Italy, Court of Cassation, 3 March 2022, No. 7046

Case overview

Country
Italy
Case ID
No. 7046
Decision date
Deciding body (English)
Court of Cassation
Deciding body (Original)
Corte di Cassazione
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Double jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
Supreme court, Cassation (Review)
Area
Immigration and asylum
Vulnerability groups
Asylum seekers
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
General Summary

An asylum seeker challenged a decree by the Tribunal of Turin that confirmed an administrative decision rejecting his asylum request. The petitioner based his claim on two arguments, one of which regarded the risk of contracting Covid-19 in case of a return to his country of origin. The Court pointed out that the risk to the right to health of an individual was an element for consideration when evaluating requests for asylum. However, the risk of infection from Covid-19, given the pandemic nature of the disease, was present in any country. Therefore, the mere allegation of a theoretical risk of infection was not sufficient grounds for proper argument. It was instead necessary that the claim be grounded in specific circumstances that demonstrated how, as far as the specific situation of the petitioner was concerned, a return to his country of origin would impact his risk of infection. The Court rejected the appeal.

Facts of the case

The local administrative authority rejected an asylum request. The asylum seeker then challenged the decision before the Tribunal, but that claim was also rejected. He then appealed the decision before the Court of Cassation. He put forward two main arguments: first, he argued that the administrative authority and the first instance court had erred in judging his story not to be credible. Second, he argued that the first instance court had erred in not granting humanitarian protection with regard to the risks of a violation of his fundamental human rights in case of a return to his country. In particular, he pointed out that there was a risk of infection from Covid-19 linked to a return to his country.

Type of measure challenged
National government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
To overturn the first instance decision
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Ordinary procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

With regard to the first argument, the Court confirmed the view of the Tribunal that: 1) there was no credible information concerning the actual situation of the asylum seeker; 2) the petitioner’s home region was free of violence that could endanger his life at the moment the ruling was made. With regard to the second argument, the Court pointed out that, theoretically, the risk of danger to one’s health, connected to his right to health, must be considered when assessing a request for humanitarian protection. However, the Court stated that, given the pandemic nature of Covid-19, there was a general risk of infection regardless of country. In order to properly build a claim, therefore, it was necessary that the claimant specify circumstances related to his country of origin and/or his/her personal situation which might persuade the Court that there was an actual increase in risk of infection when moving from Italy to his country of origin. According to the Court, such circumstances were absent from the appellant’s argument.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Court declared the appeal inadmissible and upheld the first instance decision.

Fundamental Right(s) involved
  • Right to asylum
  • Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
  • Right to private and family life
Author of the case note
Dr. Gianmatteo Sabatino, Lecturer, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law/University of Trento