In terms of the opposition judgment against the expulsion decree, in the presence of a previous ruling rejecting the appeal brought regarding the right to family unity, the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace remains unaffected, as the jurisdiction of the Court cannot be considered effective, provided for by the art. 1, paragraph 2-bis of the legislative decree. n. 241 of 2004, converted with amendments by law. n. 271 of 2004, as the definition of the aforementioned procedure excludes the possibility of considering the existence of a "pending" procedure pursuant to articles. 30 and 31 of Legislative Decree no. 286 of 1998.
“In light of the foregoing, the individual profile of the applicant – a woman who is a victim of domestic violence, who has unsuccessfully sought assistance from the authorities, divorced, and without a supportive family network – leads, in the present case, to the conclusion that the conditions for granting her refugee status […] on the grounds of membership in a particular social group are met, in view of the information consulted regarding the country of origin.”
“The failure to request or obtain a residence permit, and even the absence of a valid identity document on the part of the applicant, cannot constitute grounds for denying the application for citizenship pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of Law No. 91/1992, given that it is nonetheless possible to identify the individual with certainty through the photo-fingerprint records taken for the purposes of identification and the civil registry file as an asylum seeker, which contain his personal details and photograph.”
“In light of the above considerations, the elements emerging during the hearing before the Territorial Commission, and the appeal, it is considered that the repeated mistreatment, psychological, physical, and sexual violence, were particularly severe, causing prolonged psychological and traumatic effects that would make her return to the country of origin intolerable. […]
Indeed, regarding the “grounds of persecution,” victims of trafficking may fall within the “particular social group” referred to in letter (d) of Article 8 of Legislative Decree No. 251/07 […] This is therefore a form of gender-based persecution, since “the forced or deceptive recruitment of women and minors for the purposes of forced prostitution or sexual exploitation constitutes a form of gender-based violence, which may amount to persecution.
Article 10(1)(d) of Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on standards for the qualification of third-country nationals or stateless persons as beneficiaries of international protection, for a uniform status for refugees or for persons eligible for subsidiary protection, and on the content of the protection granted, must be interpreted as meaning that:
“For the purposes pursued by the legislature, it is the expression of intent that determines the crystallization of the time limit established by law; therefore, the objection that the submission of the form by Mr. … through his counsel is merely a preliminary act and in no way a substitute for the formal declaration of election of citizenship to be made before the civil registrar is irrelevant. What matters, in fact, is that the expression of intent — in this case implicit in the submission of the form — is made in due time. The formal declaration, moreover, is rendered only following the scheduling of an appointment, which is an obligation and prerogative of the Administration, as the individual concerned cannot in any way dictate the municipality’s agenda.”
Cittadinanzattiva
Legal and administrative office
via Imera, 2 - (00183) Rome
Phone: (+39) 06.36.71.81
Email: mail@cittadinanzattiva.it
CILD
Legal and administrative office
Via dei Monti di Pietralata, 16 - (00157) Rome
Phone: (+39) 06.45.06.850
Email: info@cild.eu
Project funded by the European Union's Citizens,