in duly justified circumstances, the Territorial Commission could further exceed this time limit by 3 months where necessary to ensure an adequate and complete examination of the application for international protection.[1] In light of the different possibilities of extension, the asylum procedure may last for a maximum period of 18 months.

In practice, however, ASGI observed that the time limits for completing the regular procedure were not respected. The procedure usually took much longer, considering on one hand that the competent determining authorities received the asylum application only after the formal registration and the forwarding of the C3 form through the case database, Vestanet. On the other hand, the first instance procedure usually lasted several months, with delays in issuing a decision which vary between Territorial Commissions. In cities such as Rome, the entire procedure was generally longer and took from 6 up to 12 months.

To address these issues, since 9 April 2025, the authorities involved in the asylum procedure started using the database ‘SUA’. The latter include Vestanet (asylum procedures), Dublinet (Dublin procedure), SGA (accommodation system) and RVA (repatriation database), which will be closed. However, the implementation created several problems, and in 2025 many police stations communicated that they could not complete the lodging procedure due to the malfunction of the system.

Statistics on the average duration of the procedure are not available.

In 2025, 128,655 first asylum requests were registered in Italy,[2] similar to 2024 (151,120) but still doubled compared to the 77,200 applications registered in 2022.[3]

In 2025, 104,560 first instance decisions were issued in Italy. Of these, 5,965 (5.7%) were decisions granting a refugee status, 11,455 subsidiary protection (10.9 %) and 13,945 ( 13.3 %) national protection (protezione speciale).[4] Overall, the recognition rate stood at 30% a decrease compared to 2024 (35.9%), and a significant decrease compared to 2022 when it was 47%.

DL no. 100/2026 recalls the rules laid down in the Asylum Procedure Regulation (APR), not expressly mentioning time limits.[5]

Termination and notification

DL 145/2024 amended the Procedure Decree which previously stated that when the applicant, before having been interviewed, left the reception centre without any justification or absconded from a CPR or hotspot, the Territorial Commission should have suspended the examination of the application on the basis that the applicant is not reachable (irreperibile).[6]

DL 145/2024 introduced a rule that allowed to consider the asylum application implicitly withdrawn in such cases. According to the Article 23 bis Procedure Decree in force before 12 June 2026, this happened when:

  1. The applicant who has lodged the asylum application, before being called for the interview in front of the Territorial commission, leaves the reception facilities without a justifiable reason (without giving an actual address) or escapes from detention in hotspots or CPR facilities.
  2. The applicant does not attend the personal interview scheduled by the Territorial Commission and the notification of the hearing is carried out in accordance with the rules regulating notifications (including that in the case of not reachable persons[7]

In these cases, the Territorial Commission has two possibilities:

  • rejects the application if it deems it unfounded based on an adequate examination of the merits;
  • suspends the exam when it believes it does not have sufficient evaluation elements. In this case, the applicant can request the reopening of the suspended proceedings only once within 9 months of the suspension. After this deadline, the proceeding is declared terminated.[8]

The application presented by the applicant following the rejection or termination of the implicitly withdrawn asylum application, is subjected to a preliminary examination pursuant to article 29, paragraph 1-bis Procedure Decree. During the preliminary examination, the reasons given in support of the admissibility of the application are evaluated, including the reasons for the leaving the centre or failure to present themselves for the interview.[9]

According to ASGI, the law transposing the rule concerning the implicit withdrawal of an application set out in Article 28 of Directive 2013/32/EU is not a correct implementation of art. 28 (2a) and 2b) considering the whole procedure in Italy and in particular two aspects: first, the information included in the C3 (lodging of asylum application) should not allow to issue a rejection decision, as it is not sufficient to carry out an adequate examination of the case on its merits; second, the law makes no reference to a reasonable time limit or to the reasonable times required by the Directive to consider the application as implicitly withdrawn.

Furthermore, from a practical point of view, the procedure is made particularly problematic by the rules – and the way in which they are applied – envisaged for notifications which do not always guarantee effective knowledge for the asylum seeker.

DL no. 100/2026, which entered into force on 12 June 2026, states in Article 11 (1, f) that an asylum application is considered implicitly withdrawn in cases ruled by Article 41 APR. The decree does not provide for any measure to suspend the withdrawal decision, although Article 41(4) APR leaves Member States the option of providing for such a measure. However, it does avail itself of the possibility laid down in Article 41(5) APR and states that the Territorial Commission will reject the asylum application as unfounded or as manifestly unfounded where, at the stage that the application is implicitly withdrawn, it already found that the applicant does not qualify for international protection pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2024/1347.

Notification

Decree Law 13/2017 introduced a new procedure to notify interview appointments and decisions taken by the Territorial Commissions.[10] The Procedures Decree provides for three different procedures depending on whether the recipients of the notification are: (i) accommodated or detained; (ii) in private accommodation; or (iii) not reachable (irreperibili):

  1. Accommodated or detained applicants: Interviews and decisions are sent by Territorial Commissions via certified email (PEC) to the manager of the reception or detention centres and are notified by the managers of reception or detention centres to the applicants. The notification is considered to be carried out when the manager of the reception centre facility communicates it to the Territorial Commission through a certified email message indicating the date and time of notification. The law specifies that such communication must be immediate.[11]
  2. Applicants in private accommodation: The notification must be made to the last address communicated to the competent Questura by postal service or, as stated by DL no. 23/2026, via certified email, including the one of the legal representative where the applicant has elected domicile.[12]
  3. Non-reachable applicants: The interview summons or decision is sent by certified email from the Territorial Commission to the competent Questura, which keeps it at the disposal of the persons concerned for 20 days. After 20 days, the notification is considered to be completed, and a copy of the notified deed is made available for the applicant’s collection at the Territorial Commission.[13]

Still in 2025 Questure often placed onerous conditions on the registration of a private address e.g. by requesting declarations of consent from the owners of the apartments where people are privately staying. Given those conditions, the law risks creating a presumption of legal knowledge of the act to be notified where there is none. The same risk exists for the Dublin returnees who had left Italy before receiving notification of the decision or of the interview appointment.

In practice, the notification procedure creates further problems, as Territorial Commissions are not promptly informed about accommodation transfers. Often, people moved from one reception centre to another found out about their appointment for the interview after the date scheduled by the Territorial Commission had already passed. In a case recorded by ASGI in early 2026, this resulted in the rejection of an asylum application considered implicitly withdrawn because the applicant did not present himself to the hearing scheduled before the Territorial Commission, until the applicant proved he had been accommodated in a new public facility where the notification of the hearing before the Territorial commission should have been done. In addition, many ASGI lawyers have experienced problems with notifications of privately housed asylum applicants, as notifications had often not been made.

Outcomes of the procedure

Even if the rules applicable are the same, the outcome of decisions may vary depending on the region. The absence of analytical territorial statistics, however, does not allow for a more detailed analysis in this respect.

