You are here:

Key facts of the case

The judgement of the Highest Administrative Court does not provide much information on the original case. However, the case was about a women with two children who faced removal to Italy based on the Dublin III regulation. The applicant challenged the decision of the Administrative Court as it did not deal in detail with her vulnerability (she has two children and was pregnant at this point of time). In the understanding of the applicant, the statements of the Administrative Court on Italy did not give a coherent picture on the reception conditions.The presumption of safety according to § 5 Asyulm Act was challenged. The applicant brought forward that the second instance court did not in detail assess the reception conditions in Italy in detail. The Highest Adminstrative Court states that Art. 4 CFR and Art. ECHR have to be taken into account.

Key legal question raised by the Court

Did the Administrative Court sufficiently check the reception conditions in Italy against the background of Art. 4 CFR and Art. 3 ECHR? Did the applicant provide sufficient reasons to believe that she faces a real risk amounting to inhumane or degrading treatment according to Art. 4 CFR?

Outcome of the case

Based on information provided by Italian authorities,the Highest Administrative Court found that the Adminsitrative Court checked the situation in Italy, based on information provided by Italian authorities, and came to the conclusion that adequate housing and care are provided for the applicant. The applicant did not provide any further hints in her revision that she would face real risk when brought to Italy – she simply referred to the number of accommodation places. Therefore, the revision was rejected by the Highest Administrative Court