Place of detention

Author

ASGI Visit Website

Pre-removal detention centres (CPR)

Under the Reception Decree, asylum seekers can be detained in CPRs – previously known as CIEs -, where third-country nationals who have received an expulsion order are generally held.[1] The functioning of CPRs and their essential rules are laid out in the CIE Regulation adopted in 2014.[2] This Regulation has been abolished by the Interior Ministry Directive of the 19 May 2022[3]. 10 CPRs are present on the Italian territory, as detailed in the list below. The official capacity, with all 10 CPRs active, would be of 1,359 places. Effective capacity in 2021 and first four months of 2022 was reduced, due to the temporary closure of some structures and COVID-19 restrictions: by the end of 2021, only 744 places were available,[4] while as of 30 April 2022 the official capacity of the centres was of 727 places. In March 2023, the CPR in Turin was temporarily closed following several riots that progressively made its spaces unfit for use, ultimately forcing the transfer of all detained persons to other facilities.[5] By the time of publication, no information is available on the timeframe for a possible reopening.

The latest data available on capacity of CPR and persons detained therein are as follows, updated to 31 December 2021:[6]

Source: Guarantor of detained persons, updated as of 31 December 2021.

As of 31 December 2021, according to data reported by the National Guarantor, Potenza, Gorizia and Turin were the CPRs with the highest influx of persons. The practice of detention in CPRs did not change even during the COVID-19 pandemic and the related lockdowns, which led to periods of border closure and suspension of connections with countries of origin: despite the impossibility of removal/deportation, the validations and extensions of detention orders continued without interruption. [9]
Decree Law 13/2017, implemented by L 46/2017, had foreseen the extension of the network of the CPR to ensure the distribution across the entire national territory.[10] In order to speed up the implementation of CPR, Decree Law 113/2018 encouraged the use of negotiated procedures, without tender, for works whose amounts are below the EU threshold relevance and for a maximum period of three years.[11]

The situation as of 31 May 2022 in the 10 CPRs can be described as follows:[12]

• Milan’s CPR, situated at the outskirts of the city, currently has an official capacity of 140 places; as of May 2022, 46 persons were detained, while the total capacity of the centre is of 72 people. The new call for tender issued in April 2021 foresees 84 places and has been won by ENGEL srl (who is already managing Potenza’s CPR).
• Turin’s CPR, which was first opened in 1999, currently has an official capacity of 210 places. As of May 2022, out of 112 places available, 94 persons were detained. It has been managed since 2015 by Gepsa, a multinational society which had previously managed detention centres in Rome and Milan and is considered one of the main actors in the business of detention immigration.[13] In September 2021, its isolation section known as Ospedaletto was closed down, following the report of the visit of the National Guarantor – which took place shortly after a migrant, Moussa Balde, committed suicide in the isolation section in May 2021 –,[14] who had deemed detention in this area as an inhumane and degrading treatment and called for its immediate and definitive closure.[15] From February 2022, it is managed by Ors Italia S.r.l., operating also in Rome’s CPR. As previously mentioned, the centre was closed in March 2023.[16]
• Gorizia’s CPR, which was first activated in 2006 but has been closed from 2013 to 2019 following protests on its conditions, had an official capacity of 150 places; as of May 2022, 80 persons were detained, out of an effective capacity of 100 places.
• Macomer’s CPR is the first immigration detention facility in Sardinia and was opened in 2020 (after a structure previously hosting a high security prison was repurposed). It is situated on the outskirts of a small town, more than 50 kilometres away from the closest cities (Nuoro and Oristano). It has an official capacity of 50 places; as of May 2022, it hosted 48 detainees. From 21 March 2022, it is managed by the social cooperative Ekene.
• Rome’s CPR, situated in Ponte Galeria, at the outskirts of the city, has been active since 1998. It currently has an official capacity of 210 places. It is the only Italian immigration detention facility for women; the women’s section was partially renovated in 2020, but some parts remain in dire conditions. As of May 2022, 123 persons (119 men and 4 women) were detained, out of 125 places available at that time.
• Potenza’s CPR is located in the outskirts of the town of Palazzo San Gervasio, 65 km from Potenza, in a very isolated and hard to reach area. It was reopened in 2018 and it has recently been closed for renovation from May 2020 to February 2021. It has an official capacity of 198 places and, as of May 2022, 71 persons were reportedly detained there, out of 112 places available (in 2021, 16% of the total of persons detained in Italian CPRs were detained here).
• Bari’s CPR has an official capacity of 126 places and has been managed from 2018 to 2021 by the social cooperative Badia Grande (which also manages Trapani’s CPR). In October 2021, several CPR’s managers, including the director of the CPR until February 2021, were involved in criminal investigations for serious malpractices in the management of the CPR.[17] On 25 November 2022, the local Prefettura excluded the social cooperative Badia Grande from the European open tender for the award of management services of the local CPR.[18] As of 31 May 2022, 49 people were detained out of 72 places available.
• Brindisi’s CPR has an official capacity of 48 places and as of May 2022 44 persons (less than 5% of the total of persons detained in CPRs were detained here in 2021)
• Caltanissetta’s CPR currently has an official capacity of 92 places; as reported in 2021, 564 persons (around 10%) had been detained there throughout the year. It was closed for renovations, following requests by the National Guarantor, between April 2020 to May 2021.
• Trapani’s CPR currently has an official capacity of 205 places; as of May 2022, 32 persons were detained here, out of an effective capacity of 36 places. It has been closed for renovations from April 2020 to August 2021.