There are eight possible outcomes to the regular procedure, following additions and substantial changes by Decree Law 113/2018 and Decree Law 130/2020. Under the amended Article 32 of the Procedures Decree, the Territorial Commission may decide to:

  1. Grant refugee status.
  2. Grant subsidiary protection.
  3. Recommend to the Questura to issue a two-years “special protection” residence permit (see National forms of protection).

Following the 2023 reform through Law 50/2023, special protection permits are now granted to persons who, according to the law, cannot be expelled or refouled.[14] This covers cases where a person risks being persecuted for reasons of race, sex, sexual orientation and gender identity, language, citizenship, religion, political opinions, personal or social conditions, or may risk being sent back to another country where they are not protected from persecution.[15] It also covers cases where a person risks to be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds to believe that they risk being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The law further specifies that special protection should be recognised also if the constitutional or international obligations referred to in Article 5 (6) TUI recur. The clarification, allows to grant special protection to those who, if expelled from Italy, would suffer a violation of fundamental rights recognised by the Constitution or deriving from European or international law. In particular, it is used to justify the recognition of such protection to protect private and family life pursuant to Article 8 of the ECHR.

Significantly, the decree law 20 of 10 March 2023, converted with amendments into Law 50 of 5 May 2023, cancelled the possibility to directly request this kind of permit to a Questura and to consider, in releasing such permits to stay, if there are good reasons to believe that the removal from the national territory involves a violation of the right to respect for his private and family life, unless that it is necessary for national security reasons, public order and safety as well as health protection.[16] Even if the amendment does not exclude the application of international and European guarantees, such as the application of Article 8 of ECHR, the new wording of the law has already led, according to ASGI monitoring, to a significant limitation in the number of cases in which this form of protection is recognised.[17] This was confirmed by the practice in 2024, as observed by ASGI.

Additionally, the Dl 20/2023 and the conversion L. 50/2023 changed the provisions related to the renewal of this permit. These permits are still to be granted for two years and they are renewable but, according to the new law, beneficiaries are not able to transform them in work permits (see Residence Permit).[18]

The new provisions however do not apply to the procedures already pending as of 6 May 2023.[19] The law also specifies that those titles which that had already been delivered at the time of entry into force of the Law 50/2023 directly from Questura would be renewed only once for a duration of one year. The law also specifies that they can be changed into work permits.[20]

  1. Recommend to the Questura to issue a permit to stay for health reasons.

According to Article 32 (3.1) of the Procedure Decree, in case of rejection of the application for international protection, the Territorial Commission recommends to Questura to issue a permit to stay for health reasons when conditions provided by Article 19 (2 d bis) TUI – as amended by L. 50/2023 – are met. Law 50/2023 has restricted the possibilities of obtaining this type of permit, providing that it can be issued in case of health conditions deriving from particularly serious pathologies (as before) but adding as a condition the inadequacy of treatment in the country of origin. The pathology has to cause significant damage to the health of the applicant, in case of return to the country of origin or provenance. [21] The health conditions have to be ascertained through suitable documentation issued by a public health facility or by a doctor of the National Health Service.

The duration of health permits is linked to the time certified by the health certification, in any case not exceeding one year. They are renewable but not convertible into a work permit to stay. They are valid only on the national territory.

2. Inform the Public Prosecutor to the Juvenile Court to start the procedure to issue a permit to stay for assistance to minors.[22]

In cases where the application for international protection is not accepted, the Territorial Commission evaluates the existence of reasons that allow the Juvenile Court to issue a permit to minor’s family members for reasons related to the psychophysical health and development of the minor who is in the Italian territory and informs the public Prosecutor at the competent Juvenile Court.

This permit is issued on a fixed-term and can be changed into a work permit to stay.[23]

  1. Reject the asylum application as unfounded.
  2. Reject the application as manifestly unfounded.[24]

According to Article 28-ter of the Procedure Decree, an application could be deemed to be “manifestly unfounded” where the applicant.

  1. Has only raised issues unrelated to international protection;
  2. Comes from a Safe country of origin;
  3. Has issued clearly inconsistent and contradictory or clearly false declarations, which contradict verified information on the country of origin;
  4. Has misled the authorities by presenting false information or documents or by withholding relevant information or documents with respect to their identity and/or nationality that could have had a negative impact on the decision, or in bad faith has destroyed or disposed of an identity or travel document that would have helped establish their identity or nationality;
  5. Irregularly entered the territory, or irregularly prolonged their stay, and without justification, did not make an asylum application promptly;
  6. Refuses to comply with the obligation of being fingerprinted under the Eurodac Regulation;
  7. Is detained in a CPR for reasons of exclusion under Article 1F of the 1951 Convention, public order or security grounds, or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the application is lodged solely to delay or frustrate the execution of a removal order (see Grounds for Detention).[25]

DL 133/2023 extended the applicability of this provision to vulnerable people.[26]

As of 12 June 2026, Article 28-ter of the Procedure Decree was amended by Decree Law 100/2026, as the government availed itself of the option provided for in Article 39(4) APR: an application can be deemed “manifestly unfounded” when conditions laid down by Article 42 (1) and (3) APR apply.

  1. Reject the application on the basis that an internal protection alternative is available.[27]

For the internal protection alternative to apply, it must be established that in a part of the country of origin the applicant has no well-founded fear of being persecuted or is not at real risk of suffering serious harm or has access to protection against persecution or serious harm. In addition, they must be able to safely and legally travel to that part of the country, gain admittance and reasonably be expected to settle there.

  1. Declare the application inadmissible and does not exam it when conditions laid down by Article 38 (1) APR apply.[28]

According to Article 32 (3 bis) of the Procedure Decree the Territorial Commission shall also transmit the case file to the Questura for an assessment where, during the preliminary examination, reasonable grounds have emerged to believe that the applicant has been a victim of the crimes referred to in Articles 600 and 601 of the Criminal Code (enslavement and trafficking). Legislative Decree no. 115/2026, which enters into force on 16 July 2026, states that, in such cases, Article 17 of the Reception Decree, related to the accommodation of vulnerable people, shall apply.[29]

According to Article 32(4) of the Procedure Decree, as amended by L 50/2023, in the event of rejection, withdrawal of the application and inadmissibility, the decision of the Territorial Commission shall also contain a certificate of the obligation to return and the prohibition of re-entry.[30] This certificate produces the effects of the expulsion order[31] and must be challenged together with the appeal against the rejection of the international and special protection claim, without prejudice to the effects of suspension governed by the procedures decree.[32]

 

Prioritised examination and fast-track processing

For procedures until 12 June 2026, Article 28 of the Procedures Decree provided that the President of the Territorial Commission, after a preliminary exam, identified cases to be processed under the prioritised procedure, when:

  1. The application is supposed to be well-founded;[33]
  2. The applicant is vulnerable, in particular if they are an unaccompanied child or a person in need of special procedural guarantees.
  3. The applicant comes from one of the countries identified by the CNDA that allow the omission of the personal interview when considering that there are sufficient grounds available to grant subsidiary protection. The competent Territorial Commission, before adopting such a decision, informs the applicant of the opportunity, within 3 days from the communication, to request a personal interview. In absence of such request, the Territorial Commission takes the decision.[34]

Practice showed that vulnerable applicants had more chances compared to other applicants – to benefit from the prioritised procedure, although this possibility is more effective when they are assisted by NGOs or they are identified as such at an early stage. The prioritised procedure is rarely applied to victims of torture and of violence, since these asylum applicants are not identified at an early stage by police authorities. In fact, torture survivors are usually only recognised as such in a later phase, normally thanks to NGOs providing them with legal and social assistance or during the personal interview by the determining authorities.

