The applicant, Libyan nationals, a family of two adults and five children, arrived in Finland in 2018 with a Schengen visa issued by Italy and have later applied for international protection in Finland.  The Finnish Immigration Service (FIS) requested the transfer of the applicants to Italy under the Dublin III Regulation. The Italian authorities’ acceptance of the take back request, but the applicants unsuccessfully contested before the administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court the refusal to be granted residence permit by FIS. The applicants alleged that the Italian reception system does not offer proper conditions for family with children, after the adoption of the Salvini Decree, but the Supreme Administrative Court noted that the Italian authorities gave assurances that the criteria of keeping families together with minors is fulfilled, that although the Salvini Decree diminished some of the asylum applicant’s rights, precisely on medical care, however there are no systemic deficiencies in the reception system and there is no evidence that the removal would be contrary to the best interest of the children.

The applicants submitted an application before the ECtHR which ordered by interim measure under Rule 39, not to transfer the family until further notice.

The applicants complained before the European Court that a transfer to Italy would infringe their rights under art. 3 of the ECHR. The Court has made a thorough assessment of country of origin information based on reports from various NGOs, of the Italian relevant national legislation and the individual circumstances of the applicants. It found that there is no evidence that, if returned to Italy, the applicants would face a sufficiently real and imminent risk of hardship that is severe enough to fall within the scope of Article 3, looked at from a material, physical or psychological perspective. The Court mentioned that “it has already found that the situation in Italy for asylum-seekers cannot be compared to the situation in Greece at the time of the M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece judgment (cited above) and that the structure and overall situation of reception arrangements in Italy cannot in themselves act as a bar to all removals of asylum-seekers to that country (see Tarakhel, §§ 114-115, and M.A.-M. and Others v. Finland (dec.), no. 32275/15, § 24, 4 October 2016).”

The Court noted also that no formal procedures or travel arrangements in light of the removal were adopted by Finland in August 2019 when the case was submitted and held that, when the removal takes place, the Finnish authorities will duly inform the Italian authorities of the family removal, in order for the applicants to be taken charge and care of upon arrival, in a proper manner, appropriate for the age of the minors and that the family will be kept together.