From more information from a gender perspective see Detention of vulnerable applicants.

Access to CPRs for rights organisations and civil society remains problematic in practice. In December 2021, Sardinia’s Administrative Tribunal (TAR) invalidated acts by Nuoro’s Prefecture not allowing access of civil society organisations in Macomer’s CPR, acknowledging the legitimate interest of rights organisations and civil society to enter immigration detention facilities to ensure the protection of fundamental rights. Similar judgments have been issued in April 2021 by Piedmont’s TAR regarding access to Turin’s CPR and in October 2020 by Sicilia’s TAR with regard to access to Caltanissetta’s CPR.[19]  Recently Lombardy’s TAR clarified that, regardless of the rules of their statutes, associations that promote the protection of fundamental rights – certified by their experience – can have access to CPR, cancelling the Milan Prefecture’s previous refusal of access to the Milan CPR by a local association[20]

Locali idonei

LD 113/2018, converted into Law 132/2018, has expanded the places of deprivation of liberty suitable for the administrative detention of foreign citizens pending the validation of immediate accompaniment to the border. The new Art. 13 para 5-bis of the Consolidated Immigration Act introduced the possibility that the justice of peace, at the request of the Questore, orders the detention of the third country nationals in “suitable structures” (“locali idonei”) if there are no available places in CPRs. Furthermore, if the unavailability of places in CPRs persists after the validation hearing, it is possible to order the detention of foreign citizens in “suitable premises at the border office concerned, until the actual removal is carried out and, in any case, no later than forty-eight hours following the hearing of validation”. The provision has been criticised by the National Guarantor[21] as well as by ASGI[22] for its indeterminacy, as the methods of detention and the suitability criteria are not specified, leaving it exclusively to the discretion of the public security authorities. The UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, in the concluding observations of its 2019 report on Italy, expressed concern for the unavailability of a list of locali idonei, which effectively prevents the Guarantor from monitoring them. The Committee thus recommended the Italian government to immediately publish the aforementioned list and guarantee access by the National Guarantor to these premises[23].

LD 130/2020, converted into Law 173/2020, confirmed the expansion of places of deprivation of liberty intended for the detention of foreign citizens pending validation of the forced repatriation, but – in pursuance of recommendations made by the National Guarantor[24] – specified that art. 14 of the TUI applies: in such places of detention, adequate sanitary and housing standards must be ensured and fundamental rights must be guaranteed. These places are thus to be considered as surrogates of CPRs and respond to the same standards. The National Guarantor has further clarified that all the protections provided for in the Cpr compatible with a short stay, including the possibility of visits by persons authorised to access the institutes prisons and security rooms as well as by national and international protection organisations[25].

There is no data on individuals detained in the so-called “locali idonei” from the entry into force of the rule. ASGI, as part of the In Limine project, has thus urged the publication of this information, sending FOIA requests to concerned authorities in July 2020. All questioned Questure (Bergamo, Bologna, Brescia, Milan, Parma, Roma) replied to the request for information, although often information was only partial due to alleged reasons of public security. More specifically, none of the Offices – notwithstanding requests made by the National Guarantor as well as the UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances – has shared a list of structures identified as locali idonei, nor provided clear information on criteria to be used in the suitability assessment, merely citing inputs received on this by the National Guarantor but not confirming whether any specific regulation has been adopted.