Regarding unaccompanied children, L 47/2017 allowed a faster start of the procedure as it allows the manager of the reception centre to represent the child until the appointment of a guardian.[35] That said, according to ASGI’s experience, the prioritised procedure has not been widely applied to unaccompanied children.

From 12 June 2026 onward, Article 28 of the Procedures Decree, as amended by DL 100/2026, states that the President of the Territorial Commission, after a preliminary examination, identifies cases to be processed under the prioritised procedure according to Article 34(5) APR. In this case, the Territorial Commission should immediately inform the applicant of the procedure applied.

Article 28 (2) states that, pursuant to Article 53, (2, (b), (c), and (d) APR, and without prejudice to the provisions laid down for unaccompanied minors in Article 53(1), the prioritised procedures shall apply to applicants with special needs within the meaning of Article 17 of Reception Decree, following an individual assessment carried out in accordance with guidelines drawn up by the Ministry of the Interior, in cooperation with other competent authorities and relevant organisations. However, the law specifies that this applies “where it is possible to provide the aforementioned applicants with the necessary support”.[36]

 

Personal interview

The Procedure Decree provides for a personal interview of each applicant, which is not public.[37] During the personal interview the applicant can disclose exhaustively all elements supporting their asylum application.[38]

The Decree Law 130/2020, by amending Article 12 (1), provided for the possibility of hearings conducted by audio-visual means.[39] During 2025 and early 2026, many commissions conducted audiovisual hearings in the Commission’s offices. As recorded by ASGI in February 2026, a woman was interviewed by audiovisual means while staying in a room with other people of the same nationality (Peru), who were awaiting to be heard as well and who could listen to her interview.

On 6 March 2026 the National Commission published overall guidelines for hearings and specific guidelines for audiovisual hearings.[40] According to the guidelines, in principle in‑person interviews remain the default; remote hearings are an exception and can only be used where the same procedural guarantees as an in‑person interview can be preserved. The guidelines also require that the applicant be informed in advance that the hearing will be remote, the reasons for that choice, technical/privacy measures, and must be allowed to object. The Commission must record the justification in the file and in the decision. Regarding technical and organisational requirements, the guidelines mention, inter alia:

  • Mandatory secure, stable audio‑visual connections (avoidng public Wi‑Fi; prefer EU‑based servers); participants must be visible and audible throughout.
  • Dedicated rooms/sites approved by authorities to be used by the applicant and interpreters/support staff; equipment checklist includes a wide‑angle camera, good lighting, quality microphones/headsets, a printer/scanner, a secure shared digital folder and institutional e‑mail accounts, and approved videoconferencing platforms.
  • There can be no third parties present (unless authorised), non‑verbal cues and data protection (GDPR) must be ensured.

S.I.N.D.A.C.A. (Information System for the documentation of the hearings of the Asylum Commissions), which allows to proceed with the video recording and transcription of the hearing minutes of each asylum applicant, is identified as the operational tool.

On 12 December 2024, the Interministerial Directorial Decree of the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice – setting out the technical specifications for making for making the video recording of the asylum seeker’s interview available during the jurisdictional phase -, was published on the MOI website.[41]

In practice, asylum applicants are systematically interviewed by the determining authorities. However, Article 12(2) of the Procedure Decree foresees the possibility to omit the personal interview where:

  • Determining authorities have enough elements to grant refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention without hearing the applicant; or
  • The applicant is recognised as unable or unfit to be interviewed, as certified by a public health unit or by a doctor working with the national health system. In this regard, the law provides that the personal interview can be postponed due to the health conditions of the applicant duly certified by a public health unit or by a doctor working with the national health system or for very serious reasons.[42] The applicant recognised as such is allowed to ask for the postponement of the personal interview through a specific request with the medical certificates.[43]
  • For applicants coming from those countries identified by the CNDA, when considering that there are sufficient grounds to grant them subsidiary protection.[44] The competent Territorial Commission, before adopting such a decision, informs the applicant that they have the opportunity, within 3 days from the communication, to be admitted to the personal interview. In absence of such request, the Territorial Commission takes the decision to omit the interview. This provision is particularly worrying, considering that it derogates from the general rule that the personal interview also seeks to first verify whether the applicant is a refugee, and only if not, the conditions to grant subsidiary protection.

According to amended Article 12(1-bis) of the Procedure Decree, the personal interview of the applicant takes place before the administrative officer assigned to the Territorial Commission, who then submits the case file to the other panel members in order to jointly take the decision. Upon request of the applicant, the President may decide to hold the interview themself or before the Commission. In practice, the interview is conducted by the officials appointed by the Ministry of Interior. The document indicates whether the decision was reached unanimously or by a majority. In the latter case, the applicant may request access to the minutes; however, the reasons for members’ dissent are never stated.

In 2025, EUAA caseworkers in Italy carried out interviews in the asylum cases of 2,777 applicants. Of these, 72% related to the same 10 citizenships, in particular Bangladeshis (715), Pakistanis (290), Peruvians (243), Egyptians (238), Tunisia (111), Moroccans (93), Burkinabè (90), Cameroonians (80), Ivoirians (68) and Guineans (68).[45]

Interpretation

In the phases concerning the registration and the examination of the asylum claim, including the personal interview, applicants must receive, where necessary, the services of an interpreter in their language or in a language they understand. Where necessary, the documents produced by the applicant shall be translated.[46]

At the borders, however, these services may not always be available, depending on the language spoken by asylum applicants and the interpreters available locally. Given that the disembarkation of asylum applicants does not always take place at official border crossing points, where interpretation services are generally available, there may therefore be significant difficulties in promptly providing an adequate number of qualified interpreters able to cover different languages.

In practice, based on ASGI’s observations, there are not enough interpreters available and qualified in working with asylum applicants during the asylum procedure. However, specific attention is given to interpreters ensuring translation services during the substantive interview by determining authorities. The Consortium of Interpreters and Translators (ITC), which provides this service, has drafted a Code of Conduct for interpreters.

