Information Note on the Court’s case-law 250

April 2021

M.T. v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 46595/19

Decision 23.3.2021 [Section IV]

Article 3

Expulsion

Transfer to Italy of asylum seeker and her minor children pursuant to Dublin III Regulation, not involving severe risk of hardship in light of recent amendments to Italian reception regime: inadmissible

Facts – The applicant, an Eritrean national, and her two minor daughters, entered the Netherlands on 21 March 2018. Her asylum application was not examined by the Dutch authorities as it was found that the Italian authorities had been responsible for its processing pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation. It was held that the entry into force of Italian Law No. 132/2018, the “Salvini Decree” (which denied applicants for international protection access to second-tier receptions facilities) did not lead to the conclusion that the asylum proceedings and reception conditions in Italy were affected by such systemic shortcomings that reliance could no longer be placed on the mutual interstate trust principle.

The applicant complained that family’s transfer under the Dublin III Regulation, without individual guarantees from the Italian authorities of adequate reception facilities and access to medical care, would breach Article 3 of the Convention.

Law –By virtue of the latest legislative amendments to the Italian reception system which had taken effect on 22 October 2020 - Decree no. 130/2020 subsequently converted to Law no. 173/2020- applicants for international protection, within the limits of places available, had access again to the second-tier reception facilities within the SAI ( Sistema di accoglienza e integrazione ); a modification welcomed by UNHCR.

More specifically in the present case:

– As confirmed by the Italian Government, if transferred to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation, under the new regime, the applicant would be eligible for placement in the SAI network and would be given priority as, being a single mother with two minor children, she belonged to one of the categories of persons defined as “vulnerable” in Italian legislation.

– Even if, pending placement in SAI facilities, they would initially be accommodated in first-tier reception facilities, the latest amendments also included an extension of the range of services to be provided in those facilities and, according to UNHCR, effective access to essential services was guaranteed as the right of applicants for international protection to register their residence had been restored.

– There was no reason to assume that the Dutch authorities would not inform their Italian counterparts of their scheduled arrival date in Italy, their situation and any of their medical needs, as they had given such information previously. Further, and in this respect, the applicant had not argued that her youngest daughter required specialist treatment unavailable in Italy.

In view of the above, the Court considered that the applicant had not demonstrated that her future prospects, if transferred to Italy with her children, whether looked at from a material, physical or psychological perspective, disclosed a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship that was severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3.

Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)

The Court also decided to lift the interim measure indicated to the respondent Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

(See also F.G. v. Sweden [GC], 43611/11, 23 March 2016, Legal Summary ; Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], 29217/12, 4 November 2014, Legal Summary )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes