Article 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
Key facts of the case:
The Ministry of Internal Affairs filed an appeal against the decision handed down by the lower court that had dismissed the previous appeal filed by the Ministry (within the scope of the action brought by A., a national of Gambia, against the now appellant, challenging the decision of the Immigration and Border Services who had denied A’s request for international protection, determining his transfer to Italy), ordering the now applicant to reconstitute the procedure for determining the Member State responsible for examining A’s request. The now applicant claims that the decision to deny A’s request for international protection did not violate any law, whereas, in accordance with the principle of mutual trust between Member States within the framework of the Common European Asylum System, there was a strong presumption that the reception conditions in Italy were suitable, in compliance with Union law and respect for fundamental rights. Furthermore, the now applicant also claimed, that, there was no evidence that there were systemic failures in the Italian asylum process that implied a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or that A.’s transfer would entail a serious and probable risk of exposure to treatment contrary to the one enshrined in article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, the Immigration and Border Services was not required to take any steps to prove or investigate the claim of systemic failures.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The Court raised the question of, if, in view of A.'s statements, whether it fell on the Immigration and Border Services the duty to verify whether in Italy there were systemic failures in the asylum process that resulted in a risk of degrading or inhumane treatment for A., pursuant to article 3 of EU Regulation no. 604/2013 (Regulation of Dublin III), that establishes a safeguard clause according to which an asylum seeker cannot be sent to another State where there are systemic failures that imply a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or that the transfer would entailed a serious and probable risk of exposure to treatment contrary to the one enshrined in article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Outcome of the case:
The Court considered that it didn’t appear from the proven factuality that there were indications of systemic failures in the Italian asylum procedure entailing a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or a serious and likely risk of exposure to treatment contrary to Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and that the transfer decision at issue was invalid. The Court also found that A., both in his statements to the Immigration and Border Services and in his initial petition to the Court, didn’t allege any concrete facts that could support the existence of a risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment and didn’t mention any serious deficiencies in his reception conditions in Italy. Therefore, the Immigration and Border Services were not obliged to make any enquiries into possible systemic failures in the Italian reception system, since in this case there wasn’t no evidence that A. had been or would be victim of such failures.
«The Dublin Regulation in Article 3(2) states that "If it is impossible to transfer an applicant to the Member State initially designated responsible because there are valid reasons to believe that there are systemic failures in the asylum procedure and in the reception conditions of the applicants. applicants in that Member State, involving the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Member State determining the Member State responsible will continue to examine the established criteria in Chapter III in order to decide whether any of these criteria allow another Member State to be designated responsible". In short, the safeguard clause provided for in article 3, paragraph 2 of the Dublin III Regulation, requires the following verification: "a) - that there are "valid reasons to believe that there are systemic failures in the asylum procedure and in the conditions for the reception of applicants in that Member State," and b) – and that such failures “involve the risk of inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”»
(...)
«According to article 4 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CDFUE) “No one may be subjected to torture, nor to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. However, from the elements contained in the file, there is no evidence of systemic failures in the Asylum procedure and in the conditions of the appeal that imply a risk of inhuman or degrading treatment or, given its particular conditions, a serious and likely risk of exposure to a treatment contrary to article 4 of the CDFUE, so that the transfer decision in question here would not be issued. »
«And this understanding is fully in line with the case-law of the CJEU, which ruled, in Case C-163/17, in its judgment of 19/3/2019, that "the underdeveloped nature of the Italian social system, whose shortcomings are remedied, as regards the Italian population, by family mutual assistance and solidarity, which does not exist as regards beneficiaries of international protection, cannot suffice to support the conclusion that an applicant for international protection would be faced, in the event of a transfer to that Member State, with such a situation of extreme material deprivation. (...) the existence of deficiencies in the implementation, by the Member State normally responsible for examining the application for international protection, of integration programmes for beneficiaries of such protection cannot constitute a serious and proven ground for believing that the person concerned would, if transferred to that Member State, face a real risk of being subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Charter".The CJEU further stated in this judgment: "As regards the question of the criteria by reference to which the competent national authorities must carry out that assessment, it must be emphasised that, in order to fall within the scope of Article 4 of the Charter, which corresponds to Article 3 of the ECHR and whose meaning and scope are therefore, by virtue of Article 52(3) of the Charter, the same as those conferred by that Convention, the failures referred to in the preceding paragraph of this judgment must be of a particularly high level of seriousness which depends on all the circumstances of the case.»
"...European Union law is based on the fundamental premise that each Member State shares with all the other Member States, and recognizes that they share with it, a series of common values on which the Union is founded, as specified in Article 2 TEU. That premise implies and justifies the existence of mutual trust between the Member States in the recognition of those values and, therefore, in respect for the Union law implementing them [Judgment of 25 July 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Failures of the judicial system), C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018: 586, paragraph 35 and case-law referred to], as well as on the fact that their respective national legal orders are in a position to provide equivalent and effective protection of the fundamental rights recognised by the Charter, in particular Articles 1 and 4 thereof, which enshrine one of the fundamental values of the Union and its Member States."