Recording and report

The personal interview may be recorded. The recording is admissible as evidence in judicial appeals against the Territorial Commission’s decision. Where the recording is transcribed, the signature of the transcript is not required by the applicant.[47] Following Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, the law states that the interview has to be taped by audio-visual means and transcribed in Italian with the aid of automatic voice recognition systems.[48] The transcript of the interview is read out to the applicant by the interpreter and, following the reading, the necessary corrections are made by the interviewer together with the applicant.

An applicant’s observations not included directly in the text of the transcript are included at the bottom of the document and signed by them. The transcript itself is signed only by the interviewer – or the President of the Commission – and by the interpreter.[49] The applicant does not sign the transcript and does not receive any copy of the videotape, but merely a copy of the transcript in Italian. A copy of the videotape and the transcript shall be saved for at least 3 years in an archive of the Ministry of Interior and made available to the court in case of appeal. The applicant can only access the tape during the appeal,[50] meaning that it is not available at the time of drafting the appeal.

The applicant can formulate a reasoned request before the interview not to have the interview recorded. The Commission makes a final decision on this request.[51] This decision cannot be appealed.[52] When the interview cannot be videotaped for technical reasons or due to refusal of the applicant, the interview is transcribed in a report signed by the applicant.[53]

In the experience of ASGI members, many Commissions received the technical material necessary for recording and transcribing the interview in 2021, but the system was not yet in use in most territorial commissions by the end of 2025.

This means that in practice, after the interview, a transcript is given to the applicant with the opportunity to make further comments and corrections before signing it and receiving the final report. According to ASGI’s experience, the quality of this report varies depending on the interviewer and the Territorial Commission, which conducts the interview. Complaints on the quality of the transcripts are common.

 

Appeal

Appeal before the Civil Court

The Procedure Decree provides for the possibility for the asylum applicant to appeal before the competent Civil Court (Tribunale Civile) against a decision issued by the Territorial Commissions rejecting the application, granting subsidiary protection instead of refugee status or requesting the issuance of a residence permit for special protection instead of granting international protection.[54]

Article 17 “Transitional provisions of DL 100/2026, which entered into force on 12 June 2026 to transpose the EU Pact, states that: ‘For administrative or judicial proceedings initiated following the submission of an application for international protection prior to June 12, 2026, the prior legal regime shall continue to apply until the conclusion of said proceedings; however, the court shall rule with a single judge (..).’[55]

Specialised court sections

Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, established specialised sections in the Civil Courts, responsible for immigration, asylum and free movement of EU citizens’ cases.[56] Judges to be included in the specialised sections should be appointed on the basis of specific skills acquired through professional experience and training. EUAA and UNHCR are entrusted with training of judges, to be held at least annually during the first three years.[57] After the first three years, the training continued. The Ministry of Justice reports that, in 2025, staff serving in the specialised sections dealing with immigration and international protection received specialist training in cooperation with the European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA).[58]

The competence of the Court is determined on the basis of the location of the competent Territorial Commission, but also on the basis of the place where the applicant is accommodated (governmental reception centres, CAS, SAI and CPR).[59]

Article 16 of Decree Law 100/2026 created a new processing office within each specialised immigration section to speed up the handling of pending immigration and international protection cases. These cases will be decided by a single judge, with at least three honorary justices assigned to support the office and, where delegated, handle the cases and issue final decisions. The honorary justices assigned to these offices will work exclusively on these cases for at least 12 months and must receive adequate training, including mandatory participation in the courses already provided under the 2017 Decree. Delegation to honorary justices for final decisions is allowed until 31 October 2029, or earlier if all relevant cases are decided before. The president of the Court must monitor progress and report after 12 months on the number of cases decided and the expected time needed to clear the remaining backlog. To support the plan, the Ministry of Justice may extend the fixed-term contracts of up to 1,600 staff members by three months.

Rules for the lodging of appeals

The appeal must be lodged within 30 calendar days from the notification of the first instance decision and must be submitted by a lawyer.[60]

However, the time limit for lodging an appeal was 15 days for persons placed in CPR and in some cases 7 days for negative decisions taken under the Accelerated Procedure.[61]

The appeal had automatic suspensive effect, except where:[62]

  1. The applicant is detained in CPR or a hotspot;
  2. The application is inadmissible;
  3. The application is manifestly unfounded;
  4. The application is submitted by a person coming from a safe country of origin;
  5. The application is submitted after the applicant has been apprehended in an irregular stay on the national territory and for the sole purpose of avoiding an imminent removal;
  6. The application is submitted by persons investigated or convicted for some of the crimes that may trigger to the exclusion of international protections pursuant to Article 28 -bis (1) (b) of the procedure decree.

More in general, the appeal did not have automatic suspensive effect when the application was rejected on some of the grounds for applying the Accelerated Procedure. However, in those cases, the applicant could individually request a suspension of the return order from the competent judge. According to the new procedure set out by DL 145/2024, when the suspension request – to be included in the appeal – is present, the Ministry of Interior may file defence notes within 3 days of notification. In this case, the appellant could file a reply within the following 3 days. The judge decided on the suspension request within the following 5 days. If the Ministry of the Interior did not avail itself of the right to file defence notes, the deadline for the decision starts from the expiry of the deadline established therein for their filing. When the request for suspension is accepted, the appellant is issued a residence permit for asylum request in the cases provided for in letters b), c) and d) of Article 35 bis (3) on the suspensive effect of the appeal.

A complaint against the decision on suspension could be submitted to the Court of Appeal within 5 days, starting from the communication of the decree by the clerk’s office. The complaint is communicated, by the clerk’s office, to the opposing party. The filing of the complaint does not suspend the executive effectiveness of the contested provision. The court of appeal, after hearing the parties, decides with an immediately executive decree, within ten days of the presentation of the complaint. The decree is communicated to the parties by the clerk’s office. The suspension of procedural deadlines during the weekday period does not apply in such proceedings.

In practice, asylum applicants who filed an appeal, in particular those who are held in CPR and those under the Accelerated Procedure, face several obstacles. While in line with APD requirements, the time limit of 15 days (or 7 days for cases in which the border procedure is applied) for lodging an appeal in those cases concretely jeopardises the effectiveness of the right to appeal since it is too short to find a lawyer or request free legal assistance, and to prepare the hearing in an adequate manner. This short time limit for filing an appeal does not take due consideration of other factors that might come into play, such as the linguistic barriers between asylum applicants and lawyers, and the lack of knowledge of the legal system.

