Turin's CIE - International University College of Turin

on the same afternoon Y informed the police guard that he wanted to apply for political asylum.
On 7 May 2012, the Giudice di Pace at Aosta – in charge of the opposition against the deportation
order issued by authorities in Aosta – suspended the repatriation following a successful appeal
by Y 174 . However, before 9 May 2012, Y was transferred to Rome’s CIE, which is the same course
taken by Nigerian citizens before being repatriated from Italy because there are no direct flights
between Turin and Nigeria. When Y’s lawyer called Turin’s Questura requesting information on
his political asylum application, the local authorities denied having received any such claim
from Y during the course of his detention in Turin’s CIE. After numerous attempts, Y finally
managed to enrol his claim at the Immigration Office in Rome. A few days later, however, the
Giudice di Pace at Aosta surprisingly reviewed his decision and withdrew the suspension of the
deportation procedure even before the hearing. This latest decision – called upon by Questura –
was grounded on the fact that Y had a criminal record. Under international and domestic
legislation a criminal record very rarely affects an asylum seeker’s position. On 23 May 2012,
Rome’s Giudice di Pace extended Y’s detention. A few days later, Y saw his application rejected
and he was ultimately repatriated.
The focal point in this whole case is the manner in which, by commission or omission, the
authorities can carelessly endanger asylum claims, perhaps influenced by a presumption that all
such applications are baseless and false. There is already a problem with the delay in asylum
claims in Turin because it takes almost twelve days to process the claims, despite the fact that
the ECtHR case of Saadi v. The United Kingdom held that even a seven-day delay was only
justifiable by extraordinary circumstances. However, the issue in Y’s case was that a multiplicity
of authorities almost caused someone to be deported, political asylum request notwithstanding.
In Y’s case, apart from his lawyer, there do not appear to have been any other safeguards to stop
involved authorities from expelling a person during the period between making their claim for
asylum and having that claim processed and registered.
174 In order for a lawyer to appeal a deportation order that is issued by a Prefettura, it is necessary to lodge the
merits-review appeal with the Giudice di Pace who has jurisdiction over that Prefettura’s territory.
82 | P a g e