CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sEA788D2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sE330DFD7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s65E06E64 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .sF3BFDC74 { width:89.4%; margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s691540AC { width:8.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE512A940 { font-family:Arial; color:#474747 } .s54389DD5 { width:22.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s74E1361C { width:24.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s855B731C { width:8.1%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDAF6F790 { width:22.38%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2870DFE { width:24.78%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Communicated on 24 October 2019 and 16 January 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 48062/19 V.A. and Others against the Netherlands and Italy lodged on 12 September 2019 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns a husband and wife from Nigeria and their four minor children who are between three months and eight years old. The applicants’ asylum applications were not taken up for consideration by the Netherlands authorities as it was found that the Italian authorities were responsible for the processing of those applications pursuant to the Dublin Regulation. It was held that the entry into force of the new Italian Law No.   132/2018 – the so-called “Salvini Decree” – 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 principle of mutual interstate trust ( interstatelijk vertrouwensbeginsel ). On 14 March 2019 the Netherlands authorities requested their Italian counterparts to accept the applicants’ return to Italy under Article 18 § 1 (b) of the Dublin Regulation. On 25 March 2019 the Italian authorities accepted this request. After the applicants had unsuccessfully challenged the Netherlands authorities’ decision in administrative appeal proceedings, the Netherlands authorities planned to return the applicants to Italy under the Dublin Regulation.   The applicants complain that their return to Italy under the Dublin Regulation, without individual guarantees from the Italian authorities that they will be provided with adequate reception facilities and access to medical care, will breach Article 3 of the Convention.   On the basis of information provided by the Italian Government on 9   December 2019, it became clear that on 10 January 2017 the applicants had been granted in Italy residence permits for humanitarian protection   (valid for two years) and that their subsequent requests for renewal filed on 24 January 2019 had been granted in the form of a residence permit for “special protection”. QUESTIONS TO THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT The applicants have been granted residence permits “for special protection”. What does “special protection” entail and what rights do holders of a humanitarian/special protection residence permit have? In the determination of the applicants’ application for international protection in Italy, has it been examined whether or not they qualified for refugee status under the terms of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees or for subsidiary protection within the meaning of Article   15c of Council Directive 2004/83/EC of 29 April 2004, on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection and the content of the protection granted? If so, what was the outcome? Are there differences in rights between beneficiaries of international protection within the meaning of Article 2 (b) 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 for the content of the protection granted) and persons holding a humanitarian/special protection residence permit? And if so, what are those differences as regards entitlement to accommodation, education, health care, social insurances and access to the labour market? According to the Circular Letter of 27 December 2018 by the Minister of Interior, beneficiaries of international protection can stay in a SIPROIMI facility for 6 months after they have been granted protection. Does this also apply to persons having been granted a humanitarian/special protection residence permit? What happens when those 6 months have ended? How were the applicants notified of the outcome of their respective requests for renewal of their residence permits, including when and where to collect the residence permits granted? Your Government are requested to submit a copy of the applicants’ residence permits. When will the applicants’ current residence permits expire and under what conditions will the applicants’ “special protection” permits be renewed? In the light of the applicants’ claims, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Italy? QUESTIONS TO THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT In view of the information submitted by the Italian Government on 9   December 2019 on the legal status of the applicants, under which legal framework will the applicants be returned to Italy? In the light of the applicants’ claims, would they face a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention if returned to Italy?   APPENDIX No. Applicant’s Name Birth date Nationality Place of residence 1. V.A. 16/04/1991 Nigerian Heemserveen 2. A.A. 30/12/2013 Nigerian Heemserveen 3. I.A. 05/09/2017 Nigerian Heemserveen 4. J.A. 17/01/2011 Nigerian Heemserveen 5. R.A. 02/08/1994 Nigerian Heemserveen 6. S.A. 11/06/2019 Nigerian Heemserveen