After the appeal is notified to the Ministry of Interior at the competent Territorial Commission, the Ministry could present submissions (defensive notes) within the next 20 days. The applicant can also present submissions within 20 days.[63] The law also states that the competent Commission must submit within 20 days from the notification of the appeal the video recording and transcript of the personal interview and the entire documentation obtained and used during the examination procedure, including country of origin information relating to the applicant.[64]

In application of EU NEXT Generation Project, D.L. 80 of June 2021 – as amended by conversion Law n. 113 of August 2021 – provided for the reinforcement of the Courts Office personnel, with the implementation of the “Judicial Office” (Ufficio del Processo), a support office for judges and Courts administrations to which law clerks shall be deployed for 3 years starting from February 2022. They are also deployed to support the judges assigned to the specialised sections on migration, with the objective of helping to reduce second instance backlog. According to an initial analysis, the UPP personnel provided substantial assistance to the specialised sections: they were tasked with identifying cases to be treated with priority; to carry out jurisprudential research and prepare models of decisions or motivation points; to catalogue decisions in databases; to research COI information and prepare the questions, together with EEUA personnel, in view of the applicant’s hearing. In some cases, the UPP staff also took the minutes of the hearing and supported the preparation of draft measures. In the court sections observed, these workers handled two to five cases a week.[65]

DL 100/2026 of 12 June 2026 states that:

  • The appeal must be lodged within 30 calendar days from the notification of the first instance decision, or within 60 days if the person stays abroad;
  • In cases where the accelerated procedure of Article 67(7)(a) APR applies, the appeal must be lodged within 7 days.[66]
  • In cases where the border procedure applies, except where the applicant is an unaccompanied minor, the time limit to appeal is 5 days.[67]

The law also states that the appeal has automatic suspensive effect, except in cases laid out by Article 68(3) APR.[68]

Hearing

According to the appeal procedure following Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, oral hearings before the court sections are a residual option. The law states that, as a rule, judges shall decide the cases only by consulting the videotaped interview before the Territorial Commission. They shall invite the parties to the hearing only if they consider it essential to listen to the applicant, or they need to clarify some aspects or if they provide technical advice or the intake of evidence.[69] A hearing is also to be provided when the videotaping is not available or the appeal is based on elements not relied upon during the administrative procedure of first instance.[70]

Since the adoption of Decree Law 13/2017, ASGI has claimed that the use of video recorded interviews, potentially replacing asylum applicants’ hearings by the court, does not comply with the right to an effective remedy provided by Article 46 of the recast Asylum Procedures Directive, as an applicant’s statements are often the only elements on which the application is based. Therefore, there is no certainty that judges will watch the videos of the interviews, and in any case, they will not watch them with the assistance of interpreters to understand the actual extent of applicants’ statements.

Since 2017, given that Territorial Commissions did not proceed by video-recording interviews, some courts held oral hearings with asylum applicants, as set out in the law in case the interview is not video-recorded.[71] However, as reported by Asgi members, many Civil Courts such as those of Naples and Milan interpreted the law as leaving discretion to the court to omit a hearing even if the videotape is not available.

In 2018, the Court of Cassation clarified that in such cases the oral hearing is mandatory and cannot be omitted,[72] but the later established that it is not mandatory for the judge to interview the applicant, and the hearing can be limited to the apparition in Court of the lawyer.

Consequently, each specialised section has taken its own orientation regarding the need or not to hear the appellant again in cases where the law does not consider it mandatory.[73]

When the appellant is summoned to the hearing, the questions for the hearing are prepared by a researcher of the EUAA or UPP staff member assigned to the section, under the supervision of the judge.[74]

As reported by ASGI lawyers, when cultural interpretation is needed in the hearing, only some courts allow the presence of cultural mediators provided by the EUAA, while others never use this service and rely on voluntary interpreters identified and brought by the appellant; others make use of the EUAA cultural mediators service only for cases with a high level of complexity. In 2025, the cultural mediation service provided by the EUAA for hearings was discontinued. Project 1175, “Cultural Mediation in Italian Judicial Offices,” was submitted and approved for funding under AMIF (Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund) to strengthen the Ministry of Justice’s capacity and improve the handling of asylum and international protection cases.[75] On 10 November 2025, a call for tenders was published for the provision of linguistic-cultural mediation services, supporting the handling of asylum and international protection applications by the specialised sections of the Courts and Courts of Appeal, involving the deployment of at least 52 mediators across 26 Italian judicial offices for a period of 20 months. As part of the EU Pact activities (BB2 – Screening and procedures at the border), another project was presented, involving the activation of a linguistic and cultural mediation service of 160 mediators, to support asylum and international protection procedures before courts (including the juvenile courts), the Offices of the Justice of the Peace responsible for repatriation matters, the courts of appeal and the court of cassation as well as at border points. Mediators will work in synergy with magistrates, lawyers and clerks, with continuous presence in the competent judicial offices and at border crossings. They will facilitate communication in often urgent contexts. The AMIF funds a three-year activity starting from June 2026.[76]

From the beginning of 2023, the entry into force of the civil procedure reform (the so-called Cartabia reform) allowed the replacement of the hearing with written notes in each procedure.[77]

It is up to the judge in charge of the case to decide how to run the hearing, so different practices are observed even in the same Court. In any case, it is possible for the lawyer to require for the hearing to be held in presence, justifying the reasons for such a request.

Decision

As in previous years, in 2025 practitioners report to ASGI that decision-making at second instance is not consistent throughout the territory, and visible discrepancies can be observed regarding outcomes of appeals depending on the Court responsible. The absence of statistics concerning the outcome of second instance cases, however, does not allow to elaborate a detailed analysis regarding the issue.

The Civil Court can either reject the appeal or grant a form of protection to the asylum applicant. Under the law in force before 12 June 2026, the decision should be taken within 4 months.[78]

DL 100/2026 states that decisions should be taken within 8 months under the ordinary procedure or 4 months under the accelerated procedure.

No statistics on the average length of international protection proceedings are available, but one analysis published by Ministry of Justice referring to the period between 1 January 2016 and 30 June 2020 provides some insights on the topic.[79] According to what the courts reported, in the first five years of operation of the specialised sections, the objective of the reasonable duration of international protection proceedings was not met, mostly due to a lack of resources. In fact, the number of proceedings for international protection was considerable: between 2017 and 2020, an average of over 49,500 cases were registered per year, representing around 20% of the total number of civil cases. Out of these, a decision was issued on around 32,800 proceedings per year.[80] ASGI lawyers registered an increase in the duration of the judicial procedure in past years. Since 2021 and still in 2025, some courts schedule hearings 4 years after the introduction of the case (e.g. Turin) and others have pending cases which have been waiting for a hearing to be scheduled for over 3 years (e.g. Milan and Trieste).[81]

According to Eurostat data, 16,335 final decisions on asylum applications were taken in 2025, out of which 2,875 were rejections.[82]

Onward appeal

Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, abolished the possibility to appeal a negative civil court decision before the court of appeal (Corte d’Appello). This provision applies to appeals lodged after 17 August 2017.

