Message: Varda Osman Yasin v. Denmark. Message No. 2360/2014. The Opinion was adopted by the Committee on July 22, 2015.
In 2014, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Denmark.
Subject of the message: deportation to Italy.
The Committee's legal position: States parties should attach sufficient importance to the real and personal threat to which a person may be subjected in the event of deportation (paragraph 8.9 of the Views) (See communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai v. Canada, Views adopted on March 25, 2011, paragraphs 11.2 and 11.4.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's claim that the removal of her and her three young children to Italy, in accordance with the principle of "country of first asylum" set out in the Dublin Regulations, would expose them to a real risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author bases her argument, inter alia, on how she was treated in practice after she received a residence permit in Italy in September 2008, as well as on the general conditions of reception of asylum seekers and refugees arriving in Italy noted in various reports (paragraph 8.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee notes that, according to the author's unopposed communication, in September 2008, after a four-month stay at the KARA organization center in Sicily, she and her eldest daughter received temporary protection and a residence permit in Italy for a period of three years. The day after the author's residence permit was issued, she was informed that she was not allowed to continue living in the reception center; as a result, she was left without a roof over her head and without means of livelihood. She left Italy and moved to the Netherlands, but in September 2009, she and her young child were returned to Italy from there, and she was again left alone with her problems without any social or humanitarian assistance from the Italian authorities, including during pregnancy, despite the fact that that she had a legal residence permit. Being in a state of extreme need, she was easily vulnerable and was unable to extend the validity of her residence permit in 2011. In 2011, she moved to Sweden and from there to Denmark, where she applied for asylum in June 2012. Today, the author is an asylum seeker, a single mother of three young children suffering from asthma, and is in an extremely vulnerable position (paragraph 8.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee takes note of all reports submitted by the author. It also takes note that recent reports have documented a shortage of places in Italian reception centres for asylum seekers and persons returned under the Dublin Regulation. The Committee particularly notes the author's communication that persons returning to Italy like her, who have already been granted protection in one form or another and who have already used reception centers during their previous stay in Italy, no longer have the right to live in KARA institutions (paragraph 8.5 of the Opinion).
On February 6, 2014, the majority of the members of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board considered that the general information about the circumstances of asylum seekers who have received a temporary residence permit in Italy justifies to some extent the concern that the humanitarian conditions in which this group is located are approaching the level at which Italy should be considered as a country of first asylum it will no longer be safe (point 8.6 Considerations).
The Committee takes note of the conclusion of the Refugee Appeals Board that Italy should be considered as a "country of first asylum" in this case, as well as the State party's position that the State of first asylum is obliged to provide asylum seekers with certain social and economic resources in accordance with basic humanitarian norms, although not It is required that they be provided with exactly the same social standards and living conditions as the citizens of the country....He takes note of, that the State party also referred to the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that, although the situation in Italy was marked by certain shortcomings, there was no evidence that asylum seekers were systematically not provided with support and appropriate conditions (paragraph 8.7 of the Opinion) (See Mohammed Hussein et al. v. the Netherlands and Italy.).
The Committee considers that the State party's conclusion does not adequately take into account the detailed information provided by the author, who has provided extensive material based on her own experience on how, despite being granted a residence permit in Italy, she was twice isolated and in extreme need. In addition, the State party does not explain how, if the author and her children are deported to Italy, the residence permit she received, but already expired, will be able to protect her and her three young children from the difficulties and hardships she had previously faced in that country (paragraph 8.8 of the Opinion).
The State party was obliged to carry out a more thorough assessment of the threat to which the author might have been exposed in Italy, rather than relying on general reports on the sole grounds that, since she had already received temporary protection once, she would now have the right to employment and social security in Italy. The Committee considers that the State party has not sufficiently analysed the author's personal experience and the foreseeable consequences in the event of her forced return to Italy. It also did not seek adequate guarantees from the Italian authorities that the author and her three young children would be accepted in conditions compatible with their asylum-seeker status, who are entitled to temporary protection and guarantees under article 7 of the Covenant; it did not request Italy to: (a) extend the residence permit of the author and her children and not deport them from Italy; and (b) accept the author and her children in conditions appropriate to the age of the children and the vulnerable position of the family, so that they can remain in Italy (paragraph 8.9 of the Considerations).
The Committee's conclusions: The removal of the author and her three children to Italy in accordance with the initial decision of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 8.10 of the Opinion).