Asylum seekers cannot be treated as "waste bags": the ruling of the EU Court went unnoticed

Covered in the media by the much more well-known and anticipated ruling of the CJEU ( Court of Justice of the European Union ) on safe countries of origin, another equally significant ruling by the same Court was published on August 1st: the ruling in Case C-97/24 v. Ireland, concerning the reception of asylum seekers. Two asylum seekers (an Afghan citizen and an Indian citizen) who had applied for asylum on February 15 and March 20, 2023, had been without reception for several weeks, sleeping on the streets or in precarious accommodation not provided by the state. Approximately a month before the end of their period of social assistance, which ended with their placement in reception on April 27 and May 22, 2025, respectively, they had received, retroactively, a weekly financial allowance of €38.

The two applicants appealed their case, asking the Irish High Court to award them damages. The Irish government opposed this, acknowledging a violation of the law but simultaneously arguing that the failure to receive asylum had been caused by "an unprecedented number of third-country nationals" seeking asylum in Ireland. The Irish High Court then referred a preliminary ruling to the ECJ to determine whether a " force majeure" situation existed and, if so, whether this would rule out negligence on the part of the Irish state in failing to promptly provide reception. Starting from a specific case, the ECJ was therefore called upon to establish the legal principles, applicable to all EU states , that must be followed regarding the obligation to provide reception to asylum seekers without their own means of support. The Court applied a very stringent reasoning that, as we shall see, was destined to have a significant impact, especially on states like Italy.

The Court considers that the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of Directive 2013/33/EU on reception conditions , interpreted in light of Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, " preclude an applicant for international protection from being deprived, even temporarily, of the protection afforded by the minimum standards laid down by those directives." The Court observes that the European provision provides that "in the event of exhaustion of the accommodation capacities normally available (...) a Member State has a choice between two options" : it can decide to provide the asylum seeker with temporary accommodation that meets essential needs, thus temporarily derogating from certain specific services aimed at asylum seekers, or it can provide financial assistance sufficient to guarantee "a decent standard of living ." The lack of places ordinarily intended for reception forces States to act temporarily through one or other of the two derogating measures indicated above, or a combination thereof.

Not without first pointing out that the emergency situation complained of by Ireland did not exist at all, the Court concludes that there exists without exceptions "an obligation of result aimed at ensuring that applicants for international protection have their essential needs met" and that a Member State " cannot escape its responsibility under Union law by invoking the temporary exhaustion of the accommodation capacities normally available (...) due to an influx of applicants (...) which, due to its large and sudden nature, would have been unforeseeable and unavoidable ". The Irish shortcomings criticised by the CJEU appear very modest compared to the enormous dysfunctions of the reception system in Italy . The fact that asylum seekers, particularly those who enter by land and are therefore not placed by the Ministry following disembarkation, remain abandoned on the streets for months without any reception, has become so common that this dysfunction is perceived almost as normal. When some of the more egregious incidents come to light, such as the recent abandonment in Trieste of hundreds of asylum seekers arriving via the Balkan route (a systemic situation documented for years), one is led to believe that these are despicable but isolated exceptions, when in fact this is not the case at all.

A partial monitoring exercise conducted again in spring 2024 by the Association of Legal Studies on Immigration revealed that " in 23 Italian provinces, asylum seekers are denied access to reception throughout the entire process, and this, as indicated by members with individual responses, is often based on the alleged unavailability of places in the reception system." Violations of European Union law on reception (and on access to the asylum procedure itself, which is the premise) are so systematic that they have become routine illegality, one that almost no one addresses. Yet it is necessary and imperative to put an end to this unacceptable state of affairs and, also thanks to the ruling of the Court of Justice, to restore compliance with the rules on the reception of asylum seekers in our country as well.

FROM

Gianfranco Schiavone