On November 14, 2023, the Constitutional Court ruled in decision no. 205 on the issue of the reasonable duration of proceedings for the recognition of refugee status. The Court found the constitutional questions raised about Article 2, paragraph 2-bis of Law no. 89 of March 24, 2001 (Provision for just compensation in case of violation of the reasonable duration of proceedings) to be unfounded with respect to Articles 3.1, 111.2, and 117.1 of the Italian Constitution. The question of constitutional legitimacy had been raised by the Courts of Appeal of Naples and Bologna.

On the alleged violation of Articles 3, 111, and 117 of the Italian Constitution

The courts of Naples and Bologna, in the context of cases involving the recognition of refugee status, raised the constitutional question regarding Article 2, paragraph 2-bis of Law no. 89 of March 24, 2001, which establishes that a trial's duration is considered reasonable if it does not exceed three years at first instance. This provision applies also to recognition of refugee status cases, classified as proceedings on the merits.

The recognition of refugee status in Italy is regulated by Article 35 of Legislative Decree no. 25 of January 28, 2008, implementing Directive 2005/85/EC on minimum standards for asylum procedures in EU member states.

The appellate judges argued that the contested rule violates Article 3.1, Article 111.2, and Article 117.1 of the Constitution, the latter in relation to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Specifically, they argued that the provision violates Article 3.1 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, by equating and treating as identical various procedures that differ significantly in terms of what constitutes a reasonable timeframe. Article 35-bis of Legislative Decree no. 25 of 2008, which governs refugee status recognition, states in paragraph 15 that such cases "shall be treated urgently at every level," reflecting the highly personal nature of the rights involved.

They also asserted a violation of Article 111.2, which requires the law to ensure the reasonable duration of trials and adequate judicial protection, especially for procedures of this nature.

Finally, they highlighted a conflict with Article 117.1 of the Constitution, which mandates compliance with international obligation, specifically Article 6 of the ECHR, which guarantees the right to a hearing "within a reasonable time". The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has emphasized that the complexity of the case and the importance of what is at stake, especially the personal nature of the rights, must be taken into account when assessing reasonable time.

The Constitutional Court’s Decision

In its ruling of November 14, 2023, the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional challenge, noting that there are no precise European standards defining a reasonable timeframe for refugee status recognition proceedings. Therefore, each member state is free to legislate on the matter. Moreover, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) has not established a need for different timeframes from those applied in other civil trials.

The Court concluded that international protection proceedings must allow a full review of the applicant’s individual situation, and that the three-year timeframe for first-instance decisions is not unreasonable.

According to the Court, the rule does not conflict with the Constitution or with international obligations, including Article 6 of the ECHR.

Recognition of Refugee Status in Italy

The recognition of refugee status, central to the decision analyzed above, is a merits-based proceeding involving highly personal rights that require careful evaluation of all relevant elements.

Refugee status was introduced into the Italian legal system with the ratification of the 1951 Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, through Law no. 722 of 1954.

According to the Convention, a refugee is a foreign citizen who, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside their country of origin and is unable or unwilling to avail themselves of its protection.

Refugee status falls under the broader category of international protection, which also includes subsidiary protection for those who do not meet the criteria for refugee status. International protection is primarily governed by EU legislation, particularly Directive 2004/83/EC of April 29, 2004 (transposed in Italy by Legislative Decree no. 251 of 2007), later amended and replaced by Directive 2011/95/EU (implemented via Legislative Decree no. 18 of 2014), which sets the requirements and content of refugee status.

Currently, the procedure for recognition or revocation of international protection in Italy is governed by Legislative Decree no. 25 of January 28, 2008 (implementing Directive 2005/85/EC of the Council).

Decisions on refugee status or other forms of international protection are made by Territorial Commissions for the Recognition of International Protection, whose decisions may be appealed in court.

Conclusions

The regulation of refugee status recognition is shaped by global conventions such as the 1951 Geneva Convention, EU law, and national legislation. In its judgment on the constitutional legitimacy of applying Article 2, paragraph 2-bis of Law no. 89 of 2001 to refugee status decisions, the Constitutional Court declared the issue unfounded.

According to the Court, three years is a reasonable time for deciding refugee status, even if the law mandates urgent treatment of such matters. The urgency required by the subject matter justifies a timeframe that allows thorough consideration of the factual and legal circumstances of each case.