In case of a negative decision of the court, the asylum applicant can only lodge an appeal before the Court of Cassation for matters of law within 30 days. This time limit has not been changed by the DL 100/2026.[83]

The onward appeal is not automatically suspensive. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) found in its F.R. judgement of 27 September 2018 that this provision complies with EU law as the recast Asylum Procedures Directive does not contain any provisions requiring a second level of jurisdiction against negative asylum decisions and therefore does not require any automatic suspensive effect for onward appeals.[84]

The request for suspensive effect is examined by the judge who rejected the appeal at Civil Court level and has to be submitted within 5 days from the notification of the appeal.[85] This time limit was not changed by DL 100/2026.

The 2017 reform sparked strong reactions from NGOs,[86] and even from some magistrates. Cancelling the possibility to appeal the Civil Court decisions at Court of Appeal, making the hearing of the applicant a mere residual option, further complicating access to free legal aid, reducing the time for appeal to the Court of Cassation, and entrusting the assessment of the request for suspensive effect of onward appeals to the same Civil Court judge who delivered the negative first appeal ruling, drastically reduces the judicial protection of asylum applicants. The Cassation Section of the Magistrates’ National Association (Associazione Nazionale Magistrati) also highlighted the unreasonableness of the choice to abolish the second level of appeal, which is still provided for civil disputes of much lower value if compared to international protection cases, bearing in mind that the procedure before the Court of Cassation is essentially a written procedure.

The 2017 reform has had a visible impact on the caseload before the Court of Cassation. In the report on the administration of justice in 2020 published in 2021, the President of the Court underlined how the most recent problem in the activity of the Court of Cassation was the enormous increase in the number of petitions concerning international protection matters.

Since 2023, there are no data available on the number of appeals.

The Court of Cassation ruling at United Sections, with decision n. 15177 published on 1 June 2021,[87] interpreted the provision concerning the power of attorney[88] establishing that when bringing a case to the Court of Cassation, the lawyer has to expressly certify not only the client’s signature on the specific power of attorney, but also that the date is posterior to the judgement appealed. The third Section of the Court, however, submitted a question regarding the constitutionality of the interpretation given to the provision by the United Sections to the Constitutional Court.[89] The Constitutional Court, with Decision n. 13 of 2022, rejected the question and declared that said interpretation was in line with constitutional provisions.[90]

In 2022, the Court of Cassation structured the collaboration with EUAA researchers in preparing periodic reviews of jurisprudence and started a collaboration with UNHCR relating to the circulation in Europe of most significant Italian rulings on international protection topics.[91] In 2023, cooperation with the EUAA continued for the periodic review of jurisprudence on international protection.[92] As reported by the Ministry of Justice, in 2025, the EUAA provided technical support to 12 Italian courts as well as the Court of Cassation, deploying 14 researchers to assist with case management, and offered specialised professional training for administrative staff.[93]

Legal assistance

Legal assistance at first instance

According to Article 16 of the Procedures Decree, asylum applicants may use legal assistance and representation during the first instance of the regular and prioritised procedure only at their own expenses.

In practice, asylum applicants are usually supported before and sometimes also during the personal interview by legal advisors or lawyers financed by NGOs or specialised assisting bodies where they work. Legal assistance provided by NGOs depends mainly on the availability of funds deriving from projects and public or private funding.

A distinction should be made between national public funds and those which are allocated by private foundations and associations. In particular, the main source of funds provided by the State is the National Fund for Asylum Policies and Services, financed by the Ministry of Interior. The Procedure Decree provides that the Ministry of Interior can establish specific agreements with UNHCR or other organisations with experience in assisting asylum applicants, with the aim of providing free information services on the asylum procedure as well on the revocation one and on the possibility to make a judicial appeal. These services are provided in addition to those ensured by the manager of the accommodation centres.[94] However, a difference exists between first accommodation centres (CAS and governmental centres) and SAI system: for the first ones both the old tender specification schemes and the new ones published by MoI does no longer oblige to provide a legal information service independent from other areas of work; instead, currently legal information in CAS and governmental centres, the provision of legal counselling should be covered under the general area of social assistance, and overall left to the discretion of the managing body. Legal support is instead provided in SAI system (see Forms and Levels of Material Reception Conditions).

National funds are also allocated for providing information and legal counselling at official land, air, sea border points and in the places where migrants arrive by boat.[95] In addition, some funds for financing legal counselling may also be provided by European projects / programmes or private foundations. However, it should be highlighted that these funds are not sufficient to address existing needs.

The lawyer or the legal advisor from specialised NGOs prepares asylum applicants for the personal interview before the determining authority, providing them with all necessary information about the procedure to follow, detailing which questions may be asked by the Territorial Commission members and supporting the asylum applicant in preparing to present relevant information concerning their personal account. Moreover, the lawyer or the legal advisor has a key role in gathering the information concerning the personal history of the applicant and country of origin information, and in drafting a report that, when necessary, is sent to the Territorial Commission, in particular with regard to vulnerable persons such as torture survivors. In this regard, the lawyer or the legal advisor may also inform the determining authorities of the fact that the asylum applicant is unfit or unable to undertake the personal interview so that the Commission may decide to omit or postpone it.

Lawyers may be present during the personal interview, but they do not play the same role as in a judicial hearing. The applicant has to respond to the questions and the lawyer may intervene to clarify some aspects of the statements made by the applicant.

Nevertheless, most asylum applicants go through the personal interview without the assistance of a lawyer since they cannot afford to pay for legal assistance and specialised NGOs have limited capacity due to lack of funds. Assistance during the administrative steps of the asylum procedure cannot be covered by free legal aid.

Legal assistance in appeals

Regarding the appeal phase, free state-funded legal aid (patrocinio a spese dello Stato), is provided by law to asylum applicants who declare an annual taxable income below a certain amount (in 2025 € 13,659.64) and whose case is not deemed manifestly unfounded.[96] Legal aid is therefore subject to a “means” and “merits” test. The amount refers to the entire household.

Lawyers or legal advisors intervening in international protection cases are not required to have followed any specific training.

Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) cannot provide legal assistance in the appeal procedure, as lawyers in Italy are not permitted to work as employees.

Means test

The law specifies that in case of income acquired abroad, the foreigner needs a certification issued by the consular authorities of their country of origin.[97] However, the law prescribes that if the person is unable to obtain this documentation, they may alternatively provide a self-declaration of income.[98] Regarding asylum applicants, Article 8 PD 21/2015 clarifies that, in order to be admitted to free legal assistance, the applicant can present a self-declaration instead of the documents prescribed by Article 79 PD 115/2002.

Merits test

In addition, access to free legal assistance is also subject to a merits test by the competent Bar Association which assesses whether the asylum applicant’s motivations for appealing are not manifestly unfounded.[99] In the last years, including in 2025, no particular impediments were reported in accessing legal aid at this stage.