The disclosed information confirms that all the 6 Questure questions have implemented detention in “locali idonei”. Between July 2019 and July 2020, at least 393 persons were held here in locali idonei. Most represented nationalities were Morocco, Albania and Tunisia.[26]

The National Guarantor has visited, between December 2020 and January 2021, in “locali idonei” in Immigration Offices in Parma and Bologna. The former has 2 holding chambers, in which 38 persons were held pursuant to Art. 13 para 5-bis TUI; no critical events were reported. The latter uses the so-called “sale accompagnati” as locali idonei; in 2020, 17 people were held here pursuant to Art. 13 para 5-bis TUI; among these, 6 were held for 2 nights, 4 for 3 nights, 2 for nights.[27]

In May 2022, ASGI had access to locals used by Milan’s Questura, and could gather information on the detention procedure and its timing, the places used and certain critical issues related to the right of defence of persons detained.[28] What emerged is that the maximum duration of detention is 48 hours and only those who receive a deportation decree with accompaniment by public force are detained in the sector, while those who receive deportation decrees for which detention is ordered are immediately transferred to the CPR. Detention validation hearings are mainly conducted remotely and the detainee’s lawyer can speak with the detainee – also remotely – only a few minutes before the hearing. Personnel of the Questura meeting with ASGI’s delegation indicated that detainees have the possibility to be visited by family members or the lawyer, but the direct experience of some cases showed that this right is not guaranteed in practice.[29]

Upon entry, detainees receive and sign an information form on the possibility of requesting voluntary departure and sign the information sheet that will be attached to the deportation decree.

No specific information is provided on the possibility of accessing the procedure for recognition of international protection. Regarding the right to health, there is no reference protocol with the National Health Service and no examination on the suitability of the application of a detention measure. However, it has been reported that a doctor from the National Health Service is contacted in case of specific requests by the detainee. The Questura di Milano argued that, despite the absence of an express provision of law, there is the possibility for detainees to submit complaints to the Guarantor for detainees’ rights.  Mobile phones are requisitioned upon entering the premises; detainees would then be granted to use it only for the time strictly necessary to contact family members or lawyers, apparently under the surveillance of police officers.

Finally, there is no regulated service regarding the meals provided to detainees, who, if in possession of money, can use the snack machines; otherwise, in the case of longer detention, it was reported that a meal was offered through the canteen service of the operators.[30]

This visit followed Lombardi’s Administrative Tribunal precautionary order following the appeal filed by ASGI after Milan Questura rejected the request for access to locali idonei. In October 2022, the same TAR, while noting the lack of interest in the case having occurred in May of the same year of ASGI’s visit, reiterated the that reasoning behind the rejection of the request by the local Questura had been erroneous.[31]

Hotspots

As described in the Hotspots section, there are four operating hotspots (the fifth, the hotspot of Trapani was converted into a CPR in September 2018). In 2020 and 2021, hotspots were temporarily, partially or completely converted to quarantine facilities, with varying capacity and conditions. As of April 2022, Messina’s hotspot appears not operational.

As already noted, the hotspot approach is used beyond hotspots centres. In October 2020, ASGI reported that the first line reception facility of Monastir, in Sardinia, was being used as a de facto detention facility; a further visit in April 2021 confirmed persisting criticalities.[32]

With reference to the new critical issues that have emerged at the new border of Pantelleria, please refer to what has been reported above.[33]

The Reception Decree does not provide a legal framework for the operations carried out in the First Aid and Reception Centre (CPSA) now converted into hotspots. Both in the past and recently in the CPSA, in the absence of a legislative framework and in the name of unspecified identification needs, asylum seekers have been unlawfully deprived of their liberty and held for weeks in conditions detrimental to their personal dignity. The legal vacuum, the lack of places in the reception system and the bureaucratic chaos have legitimised in these places detention of asylum seekers without adopting any formal decision or judicial validation.

