The applicant, a national of Bangladesh, was among the first group transferred to Albania under the Protocol between the Italian Republic and the Albanian government, made enforceable by Law No 14 of 21 February 2024. The Territorial Commission of Siracusa assessed the application for international protection pursuant to the accelerated procedure set forth in Article 28-bis(2)(c) of Legislative Decree No 25/2008, as it involved an applicant from a country designated as a safe country of origin in accordance with Article 2-bis of the same decree. The Commission rejected the application as manifestly unfounded, and the applicant subsequently appealed the decision seeking the suspension of its enforceability.

The Tribunal of Catania assessed, in light of the CJEU judgment in CV v Ministerstvo vnitra České republiky, Odbor azylové a migrační politiky (C-406/22, 4 October 2024), whether the inclusion of Bangladesh on the list of safe countries of origin complied with the conditions laid down in the recast Asylum Procedures Directive (recast APD), transposed in Italy by Article 2-bis of Legislative Decree No 25 of 28 January 2008. The tribunal noted that the CJEU specified that when a court or tribunal receives an appeal against a decision rejecting an application for international protection submitted by applicants from countries designated as safe, it must identify any breaches of the conditions of that designation based on the information in the file and presented during the proceedings, even if such breaches are not explicitly cited in the appeal. The tribunal clarified that the designation of a safe country of origin is a procedural element affecting the right to asylum and is subject to judicial review for compliance with European law, irrespective of whether it was established by a governmental act. The tribunal further noted that the CJEU emphasized that the designation of a country as a safe country of origin must demonstrate the absence of persecution, torture, or inhumane treatment, as defined in Article 9 of the recast Qualification Directive (recast QD) and must show no danger from indiscriminate violence in armed conflict, as outlined in Annex I of the recast APD.

In this regard, concerning Bangladesh, the tribunal found that the government file referenced in the Ministerial Decree of 7 May 2024 revealed significant issues regarding compliance with the criteria for its inclusion on the list of safe countries of origin. The tribunal analysed the situation in Bangladesh based on the criteria set forth by Article 2-bis, which require the legal system, application of the law within a democratic context, and general political situation to demonstrate the absence of 'general and consistent' acts of persecution, torture, or inhumane treatment, and identified several concerns. Regarding the legal system, it noted increasing authoritarianism under Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, who has been in power for over 15 years, and heightened political polarisation, with opposition forces refusing to participate in elections. In terms of the application of the law, it found that Bangladesh's legal context is characterized by opacity. It cited the EUAA’s Country of Origin Information Bangladesh – Country Focus (July 2024), which highlights significant issues such as a lack of judicial independence, corruption, political interference, and a substantial backlog of cases. As for the general political situation, the tribunal observed that the January 2024 elections were marked by a boycott from the main opposition party (the BNP) and irregularities, resulting in low turnout and the ruling party winning nearly all seats. Additionally, the tribunal noted that the fact sheet highlighted a narrowing of freedom of expression and dissent, with thousands of political opponents arrested during the pre-election period. It also raised serious concerns about the anti-crime and counter-terrorism unit Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), which has been implicated in enforced disappearances and extrajudicial executions, leading to sanctions imposed by the Biden Administration.

The tribunal further noted that at least two of the four criteria for assessing protection against persecution and ill-treatment, specifically those in Article 28-bis(3)(c) and (d) of Legislative Decree No. 25/2008, were disregarded. Criterion (c) regarding compliance with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention (non-refoulement) is not met, as Bangladesh has not adopted the Geneva Convention. Indeed, the report notes that Rohingya refugees from Myanmar are not recognized as refugees and the government aims to repatriate them when conditions allow, although this seems increasingly unlikely, leaving them unable to work or build permanent shelters, and exposing them to natural disasters. As per criterion (d) concerning “an effective system of redress against violations of these rights and freedoms,” the tribunal noted that the fact sheet indicated that bodies monitoring human rights in Bangladesh, such as the National Commission for Human Rights, the Electoral Commission, and the Anti-Corruption Commission, have limited capacity to protect these rights and are often subject to government manipulation.

In addition to this, the tribunal highlighted that the government report identifies seven at-risk groups for whom the presumption of safety does not apply: the LGBTQI+ community, victims of gender-based violence (including female genital mutilation), ethnic and religious minorities, individuals accused of political crimes, those sentenced to death, and climate displaced persons. The tribunal concluded that these exceptions, due to their number, the size of the targeted populations, and the heterogeneity of interests involved, undermine the legal assessment of the country’s safety, contrary to the CJEU's principle that designation as a safe country requires proof of the general absence of persecution, torture, or other forms of inhumane treatment. Specifically, the tribunal noted that the CJEU established that the recast APD precludes the designation of a third country as a safe country of origin if parts of its territory fail to meet the substantive conditions for such designation. Therefore, the tribunal concluded that the designation of Bangladesh as a safe country of origin violated EU law as interpreted by the CJEU. As a result, it held that the designation in the Interministerial Decree was inapplicable, and the accelerated procedure was applied without complying with EU law requirements.

Finally, the tribunal concluded that the designation of Bangladesh as a safe country of origin, established by the Ministerial Decree of 7 May 2024, was inconsistent with national law transposing EU law and is subject to judicial review under Article 5 of Law No 2248 of 1865. The tribunal emphasized that this designation cannot evade judicial scrutiny due to its significant implications for the rights of asylum applicants, and since European law takes precedence over national law. Hence, the tribunal suspended the contested measure pending the proceedings and required the parties to submit written notes outlining their applications and conclusions.