Moreover, it may occur that the applicant is initially granted free legal aid by a Bar Council but, as prescribed by law, the Court revokes the decision if it considers that the admission requirements assessed by the Bar Association are not fulfilled in the Court’s view.[100] The Court of Cassation has ruled that the withdrawal of legal aid may only be ordered after a concrete assessment of the circumstances of the case, fulfilling both criteria of being manifestly unfounded and gross negligence.[101]

LD 133/2023 has made access to free legal aid extremely difficult in cases related to subsequent applications, applications considered manifestly not founded and to decisions taken in accelerated procedures. Indeed, according to the new law, the judge has to withdraw free legal aid recognised to the applicant in case the Court ultimately rejects an appeal submitted against:

  • a decision of inadmissibility related to a subsequent asylum request because no further evidence or elements were provided (Article 29);
  • a decision of inadmissibility related to a subsequent asylum request considered to be submitted to avoid the execution of a removal order (article 29 bis procedure decree);
  • a decision which rejects the asylum request as manifestly not founded.

However, in the decision, the judge can confirm granting of free legal aid explaining in the decision why the arguments brought with the appeal cannot be considered manifestly not founded.[102]

DL 133/2023 introduced other limits to the benefit of free legal aid. According to the law, the Court shall decide to cease free legal aid when:[103]

  • It rejects the suspensive request included in an appeal submitted by an applicant coming from a safe country and who sought asylum directly at the border or in transit areas;
  • It rejects the suspensive request included in an appeal submitted against a refusal taken by the Territorial Commission applying an accelerated procedure (Article 28 bis procedure decree), and the Questura informs the Court about the enforcement of the removal order before a final decision is taken. In these cases, the rules mentioned above on the limits to accessing free legal aid do not apply as the person is channelled in an accelerated procedure not due to reasons connected to their asylum claim, but rather for reasons of public security.[104]

The evaluation of the merits in order to grant legal aid at Cassation stage is generally stricter.

A declaration of inadmissibility of the appeal constitutes reason to revoke legal aid. As many Cassation appeals are rejected on inadmissibility grounds, due to the formalism connected with such kind of proceedings, legal aid is often revoked once the case is rejected on these grounds.

Applicants who live in large cities have better chances to be assisted by specialised NGOs or legal advisors compared to those living in remote areas, where it is more difficult to find qualified lawyers specialised in asylum law. As discussed in the section on Regular Procedure: Appeal, in the Italian legal system, the assistance of a lawyer is essential in the appeal phase.

 

 

 

[1]          Article 27(2)(3) Procedure Decree.

[2]          Eurostat, Asylum applicants by type – annual aggregated data, available here.

[3]          Eurostat, Asylum applicants by type – annual aggregated data, available at: bit.ly/41jIZ7A.

[4]          Eurostat, First instance decisions, available here.

[5]          Article 11 Decree Law 100/2026 amending Article 26 of the Procedure Decree and introducing Article 26 bis, 26 ter of the Procedure Decree.

[6]          Article 23-bis Procedure Decree before the reform.

[7]          Article 28-bis (1) Procedure Decree which recalls notifications made pursuant article 11, paragraphs 3 or 3-bis, 3-ter.

[8]          Article 28-bis (2,3) Procedure Decree.

[9]          Article 23- bis (5) Procedure Decree.

[10]         Article 11(3) Procedure Decree et seq, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 as amended by L 46/2017.

[11]         Article 11(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[12]         Article 30 (3) DL 23/2026, converted by L. 54/2026 which amended Article 11 (3 bis) Procedure Decree.

[13]         Article 11(3-ter) and (3-quater) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[14]         Article 32(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by Decree Law 130/2020 and L 173/2020.

[15]         Articles 19(1) as amended by Decree Law 130/2020 and L. 173/2020.

[16]         Article 19 (1.1) TUI as amended by DL 20/2023 converted into L. 50 of 5 May 2023.

[17]         According to Eurostat, humanitarian permits recognised in 2023 were 380 less than those granted in 2022 (see Eurostat data available at: https://acesse.dev/Il39P. However, data must be read in conjunction with the fact the overall recognition rate is significantly decreased in 2023 passing from 47% in 2022 to 37%.

[18]         Article 32 of the Procedure Decree and 6 of the TUI both as amended by DL 20/2023 converted into L. 50/2023.

[19]         Article 7 (2) DL 20/2023.

[20]         Article 7 (3) DL 20/2023.

[21]         Article 32 (3.1) Procedure Decree recalls the requirements referred to in Article 19 TUI (2) (d-bis) as amended by L. 50/2023 which excludes the expulsion or extradition of foreigners who are in such health serious conditions.

[22]         Article 32 (3.2) Procedure Decree introduced by Decree Law 130/2020 and L 173/2020 and referring to Article 31 (3) TUI.

[23]         Article 6 (1 bis) TUI introduced by Decree Law 130/2020 and L 173/2020.

[24]         Article 32(1)(b-bis) Procedure Decree, as amended by Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.

[25]         Article 28-ter(g) Procedure Decree, citing Article 6(2)-(3) Reception Decree.

[26]         DL 133/2023 has repealed Article 28 ter (1 bis) According to Article 28 ter as reformed by Decree Law 130/2020 and L 173/2020 according to which the provision does not apply to people with special needs, referring to Article 17 Reception Decree.

[27]         Article 32(1)(b-ter) Procedure Decree, inserted by Decree Law 113/2018 and L 132/2018.

[28]         Article 32 (1) b quater Procedure Decree inserted by Decree Law 100/2026 of 12 June 2026.

[29]         Article 11 (2) Legislative Decree no. 115/2026, of 12 Juned 2026, entering into force on 16 July 2026, which amended Article 32 (3 bis) Procedure Decree.

[30]         Article 32 (4) as amended by L. 50/2023 referring to Article 13 (13,14) of TUI.

[31]         Article 13 TUI.

[32]         Article 35 bis (3,4) Procedure Decree.

[33]         Before the reform the law stated that it applied to applications likely to be well founded.

[34]         Article 28(2) C Procedure Decree, as amended by Decree Law 130/2020 and L. 173/2020.

[35]         Article 6(3) L 47/2017.

[36]         Article 28 (2) of the Procedure Decree as amended by DL 100/2026.

[37]         Article 12(1) Procedure Decree; Article 13(1) Procedure Decree.

[38]         Article 13(1-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by the Reception Decree.

[39]         Article 12 (1) as amended by Decree Law 130/2020 and L 173/2020.

[40]         The general guidelines are available in Italian here; the ones for audiovisual hearings (Guidelines no. 6) are available in Italian here.

[41]         MOI department of civil liberties and immigration, available here.

[42]         Article 12(3) Procedure Decree, as amended by the Reception Decree.

[43]         Article 5(4) PD 21/2015.