In the case of Khlaifia v. Italy, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has strongly condemned Italy for the detention of a group of Tunisians in the Lampedusa CPSA in 2011. In particular, the Court found that their detention was unlawful, and that the conditions in which the Tunisians were accommodated – in a situation of overcrowding, poor hygienic conditions, prohibition of contacts with the outside world and continuous surveillance by law enforcement, lack of information on their legal status and the duration and the reasons for detention – constituted a violation of Articles 3 and 5 ECHR, in addition to the violation of Article 13 ECHR due to the lack of an effective remedy against these violation.[34] The Grand Chamber judgement of 15 December 2016 confirmed the violation of such fundamental rights.[35] Despite civil society organisations calling out the continued practice of detention in hotspots in violation of the Khlaifia judgement, in December 2021 the supervision procedure on the implementation of the ECtHR judgement was officially closed. ASGI, A Buon Diritto and CILD have expressed concern for the closure of the supervision procedure and stressed again the persistence of serious and systematic violations of fundamental rights.[36] Regarding the unlawfulness of detention, the Government asserted that it had fully implemented the Khlaifia judgement by enacting L 173/2020.[37] Nevertheless, as pointed out by the National Guarantor for the Rights of Detainees, the 2020 reform did not introduce any new provisions related to hotspots, amending solely the legislation covering CPRs.[38]

Although the new Article 6(3-bis) of the Reception Decree foresees the possibility of detention for identification purposes in specific places, such places are not identified by law. In a Circular issued on 27 December 2018, the Ministry of Interior specified that it will be the responsibility of the Prefectures in whose territories such structures are found to identify special facilities where this form of detention could be performed. At the time of writing, there is no information on the identification of these premises.

As those dedicated premises have not been identified, detention for identification purposes occurs de facto in hotspots.[39]

According to ASGI, detention in facilities other than CPRs and prisons violates Article 10 of the recast Reception Conditions Directive, which does not allow for detention to take place in other locations than those designated for this purpose and additionally because in these places the guarantees envisioned by this provision are not in place. According to ASGI, the amended Reception Decree also violates Article 13 of the Italian Constitution, since the law does not indicate the exceptional circumstances and the conditions of necessity and urgency allowing, according to constitutional law, for the application of detention measures. Moreover, the law makes only a generic reference to places of detention, which will be not identified by law but by the prefectures, thus violating the “riserva di legge” laid down in the Article 13 of the Constitution, according to which the modalities of personal freedom restrictions can be laid down only in legislation and not in other instruments such as circulars.[40]

In the recent case J.A. and Others v. Italy,[41] the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for violating Article 3 (prohibition of torture and inhuman and degrading treatment), Article 5 (right to liberty and security) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention, on the complaint lodged by the four Tunisian nationals rescued and transferred to the Lampedusa hotspot and here victims of de facto detention.

Transit zones

The lack of a clear legal definition of transit zones has led to a situation of legal ambiguity, on which illegitimate practises of refusal of entry and detention have been built. Border authorities, considering these areas as extraterritorial, act as if they were exempt from the application of constitutional, national and international standards for the protection of fundamental rights. This interpretation is untenable under the rule of law, since the jurisdiction exercised by the State over such places is not in question. People who are denied entry at airports are forced to wait for repatriation to their country of origin in transit zones. In some cases, this wait can last several days. Foreign citizens are brought back by the same company they travelled with to reach Italy. During this period, people are arbitrarily detained in grossly inadequate conditions and in the absence of the basic guarantees accorded to persons deprived of their liberty. Detention takes place in premises that are structurally unsuitable for the purpose, isolated from the outside world, without access to fresh air, with little opportunity to consult a lawyer, without any detention order being issued and therefore without any validation by a judge.

De facto detention is used intensively by the authorities in the management of migratory flows in transit at airports. Such deprivation of personal liberty is enforced in the absence of a legal basis, a maximum period of detention and a judicial review of the legitimacy of the detention, in inadequate conditions. Persons detained in airport transit zones have extremely limited possibilities of getting in touch with organisations, protection bodies, family members and lawyers – as their access to such areas is strictly limited. The obstacles put in place by border authorities to reduce outsiders’ access to transit areas result in a series of violations, among which the right to information, the right to defence (it is often impossible for detainees to physically contact a lawyer), and effective access to judicial protection. Moreover, the lack of access of civil society to these areas makes them almost invisible to public opinion. Furthermore – while it is difficult for the outside world to enter the transit zones, the authorities do not take any measures to ensure that detained persons can communicate outwardly. On the contrary, on numerous occasions foreign nationals are informally deprived of their mobile phones and, on several occasions, appointed lawyers have been denied entry on the basis that these areas are considered as ‘sterile’, meaning that only certain categories of persons may have access.[42]

Responding, on 10 October 2019, to an open letter from ASGI, the Ministry of Interior, Central Directorate for Immigration, has made it known that the staying even for several days in the transit area is not supposed to be considered as detention, and therefore to have the defence rights guarantees related to detention because it is implemented as part of the immediate refoulement procedure that does not provide for jurisdictional validation.[43]

However, the Guarantor for detained persons maintained that a de facto detention contrary to Articles 13 of the Italian Constitution and to Article 5 of the ECHR was configurable in the situation where people were unable to enter Italy since they were notified of an immediate refoulement measure and were obliged, at the disposal of the border police, to stay in special rooms in the transit area of the airports.[44] This period of time varied according to the availability of flight connections with the place of origin.

