A national from Algeria applied for international protection in Italy and France was determined as responsible to examine his application pursuant to article 18(1)(b) of the Dublin III Regulation and based on a hit in the Eurodac system. The Dublin Unit had ordered the transfer of the applicant to France, where the foreign national had submitted his first application for international protection.

The applicant appealed against the Dublin transfer decision and the Tribunal of Rome held that the transfer was unlawful because of a breach of the obligation to provide the applicant information specifically on the Dublin procedure, as provided under Article 4 of the Dublin III Regulation. The tribunal also noted that the personal interview, provided by Article 5 of the Dublin III Regulation, had not been completed, and it was uncertain whether the information outlined in Article 4 had been provided orally or that the information leaflet annexed to the EU Regulation had been given to the applicant, as at the time of the formalisation of the application, the information provided concerned only international protection, thus it complied with the asylum procedure referred in Article 10 of Legislative decree 25/2008 (adopted in implementation of Directive 2013/32/EU).

The Ministry of the Interior appealed before the Court of Cassation and claimed that the lower court misapplied Articles 4 and 5 of the Dublin III Regulation and Article 10 of Legislative Decree 25/2008.

The Ministry argued that the application for international protection is unique, and a single information leaflet issued by the Police Headquarters was provided during the formalisation of the application for international protection and in presence of a cultural mediator. The Ministry of the Interior stated that any failure to deliver the information leaflet, constituting a breach of procedural guarantees established by EU Regulation, should not lead to the annulment of the transfer order because the operative content of the transfer order cannot be modified according to Article 21 of Law 271/1990.

The Court of Cassation dismissed the action and annulled the Dublin transfer decision. The Court of Cassation ruled  that the information obligations, contained in Articles 4 and 5 of Dublin III Regulation, as interpreted in conformity with the CJEU recent judgment DG (C‑254/21), XXX.XX (C‑297/21), PP (C‑315/21), GE (C‑328/21) v CZA (C‑228/21), Ministero dell'Interno, Dipartimento per le libertà civili e l'immigrazione – Unità Dublino, 30 November 2023, cannot be considered to be absorbed or interchanged with those laid down for the application for international protection by Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 25 of 2008.

The Court of Cassation stated that Article 4 of the Dublin III Regulation imposes the obligation to provide the applicants the common brochure as soon as the application is lodged, and that the brochure covers information on the Dublin III Regulation and the Eurodac Regulation. The court also reiterated the content and purpose of the personal interview in the Dublin procedure as interpreted by the CJEU. The Court of Cassation stated that a breach of the obligation to provide information on the Dublin procedure in accordance with Articles 4 and 5 of the Regulation leads to a breach of the procedural safeguard of ensuring that an applicant has the right to an effective remedy against the Dublin transfer decision as provided in Article 27 of the Dublin III Regulation. The court ruled that a failure to comply with these obligations leads to the annulment of the transfer decision.

Note: to access the original judgment users must create an account on Meltingpot.org, the source indicated under 'Show more info'.