[44]         Article 12(2-bis) Procedure Decree, read in conjunction with Article 5(1-bis).

[45]         Information provided by the EUAA, 05 March 2026.

[46]         Article 10(4) Procedure Decree, as amended by the Reception Decree.

[47]         Article 14(2-bis) Procedure Decree, inserted by the Reception Decree.

[48]         Article 14(1) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[49]         Article 14(2) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017.

[50]         Article 14(5) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017.

[51]         Article 14(6-bis) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[52]         Article 14 (6 bis) Procedure Decree.

[53]         Article 14(7) Procedure Decree, as amended by Article 6 Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[54]         Articles 35(1) and 35-bis(1) Procedure Decree.

[55]         Article 17 DL 100/2026 of 12 June 2026.

[56]         Article 1 Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017.

[57]         Article 2(1) Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017.

[58]         Ministry of Justice website, available in Italian here.

[59]         Article 4(3) Decree Law 13/2017, as amended by L 46/2017.

[60]         Article 35-bis(2) Procedure Decree, as amended by Decree law 130/2020.

[61]         Ibid.

[62]         Article 35-bis(3) Procedure Decree as amended by Decree Law 130/2020 and by L. 50/2023.

[63]         Article 35-bis(7) and (12) Procedure Decree.

[64]         Article 35-bis(8) Procedure Decree.

[65]         L. Perilli, Le sezioni specializzate in materia di immigrazione a cinque anni dalla loro istituzione. Un’indagine sul campo, in Diritto Immigrazione e Cittadinanza, n. 1/2023, available in Italian at bit.ly/3mtqXRa.

[66]         Article 35 bis of the Procedure Decree as amended by DL 100/2026.

[67]         Article 35 ter Procedure decree as amended by DL 100/2026.

[68]         Article 35 bis Procedure Decree, as amended by Dl 100/2026

[69]         Article 35-bis Procedure Decree, introduced by Article 6(10) Decree Law 13/2017 and L 46/2017.

[70]         Article 6(11) Decree Law 13/2017.

[71]         CSM, Monitoraggio sezioni specializzate, October 2018, 27-28.

[72]         Court of Cassation, 1st Section, Decision 28424/2018, 27 June 2018, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2G6XwuS; Decision 17717/2018, 5 July 2018, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/2GfMYeb. See also: EDAL, Italy – Supreme Court of Cassation, 27 June 2018, no. 28424, available at: https://bit.ly/36vKlAn.

[73]         Art. 35-bis, (10) Procedure Decree

[74]         L. Perilli, mentioned available in Italian at: bit.ly/3mtqXRa.

[75]         Ministry of Justice, Report on the administration of Justice 2025, available in Italian here.

[76]         Article 35 bis (13) Procedure Decree as amended by Dl 100/2026.

[77]         Article 127-ter of the Code of Civil Procedure, introduced by Legislative Decree no. 149 of 10 October 2022.

[78]         Article 35-bis(13) Procedure Decree.

[79]         Ministry of Justice, Analisi procedimenti in materia di protezione internazionale, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3CMzIcp.

[80]         L. Perilli, Le sezioni specializzate in materia di immigrazione a cinque anni dalla loro istituzione. Un’indagine sul campo, in Diritto Immigrazione e Cittadinanza, n. 1/2023, available in Italian at: bit.ly/3mtqXRa.

[81]         For the years 2021 and 2022 information are confirmed in the publication ‘L. Minnitii, ‘L’ufficio per il processo nelle Sezioni distrettuali specializzate di immigrazione e protezione internazionale: una straordinaria occasione di innovazione a supporto della tutela dei diritti fondamentali degli stranieri’, 28 October 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/37VFUEi.

[82]         Eurostat, Final decisions on asylum applications, available here.

[83]         Article 35-bis(13) Procedure Decree.

[84]         CJEU, Case C-422/2018 F.R. v Ministero dell’interno – Commissione Territoriale per il riconoscimento della Protezione Internazionale presso la Prefettura U.T.G. di Milano, Judgment of 27 September 2018, EDAL, available at: https://bit.ly/2D1oGCE.

[85]         Article 35-bis(13) Procedure Decree.

[86]         See ASGI and Magistratura Democratica, ‘D.L. 13/2017, sempre più distanza tra giudici e cittadini stranieri’, February 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2moJoWs; Antigone, ‘Il pacchetto Minniti calpesta i diritti’, 12 February 2017, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2l7pjUo.

[87]         Court of Cassation, decision n. 15177 of June 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3Jf43TH.

[88]         Art 35 bis c. 13 in the relevant part reads “The power of attorney for litigation for the proposition of the appeal for cassation must be conferred, under penalty of inadmissibility of the appeal, after the communication of the contested decree; to this end, the defender certifies the release date in his favour of the same power of attorney”.

[89]         The III section Court of Cassation application is available – commented – at: https://bit.ly/3tbN1jt.

[90]         Constitutional Court, Decision n. 13 of 2022, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/36nS8Ec.

[91]         Court of Cassation, report on administration of Justice in the year 2022, available at: bit.ly/3L5w2sn.

[92]         Court of Cassation, report on administration of Justice in the year 2023, Available at https://l1nq.com/IE4MP., 124.

[93]         Ministry of Justice, Report on the administration of justice in 2025, available in Italian here.

[94]         Article 10(2-bis) Procedure Decree.

[95]         Article 11(6) TUI.

[96]         Article 16(2) Procedure Decree.

[97]         Article 79(2) PD 115/2002.

[98]         Article 94(2) PD 115/2002.

[99]         Article 126 PD 115/2002.

[100]       Article 136 PD 115/2002.

[101]       Court of Cassation, Decision 26661/2017, 10 November 2017.

[102]       Article 35-bis(17) Procedure Decree as amended by DL 133/2023, converted with amendments by L. 176/2023.

[103]       Article 35 bis / 17 bis) Procedure Decree introduced by DL 133/2023, converted with amendments by L. 176/2023.

[104]       This provision does not apply to the cases ruled by Article 28 bis (1 lett. b), related to applicants under a criminal procedure, and to applicants detained according to Article 6 (2, lett. a, b, c) of the Reception Decree. They correspond to the following cases; a) He or she falls under the exclusion clauses laid down in Article 1F of the 1951 Convention, following a decision of the CNDA; or under Article 12 (1, b, c) and under Article 16 of the Qualification Decree; b) Is issued an expulsion order on the basis that he or she constitutes a danger to public order or state security; c) the applicant may represent a danger for public order and security.

Italy

Table of contents

  • Statistics
  • Overview of the legal framework
  • Overview of the main changes since the previous report update
  • Asylum Procedure
  • Reception Conditions
  • Detention of Asylum Seekers
  • Content of International Protection
  • ANNEX I – Transposition of the CEAS in national legislation
  • Annex II – EU Pact on Migration and Asylum