In 2022, the National Guarantor stressed concerns over de facto detention in transit zones, noting the persisting practice at air or port borders where the effective rejection of the foreign citizen present ai border crossings does not take place immediately and people be blocked for days in the transit area, and its criticalities in terms of lack of judicial review of detention as well as conditions of detention.[45]

In 2021, 6,153 persons received refusals of entry at the borders (3,578 air border, 167 at land borders, 2,408 at sea borders). The main nationality registered is Albanian with 4,007 people (65%). The National Guarantor reported of 305 detained at the transit zones as follow:[46]

Article 13 (5 bis) TUI, as amended by DL 113/2018,[47] introduced the possibility of detaining people, to be expelled after being in Italy, in suitable premises at the concerned border office.

Responding to ASGI requests, the air border police offices of Rome Fiumicino and Milan Malpensa communicated in early 2020 that still no premises have been identified within the transit areas of the two airports for the detention of those who have to be expelled and that therefore no detention measures had been carried out in these areas.[48] The situation remained unchanged as of December 2022, as reported by ASGI’s through the InLimine Project.[49]

[1] Article 6(2) Reception Decree.

[2] Ministero dell’Interno, Regolamento Unico CIE, 2014, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3JgGYjp.

[3] Ministero dell’interno, Direttiva recante “Criteri per l’organizzazione e la gestione dei centri di permanenza per i rimpatri previsti dall’art. 14 del decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, n. 286 e successive modificazioni”, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/wfqcv5.

[4] Report to Parliament Annexes to the yearly report of the National Guarantor for the rights of detained persons, June 2022, available at: https://rb.gy/alzvet.

[5] CILD, Chiude il Cpr di Torino: la speranza è che non riapra più, 30 marzo 2023, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/0ee2.

[6] Report to Parliament Annexes to the yearly report of the National Guarantor for the rights of detained persons, June 2022, available at: https://rb.gy/alzvet.

[7] The National Guarantor report provides a breakdown based on official and effective capacity. “Official capacity” refers to the total number of places present in the centre, while “effective capacity” refers to the number of places that can be occupied in a centre in a given year. Effective capacity of the centres is very frequently lower than official capacity, for example as some areas of the centres might not be available due to maintenance issues or to be in need of renovations.

[8] Ibid.

[9] ASGI, The Black book on the Pre-Removal Detention Centre (CPR) of migrants in Turin – Corso Brunelleschi, September 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/3CQZQD5.

[10] Article 19(3) Decree Law 13/2017 implemented by L 46/2017.

[11] Article 2(2) Decree Law 113/2018, implemented by L 132/2018.

[12] LASCIATECIENTRARE, Dietro le mura. Abusi, violenze e diritti negati nei CPR d’Italia, October 2022, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/daoyns.

[13] Ilaria Sesana, La detenzione amministrativa dei migranti è un affare. Anche in Italia, Altraeconomia, 2017, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3IeVMxt.

[14] National Guarantor for the rights of detained persons, Chiuso l’Ospedaletto del Cpr di Torino: accolta la Raccomandazione del Garante nazionale, September 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3MVVKOz.

[15] National Guarantor for the rights of detained persons, Report on the visit to Turin’s CPR in June 2021. Available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3MVVKOz.

[16] See above note 96.

[17] Chiara Spagnolo, “Migranti, frode sull’assistenza sanitaria nel centro di permanenza di Palese: 4 indagati”, La Repubblica, October 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3iaqZYc. 

[18] Prefettura di Bari, provvedimento di esclusione Badia Grande Soc. Coop. Sociale, 25 November 2022, availabe in Italian at: https://rb.gy/avqavv.

[19] TAR Sardegna, 838/2021, published on 24/12/2021, available in Italian at:  https://bit.ly/35YBFH4; TAR Piemonte, 360/2021, published on 6/4/2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3qcz1nI; TAR Sicilia, 2169/2020, published on 21/10/2020, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/37CPFqn. 

[20] ASGI, I diritti umani devono entrare nei CPR!, January 2023, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/lxw29j.