"...in the context of the Common European Asylum System, in particular the Dublin III Regulation, (...), it must be presumed that the treatment accorded to asylum seekers in each Member State is in conformity with the requirements of the Charter, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, signed in Geneva on 28 July 1951."
«Refere o Regulamento Dublin, no artigo 3º, n.º 2 que "Caso seja impossível transferir um requerente para o Estado-Membro inicialmente designado responsável por existirem motivos válidos para crer que há falhas sistémicas no procedimento de asilo e nas condições de acolhimento dos requerentes nesse Estado-Membro, que impliquem o risco de tratamento desumano ou degradante na aceção do artigo 4. º da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia, o Estado-Membro que procede à determinação do Estado-Membro responsável prossegue a análise dos critérios estabelecidos no Capítulo III a fim de decidir se algum desses critérios permite que outro Estado-Membro seja designado responsável". Em suma, a cláusula de salvaguarda prevista neste artº 3º nº 2 do Regulamento Dublin III, exige a seguinte verificação: “a) - que existam “motivos válidos para crer que há falhas sistémicas no procedimento de asilo e nas condições de acolhimento dos requerentes nesse Estado-Membro,” e b) – e que tais falhas “impliquem o risco de tratamento desumano ou degradante na aceção do artigo 4.º da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia”.»
«Nos termos do art.º 4º da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais da União Europeia (CDFUE) "Ninguém pode ser submetido a tortura, nem a tratos ou penas desumanos ou degradantes". Ora, dos elementos constantes nos autos não resulta a existência de indícios de falhas sistémicas no procedimento de Asilo e nas condições do aqui recorrido que impliquem um risco de tratamento desumano ou degradante ou, dadas as suas particulares condições, um risco sério e verosímil de exposição a um tratamento contrário ao art.º 4º da CDFUE, para que não se proferisse a decisão de transferência aqui em causa.»
«E este entendimento encontra-se plenamente de acordo com a jurisprudência do TJUE, o qual julgou, no âmbito do proc. C-163/17, em Acórdão de 19/3/2019, que “o caráter pouco desenvolvido do sistema social italiano, cujas carências são supridas, no que respeita à população italiana, com a entreajuda e solidariedade familiar, que não existe no que respeita aos beneficiários de proteção internacional, não pode bastar para basear a conclusão de que um requerente de proteção internacional seria confrontado, em caso de transferência para esse Estado-Membro, com tal situação de privação material extrema. (…) a existência de deficiências na aplicação, pelo Estado-Membro normalmente responsável pela análise do pedido de proteção internacional, de programas de integração dos beneficiários de tal proteção não pode constituir um motivo sério e comprovado para crer que a pessoa em causa correria, em caso de transferência para esse Estado-Membro, um risco real de ser sujeita a tratos desumanos ou degradantes, na aceção do artigo 4° da Carta”. E mais referiu o TJUE neste Acórdão: “no que se refere à questão de saber quais são os critérios por referência aos quais as autoridades nacionais competentes devem proceder a essa apreciação, importa sublinhar que, para serem abrangidas pelo âmbito de aplicação do artigo 4° da Carta, que corresponde ao artigo 3° da CEDH, e cujo sentido e alcance são, portanto, por força do artigo 52° n° 3 da Carta, iguais aos conferidos por essa Convenção, as falhas referidas no número anterior do presente acórdão devem ter um nível particularmente elevado de gravidade, que depende do conjunto dos dados da causa”.»
"...o direito da União assenta na premissa fundamental segundo a qual cada Estado-Membro partilha com todos os restantes Estados-Membros, e reconhece que estes partilham com ele, uma série de valores comuns nos quais a União se funda, como precisado no artigo 2° TUE. Esta premissa implica e justifica a existência da confiança mútua entre os Estados-Membros no reconhecimento desses valores e, portanto, no respeito pelo direito da União que os aplica [Acórdão de 25 de julho de 2018, Minister for Justice and Equality (Falhas do sistema judicial), C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586, n° 35 e jurisprudência referida], bem como no facto de que as respetivas ordens jurídicas nacionais estão em condições de fornecer uma proteção equivalente e efetiva dos direitos fundamentais reconhecidos pela Carta, nomeadamente nos artigos 1° e 4° desta, que consagram um dos valores fundamentais da União e dos seus Estados-Membros."
"...no contexto do sistema europeu comum de asilo, nomeadamente do Regulamento Dublim III, (…), deve presumir-se que o tratamento dado aos requerentes de asilo em cada Estado-Membro está em conformidade com as exigências da Carta, da Convenção Relativa ao Estatuto dos Refugiados, assinada em Genebra em 28 de julho de 1951."
