The applicant received a negative decision on his first application for international protection and all his attempts to renew his application at a later stage, in order to add medical reasons and other new elements, were unsuccessful due to obstructions from the Questura in Roma, refusing the applicant's requests to lodge subsequent applications before the Territorial Commission in Rome.

In 2018, a deportation order was issued against him and his new application for international protection was rejected as inadmissible, being considered as submitted solely to prevent or delay the removal.  By an interim order of 2019, the court of first instance ordered the Ministry of the Interior - the Questura in Rome to receive the application, to allow the applicant’s presence on the territory, including access to reception until the territorial commission will examine the application and issue a decision. The applicant’s claims for damages for lack of access to reception and to the asylum procedure were rejected by the first instance. Both the Ministry of the Interior and the applicant appealed the above-mentioned decision.

The Court of Appeal of Rome rejected the Ministry of the Interior's appeal as unfounded and issued a judgement on the issue of access to asylum procedure and to reception. The Court of Appeal found that the Prefecture of Rome and the Police headquarters violated the applicant’s rights and dignity by preventing him to access the asylum procedure and the reception system, the applicant being forced to live in tents. The Court also held that the law does not provide for an automatic rejection of a subsequent application as inadmissible and the police and the administrative authorities do not have a discretionary power but an obligation to receive asylum applications. It was confirmed that the interim order of the first instance court was intended not only to give the applicant access to lodge the application, but also to allow the competent body to examine the application, which constitutes a constitutional right that all applicants for international protection are entitled to. Moreover, the Court of Appeals stated that all applicants have the right to reception, including those with repeated applications and who lack financial resources for an adequate quality of life.  After 2 years of judicial proceedings, the applicant was granted 3 000 euro damages for having been prevented to access the asylum procedure and for being deprived of reception conditions.