[21] National Guarantor, Opinion on LD 113/2018, October 2018, available in Italian at:  https://bit.ly/3KJJ63i. 

[22] ASGI, I “locali idonei” al trattenimento dei cittadini stranieri: le criticità del dettato normativo, i rilievi mossi dalle autorità di garanzia e i dati raccolti da ASGI, April 2021, available in Italian at:  https://bit.ly/3MXOtxI.  

[23] UN Committee on Enforced Disappearances, Concluding observations on the report submitted by Italy under article 29 (1) of the Convention, May 2019, available at: https://bit.ly/3MYgGVt.   

[24] National Guarantor, Opinion on LD 130/2020, November 2020, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3id2N7z.

[25] National Guarantor, Thematic report on suitable structures used for detention of third-country nationals, August 2021, available in Italian at:  https://bit.ly/3Jh0aNS. 

[26] ASGI, I “locali idonei” al trattenimento dei cittadini stranieri: le criticità del dettato normativo, i rilievi mossi dalle autorità di garanzia e i dati raccolti da ASGI, April 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3MXOtxI. 

[27] National Guarantor, Thematic report on suitable structures used for detention of third-country nationals, August 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3Jh0aNS. 

[28] ASGI, Il punto sulle strutture idonee nella disponibilità delle autorità di pubblica sicurezza per il trattenimento dei cittadini stranieri in attesa dell’esecuzione del rimpatrio: il monitoraggio di ASGI presso la Questura di Milano, November 2022, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/wfl5po.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Ibid.

[31] ASGI, Il diritto di accesso ai “luoghi idonei” di trattenimento: la sentenza del TAR Milano, November 2022, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/gf2jxc.

[32] ASGI, Un resoconto della visita di ASGI al Centro di accoglienza di Monastir, April 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3CKQecX.

[33] See Duration of detention, para. 4.1.

[34] ECtHR, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, Application No 16483/12, Judgement of 1 September 2015.

[35] ECtHR, Khlaifia and Others v. Italy, Grand Chamber, Judgement of 15 December 2016.

[36] ASGI, Trattenimento in hotspot: c’era un giudice a Strasburgo, January 2022, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3JkBXpX.

[37] Rappresentanza permanente d’Italia presso il Consiglio d’Europa, Communication of the Italian Government, February 2021, available at: https://bit.ly/34NItGJ.

[38] National Guarantor, Opinion on DL 130/2020, November 2020, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3id2N7z.

[39] Guarantor for the rights of detained persons, Relazione al Parlamento, 15 June 2018, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2TZy9ol, 233.

[40] ASGI, Manifeste illegittimita’ costituzionali delle nuove norme concernenti permessi di soggiorno per esigenze umanitarie, protezione internazionale, immigrazione e cittadinanza previste dal decreto-legge 4 ottobre 2018, n. 113, 15 October 2018, available in Italian at: http://bit.ly/2FCsyLW.

[41] Case of J.A. and Others v. Italy, application n. 21329/2018, 30 March 2023, https://rb.gy/8uq8v.

[42] ASGI, Le zone di transito aeroportuali come luoghi di privazione arbitraria della liberta, January 2021, available in Italian at: https://bit.ly/3CLdOqh.

[43] Letter from Ministry of Interior, 8 October 2019, available in Italian at: https://cutt.ly/WyO4qYF.

[44] Guarantor report, page 7. See also, Questione Giustizia, Zone di transito internazionali degli aeroporti, zone grigie del diritto, 9 December 2019, available in Italian at: https://cutt.ly/EyO4wL9.

[45] Report to Parliament Annexes to the yearly report of the National Guarantor for the rights of detained persons, June 2022, available at https://rb.gy/alzvet

[46]  Ibidem.

[47] Article 13(5bis) as amended by Article 4 (1) DL 113/2018 converted by L. 132/2018 introduced the possibility of detaining the people to be expelled, pending the validation procedure and in the event of no availability of places at the CPRs, in structures in the availability of the Public Security Authority. Detention is ordered by the Magistrate (Giudice di Pace) at the request of the Questore with the decree which sets the hearing to validate the expulsion. After this hearing, the Magistrate, at the request of the Questore, may authorize further detention, for a maximum of 48 hours, in suitable premises at the border office concerned.

[48] Article 13 (5 bis) TUI.

[49] ASGI, Il trattenimento in attesa di allontanamento in “locali idonei” presso gli uffici di frontiera: le informazioni ottenute dalle autorità competenti, available in Italian at: https://rb.gy/llvjb4.